Main Article Content
NearPod is a multiplatform e-learning tool that allows students to engage with each other and the lecturer in real time, independent of learning space size or type. This research investigated the impact of NearPod use in two different third level educational settings. The rationale was the practical implementation of key trends in higher education, and enhancing the student learning experience, through the integration of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and flipped classroom learning. One aim of this project was to identify if NearPod, could address these trends in a simple, cost effective way. Secondly, the research sought to investigate if embedding engaging technology into the learning environment could enhance the student learning experience and create a truly interactive environment.
The impact of NearPod as an interactive learning tool was evaluated in terms of student interaction, engagement and participation through NearPod facilitated synchronous learning activities. Evaluative data were collected in several forms; anonymous questionnaires, academic facilitated discussion fora with purposefully sampled students and a staff reflective diary. The data were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed, leading to a triangulated data set ensuring only valid themes emerged. Overall, the students perceived use of the technology, and the academic’s personal reflective writings, suggested that the learning environment evolved towards a student-orientated, interactive space where the students took ownership for their participation in the learning activity. Students became responsible for constructing their learning ‘product’; created by the students, for the students and, hence, their learning overall.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to the Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning retain the copyright of their article and at the same time agree to publish their articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Barbour, J. B. (2013). Consider Clicking In: Using Audience Response Systems to Spark Discussion. Communication Teacher, 27, 38-44.
Baytiyeh, H., & Baytiyeh, H. (2017). The flipped classroom model: when technology enhances professional skills. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(1), 51-62.
Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers and Education, 54, 759-766.
Braun, V. & Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report, 13, 474-494.
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34-42.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.
DiPiro, J. T. (2009). Why do we still lecture? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 73, 137.
Goundar, S. (2014). The distraction of technology in the classroom. Journal of Education & Human Development, 3, 211-229.
Hornsby, D. J., & Osman, R. (2014). Massification in higher education: large classes and student learning. Higher Education, 67(6), 711-719.
Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449-473.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56, 430-435.
Noor, K.B.M. (2008). Case Study: A Strategic Research Methodology. American Journal of Applied Science, 5, 1602-1604.
Riley, C. K., & Myers, B. D. (2014). Incorporating interactive teaching approaches in the tertiary science classroom; Benefits, challenges and deterrents to use in a Jamaican university. Science Journal of Education, 2, 146-151.
Riyukta, R. Anker, C. & Nortcliffe, A. (2016). Are academics ready for smart learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:10.1111/bjet.12532
Simpson, A., & Walsh, M. (2014). Pedagogic conceptualisations for touch pad technologies. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37, 128.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (2nd Ed). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193.
Tlhoaele, M., Hofman, A., Naidoo, A., & Winnips, K. (2014). Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for improved performance by students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(5), 497-509.
Van Laer, S., Beauchamp, G., & Colpaert, J. (2014). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education—mapping against a transition framework. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 409-423.
Warnich, P., & Gordon, C. (2015). The integration of cell phone technology and poll everywhere as teaching and learning tools into the school History classroom. Yesterday and Today, 13, 40-66.