Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Commentary

Main Article Content

Kwong Nui Sim corresponding author

Abstract

The complexity of relationships between teaching and learning practices is increasing as we rethink higher education in the age of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The availabilities and capabilities of ICT tools enable us to explore the process of teaching and learning in a more unconventional manner. This paper seeks to share an online ICT tool, GoSoapBox, that comprises three key pedagogical ideas in teaching and learning: student interaction (via Discussion), student engagement (via Quiz), and student evaluation (via Poll). While the emphasis is not on advocating the ICT product, the recognition of the affordances of this suggested tool is significant in ensuring the pedagogical ideas could be achieved. Apart from the fundamental benefits that GoSoapBox could offer, the paper also outlines innovative ideas that could advance the process of teaching and learning by adopting the proposed tool in the classroom, including the positive sharing from the academics who had used this tool before, as well as the limitations of the tool which need to be aware of when using it for academic purposes. The paper concludes that constant analysis of practices drives the improvement of teaching and learning processes, with the possibility of incorporating a suitable ICT tool to make this process more efficient and effective.

Keywords
GoSoapBox, active learning, higher education, teaching and learning

Article Details

How to Cite
Sim, K. (2022). The use of GoSoapBox for teaching and learning. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(1), 191-200. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2022.01.001

References

  1. Mishra P and Koehler MJ. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 2006, 108(6): 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  2. Cheng B, Wang M and Mercer N. Effects of role assignment in concept mapping mediated small group learning. Internet and Higher Education, 2014, 23: 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.001
  3. Boud D, Cohen R and Sampson J. Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from & with each other, Psychology Press, Psychology Press, 2014.
  4. Hwang GJ, Chang SC, Chen PY, et al. Effects of integrating an active learning-promoting mechanism into location-based real-world learning environments on students’ learning performances and behaviors. Educational Technology Research & Development, 2017, 66: 451-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9567-5
  5. Piaget J. Logique gntoque et sociologie. Revue Philosophique de La France et de l’Etranger, 1928, 105: 168-205.
  6. Piaget J. Le jugement moral chez l’enfant, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1932.
  7. Vygotsky L. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
  8. Tsay M and Brady M. A Case Study of Cooperative Learning and Communication Pedagogy: Does Working in Teams Make a Difference? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2010, 10(2): 78-89.
  9. Tran VD. Does cooperative learning increase students’ motiviation in learning? . International Journal of Higher Education, 2019, 8: 12-20. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p12
  10. Toppping K, Buchs C, Duran D, et al. Effective peer learning, London Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695471
  11. Hsu C and Huang I. Are International Students Quiet in Class? The Influence of Teacher Confirmation on Classroom Apprehension and Willingness to Talk in Class. Journal of International Students, 2017, 7(1): 38-52. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i1.244
  12. Deng L and Tavares N. Exploring university students’ use of technologies beyond the formal learning context: A tale of two online platforms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2015, 31(3): 313-327. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1505
  13. Coll C, Rochera MJ and Gispert ID. Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education, 2014, 75: 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.015
  14. Batsell WR, Perry JL, Hanley E, et al. Ecological Validity of the Testing Effect: The Use of Daily Quizzes in Introductory Psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 2017, 4: 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677492
  15. Thielsch MT, Brinkmller B and Forthmann B. Reasons for responding in student evaluation of teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2018, 56: 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.008
  16. Blater E and Noel KV. Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: Is the student voice being heard? . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2014, 39: 879-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.875984
  17. Gaertner H. Effects of student feedback as a method of self-evaluating the quality of teaching. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 2014, 42: 91-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.003
  18. Ravichandran A and Elspeth J. Improving student experience: Learnng from a comparative study of international student satisfction. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2018, 22: 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318773137
  19. Trafimow D. Holding teachers accountable: An old-fashioned, dry, and boring perspective. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 2021, 2(1): 138-145. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2021.01.005
  20. Pearce TC and Wood BE. Education for transformation: an evaluative framework to guide student voice work in schools. Critical Studies in Education, 2019, 60(1): 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1219959
  21. Cook-Sather A. The trajectory of student voice in educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 2014, 49: 131-148.
  22. Wenger-Trayner E and Wenger-Trayner B. Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses, 2015.
  23. Lave J and Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  24. Rabardel P and Bourmaud G. From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 2003, 15(5): 665-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00058-4
  25. Béguin P and Rabardel P. Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Information Technology in Human Activity, Designing for Instrument Mediated Activity, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 2000, 12: 173-190.
  26. BurfordU J and Hook G. Curating care-full spaces: doctoral students negotiating study from home, Higher Education Research & Development, 2019, 38(7): 1343-1355. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657805
  27. Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. 2nd Ed. London: Sage, 2001.
  28. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis, 28 paragraphs. Forum: Qualitative social research, 2000, 1(2): 20.
  29. Lonchamp J. An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 2012, 7(2): 211-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9141-4