Utilizing technology-enhanced learning in geography: testing student response systems in large lectures

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the benefits and drawbacks of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) to engage undergraduate students in geography modules at Newcastle University. I consider the efficacy of “student response systems” (hereafter SRS, also known as audience response systems, clickers or personal response systems) in large lectures by experimenting with Mentimeter, an online platform designed to allow real-time response to questions. The rationale for the study is twofold: first, to respond to the swelling university enrolment which means that lectures remain a common teaching practice, and second, to reflect on the pervasive role technology plays in the everyday lives of staff and students. Bringing these two concerns together, I argue that TEL and SRS have the potential to respond to these challenges as well as to improve the overall learning and teaching experience. In order for SRS to be effective however, they need to be fully integrated into the curriculum and staffers need to be driving the usage. These arguments employ concepts of “active learning” and “contingent teaching” to better understand the usefulness of SRS to engage students in large lectures as well as how to develop a systematic approach to integrating technology into university lectures.

KEYWORDS:

• Active learning
• contingent teaching
• large lectures
• student response systems
• Mentimeter
• technology-enhanced learning

Acknowledgments

This paper is the culmination of several years of teaching and learning, and it would be impossible to thank all those whose comments have buoyed it. In particular, I would like to thank Simon Tate for his comments on an earlier version of this paper. I am also indebted to my colleagues at Newcastle University and beyond for their pedagogical advice. I would especially like to thank the geography students for their enthusiastic participation in the study. Any mistakes herein are all my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.