Students’ perceptions of Plickers and crossword puzzles in undergraduate studies

Q2 Social Sciences
Vusi Vincent Mshayisa
{"title":"Students’ perceptions of Plickers and crossword puzzles in undergraduate studies","authors":"Vusi Vincent Mshayisa","doi":"10.1111/1541-4329.12179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In higher education, there are calls to incorporate active learning experiences that place the student at the center of learning, rather than encouraging students to be passive listeners. For students to have a deeper and more meaningful learning experience, educators can use an active learning approach. This approach attempts to engage students at higher levels of thinking so that they are more interested in, better engaged with, and understand the course material better. The aim of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions of Plickers and crossword puzzles as low-cost pedagogical tools to foster active learning in an undergraduate course in food science and technology. A mixed-method survey consisting of a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended qualitative questions was administered via Blackboard to elicit student responses. A total of 121 students were enrolled for the course and 70.2% (<i>n</i> = 85) completed the survey. Plickers were found to be easy to use (mean = 4.66), provided opportunities to answer to formative questions anonymously (mean = 4.60), and helped increase participation in class (mean 4.05). The majority of students felt that crossword puzzles required them to think critically (mean = 4.53) and provided them with the opportunity to assess how well they understood the course content (mean = 4.45). Moreover, a statistically positive relationship was found between student collaborative learning and crossword puzzle implementation scores (<i>r</i> = .506, <i>p</i> &lt; .01). The findings demonstrated that when implemented effectively, Plickers and crossword puzzles contributed to greater enhanced student engagement. These pedagogical tools can be applied as formative assessment instruments and offer a low-cost alternative to the limitations encapsulated by didactic pedagogy.</p>","PeriodicalId":44041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1541-4329.12179","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4329.12179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

In higher education, there are calls to incorporate active learning experiences that place the student at the center of learning, rather than encouraging students to be passive listeners. For students to have a deeper and more meaningful learning experience, educators can use an active learning approach. This approach attempts to engage students at higher levels of thinking so that they are more interested in, better engaged with, and understand the course material better. The aim of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions of Plickers and crossword puzzles as low-cost pedagogical tools to foster active learning in an undergraduate course in food science and technology. A mixed-method survey consisting of a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended qualitative questions was administered via Blackboard to elicit student responses. A total of 121 students were enrolled for the course and 70.2% (n = 85) completed the survey. Plickers were found to be easy to use (mean = 4.66), provided opportunities to answer to formative questions anonymously (mean = 4.60), and helped increase participation in class (mean 4.05). The majority of students felt that crossword puzzles required them to think critically (mean = 4.53) and provided them with the opportunity to assess how well they understood the course content (mean = 4.45). Moreover, a statistically positive relationship was found between student collaborative learning and crossword puzzle implementation scores (r = .506, p < .01). The findings demonstrated that when implemented effectively, Plickers and crossword puzzles contributed to greater enhanced student engagement. These pedagogical tools can be applied as formative assessment instruments and offer a low-cost alternative to the limitations encapsulated by didactic pedagogy.

Abstract Image

大学生对Plickers和填字游戏的认知
在高等教育中,有人呼吁将主动学习经验纳入其中,将学生置于学习的中心,而不是鼓励学生成为被动的听众。为了让学生获得更深入、更有意义的学习体验,教育者可以采用主动学习的方法。这种方法试图让学生在更高层次上思考,使他们对课程材料更感兴趣,更好地参与,更好地理解。本研究的目的是调查学生对Plickers和纵横字谜作为低成本教学工具在食品科学与技术本科课程中促进主动学习的看法。一个混合方法的调查,包括5点李克特量表和开放式定性问题,通过黑板管理,以引起学生的反应。共有121名学生参加了该课程,其中70.2% (n = 85)完成了调查。Plickers易于使用(平均= 4.66),提供匿名回答形成性问题的机会(平均= 4.60),并有助于提高课堂参与度(平均4.05)。大多数学生认为填字游戏要求他们批判性思考(平均= 4.53),并为他们提供了评估自己对课程内容理解程度的机会(平均= 4.45)。此外,学生合作学习与填字游戏执行得分呈统计学正相关(r = .506, p <. 01)。研究结果表明,如果有效实施,Plickers和填字游戏有助于提高学生的参与度。这些教学工具可以用作形成性评估工具,并提供一种低成本的替代方案,以解决教学教学法所包含的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Food Science Education
Journal of Food Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) publishes the Journal of Food Science Education (JFSE) to serve the interest of its members in the field of food science education at all levels. The journal is aimed at all those committed to the improvement of food science education, including primary, secondary, undergraduate and graduate, continuing, and workplace education. It serves as an international forum for scholarly and innovative development in all aspects of food science education for "teachers" (individuals who facilitate, mentor, or instruct) and "students" (individuals who are the focus of learning efforts).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信