(2019) ‘Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement’, Interactive Learning Environments, pp. Embi, e-Learning & Interactive Lecture: SoTL Case Studies in Malaysian HEIs, National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. (2015) ‘iTeaching for uLearning: interactive teaching tools for ubiquitous learning in higher education’, in ed M.
(2011) ‘Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge’, Online Information Review, vol. (2011) ‘Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: education students’ perceptions’, Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, vol. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152īravo, R., et al., (2018) ‘Collaborative active learning: bioimpedance and anthropometry in higher education’, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. (2014) ‘What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers?’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, vol. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. (2015) ‘Student engagement: a principle-based concept analysis’, International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, vol. Campos et al., Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. (2011) ‘Encouraging initiative in the classroom with anonymous feedback’, in eds P. (2010) ‘What makes distributed practice effective?’, Cognitive Psychology, vol. (2019) ‘Using Padlet for collaborative learning’, in 5th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’19), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, pp. (2016) ‘Developing conceptual understanding in social studies using technology and discussion’, HSSE Online, vol.
Moreover, it uncovered significant disparities in students’ perceptions of the tool, when used to foster learning of different subject contents.īaildon, M., Lin, M. Thus, this study strengthened the evidence for using Padlet for collaborative learning in a wider context. Thematic analysis of students’ textual responses revealed anonymity, peer-learning and engagement as key benefits. In the Bioscience cohort, perceived benefit-to-learning strongly correlated (ρ = 0.75 p < 0.01) with fondness to use Padlet, whereas in the Dentistry cohort, it moderately correlated (ρ = 0.5 p < 0.01) with better understanding of subject content. Most Bioscience students liked to undertake collaborative learning via Padlet, whereas most Dentistry students felt more confident to ask questions and better understood content via Padlet. Dentistry students perceived Padlet to be more beneficial to learning and easier to use than Bioscience students ( p < 0.01). Data revealed that majority of students across both cohorts perceived Padlet as easy to use and beneficial to learning. Data distribution was assessed via Shapiro–Wilk test, Mann–Whitney U test was used to assess distribution of responses and correlations were studied via Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ). Here, we utilised Padlet to mediate collaborative learning amongst undergraduate students from two distinct disciplines, Dentistry and Bioscience to examine students’ perceptions of Padlet-mediated learning and identify any content-specific differences. Collaborative learning offers benefits but there is insufficient information on how students perceive specific digital tools supporting collaborative learning and whether there are content-related differences in students’ perceptions.
0 kommentar(er)
