The impact of audience response platform Mentimeter on the student and staff learning experience
Research suggests that active and discussion-driven dialogic approaches to teaching are more effective than passive learning methods. One way to encourage more participatory learning is through the adoption of simple and freely available audience response systems which allow instant and inclusive staff–student dialogue during teaching sessions. Existing literature is largely limited to exploring the impact of basic approaches to audience participation, using handheld cards or simple ‘clickers’. Limited research exists looking at the impact and best use of a new generation of online audience response systems which have significantly expanded functionality. This article explores the impact of one of the most agile platforms, Mentimeter. It outlines impact on student satisfaction, enjoyment, voice and learning within small and large group settings across multiple disciplines drawing on 204 student survey responses. It also explores staff experiences and reflections on the key practical and pedagogical thinking required to optimise the use of this platform in higher education. The research responds to a need within the sector to react to rapid advances in teaching and learning technology, to provide evidence of impact for lecturers looking to improve student learning environments whilst being cognisant of the underlying pedagogy supportive of new practices.
Alexander, R. (2017) Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk, Dialogos, Thirsk.
Arulampalam, W., Naylor, R. & Smith, J. (2007) ‘Am I missing something? The effects of absence from class on student performance’, Warwick Economic Research Papers [online] Available at: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2008/twerp_820.pdf
Bale, D. (2018) ‘This Norfolk church is using a phone app to rate hymns’, North Norfolk News, 4 Dec. [online] Available at: https://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/aylsham-church-trialling-use-of-a-live-voting-smartphone-app-1-5805737
Beatty, I. (2004) ‘Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems’, Educause Research Bulletin, 3 Feb., pp. 1–13 [online] Available at: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf
Beekes, W. (2006) ‘The “millionaire” method for encouraging participation’, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–36. doi: 10.1177/1469787406061143
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brewer, C. (2004) ‘Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses’, BioScience, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1034–1039 [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1034:NRAOSL]2.0.CO;2
Caldwell, J. (2007) ‘Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips’, Life Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–20 [online] Available at: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/9.pdf
Cameron, K. & Bizo, L. (2019) ‘Use of the game-based learning platform KAHOOT! to facilitate learner engagement in animal science students’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 27 [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2225
Compton, M. & Allen, J. (2018) ‘Student response systems: a rationale for their use and a comparison of some cloud-based tools’, Compass: Journal of Teaching and Learning, vol. 11, no. 1 [online] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f77/f5e529996962df3c15bf6ff1e4d97f48fb88.pdf?_ga=2.69461712.1301248929.1592667859-668047203.1592667859
Crede, M., Roch, S. & Kieszczynka, U. (2010) ‘Class attendance in college: a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 272–295 [online] Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654310362998
Crouch, C. & Mazur,E. (2001) ‘Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results’, American Journal of Physics, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 970–977 [online] Available at: http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf
Davarzani, H. (2013) ‘Improving students’ interactions during lectures by using Mentimeter’, Supporting Learning through Digital Resources [online] Available at: https://journals.lub.lu.se/KG/article/view/8710
Deslauriers, L. et al. (2019) ‘Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 116, 19251–19257 [online] Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/39/19251
Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Random House, New York, NY.
Elliot, C. (2003) ‘Using a personal response system in economics teaching’, International Review of Economics Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 80–86 [online] Available at: http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliott.htm
El-Rady, J. (2006) ‘To click or not to click: that’s the question’, Innovate: Journal of Online Education, vol. 2, no. 4 [online] Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1139&context=innovate
Gao, F., Zhang, T. & Franklin, T. (2013) ‘Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: recent progress and possible future directions’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 469–483 [online] Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
Gauci, S. et al. (2009) ‘Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system’, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 60–71 [online] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b906/e5fc3ddc5e4a08a29a5237f02e7f31f6dcb2.pdf
Graham, C. et al. (2007) ‘Empowering or compelling reluctant participants using audience response systems’, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol.8, no. 3, pp. 233–258. doi: 10.1177/1469787407081885
Gregory, S. & Lodge, J. (2015) ‘Academic workload: the silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education’, Distance Education, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 210–230 [online] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056
Guarascio, A., Nemeck, B. & Zimmerman, D. (2017) ‘Evaluation of students’ perceptions of the Socrative application verses a traditional student response system and its impact on classroom engagement’, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 808–812. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.05.011
Hake, R. (1998) ‘Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses’, American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809
Heaslip, G., Donovan, P. & Cullen, J.G. (2014) ‘Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes’, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11–24. doi: 10.1177/1469787413514648
Hill, D. & Fielden, K. (2017) ‘Using Mentimeter to promote student engagement and inclusion’, Pedagogy in Practice Seminar, 18 Dec., Fusehill Street, Carlisle, UK (unpublished report) [online] Available at: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3473/
Hung, H. (2016) ‘Clickers in the flipped classroom: bring your own device (BYOD) to promote student learning’, Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 983–995. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1240090
Knight, J. & Wood, W. (2005) ‘Teaching more by lecturing less’, Cell Biology Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 298–310 [online] Available at: http://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082
Little, C. (2016) ‘Technological review: Mentimeter smartphone student response systems’, Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, vol. 9, no. 13 [online] Available at: https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/328/pdf
McDaniels, M., Pfund, C. & Barnicle, K. (2016) ‘Creating dynamic learning communities in synchronous online courses: one approach from the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching & Learning (CIRTL)’, Online Learning, vol. 20, no. 1 pp. 110–129 [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096380.pdf
Mentimeter. ‘Interactive presentations, workshops and meetings’ [online] Available at: https://www.mentimeter.com/
Michael, J. (2006) ‘Where’s the evidence that active learning works?’, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 159–167 [online] Available at: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Puspa, A. & Imamyartha, D. (2019) ‘Experiences of social science students through online application of Mentimeter in English milieu’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 243, no. 1.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78.
Skoyles, A. & Bloxsidge, E. (2017) ‘Have you voted? Teaching OSCOLA with Mentimeter’, Legal Information Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 232–238 [online] Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/have-you-voted-teaching-oscola-with-mentimeter/96552E8A42F8CB853BC2DD16A9759947/core-reader
Vallely, K. & Gibson, P. (2018) ‘Engaging students on their devices with Mentimeter’, Compass Journal of Learning and Teaching, vol. 11, no. 2 [online] Available at: https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/843/pdf
Yee, S.L.W. & Ean, C.L.C. (2020) ‘Malaysian private university students’ perception of online discussion forums: a qualitative enquiry’, Sains Humanika, vol. 12, no. 2 [online] Available at: https://sainshumanika.utm.my/index.php/sainshumanika/article/view/1610
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Authors contributing to Research in Learning Technology 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.