Reflections on Using Interactive Engagement Applications in Higher Education Accounting Courses
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This reflective article explores the use of audience response software (ARS) in higher education accounting courses – namely Wooclap. Based on personal teaching experiences, the article explores the use of ARS to enhance student engagement and active learning. These experiences include teaching in an online environment during the COVID-19 pandemic at Dalarna University and in physical classrooms at Malmö University. Together, these contexts demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of ARS in different educational settings. The author reflects on the pedagogical benefits of integrating ARS as an interactive application, noting that it facilitates real-time feedback, encourages student participation, and supports a constructivist approach to learning. The article also addresses the limitations of Wooclap, including its unclear impact on student attendance and performance. Although Wooclap and similar ARS have proven effective in enhancing engagement, their long-term benefits may diminish over time, indicating a need for further research and alternative strategies to maintain student involvement. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in higher education, emphasizing the critical role of interactive applications in creating a more engaging and responsive learning environment.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Alenezi, M. (2023). Digital Learning and Digital Institution in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 13(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010088
Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university [Elektronisk resurs] what the student does. McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1
Churches, A. (2010). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy.
Corral Abad, E., Gómez García, M. J., Diez-Jimenez, E., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., & Castejón Sisamon, C. (2021). Improving the learning of engineering students with interactive teaching applications. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(6), 1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22415
Díez-Pascual, A. M., & García Díaz, M. P. (2020). Audience Response Software as a Learning Tool in University Courses. Education Sciences, 10(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120350
Estada, B. C., Muñoz-Higueras, D., & Belda, J. S. (2024). Student Response Systems in higher education: A comparative analysis using Wooclap platform in economic courses. Journal of Management and Business Education, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2024.0014
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Marin, J., Brichler, S., Lecuyer, H., Carbonnelle, E., & Lescat, M. (2021). Feedback From Medical and Biology Students on Distance Learning: Focus on a Useful Interactive Software, Wooclap®. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211023383
Moreno-Medina, I., Peñas-Garzón, M., Belver, C., & Bedia, J. (2023). Wooclap for improving student achievement and motivation in the Chemical Engineering Degree. Education for Chemical Engineers, 45, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.07.003
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810310500906
Rubio, E. I., Bassignani, M. J., White, M. A., & Brant, W. E. (2008). Effect of an Audience Response System on Resident Learning and Retention of Lecture Material. American Journal of Roentgenology, 190(6), W319–W322. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3038
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
SVT Nyheter. (2020, March 17). Högskolan Dalarna övergår till distansutbildning. SVT Nyheter. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/dalarna/hogskolan-dalarna-overgar-till-distansutbildning
Taber, K. S. (2011). Inquiry teaching, constructivist instruction and effective pedagogy. Teacher Development, 15(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2011.571515
University of Colorado Boulder. (2023). Facilitating and assessing student engagement in the classroom | Center for Teaching & Learning. https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-learning/2023/01/23/facilitating-and-assessing-student-engagement-classroom
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6