Learning Interventions: Collaborative Learning, Critical Thinking and Assessing Participation Real-Time

Rajaram, Kumaran

doi:10.1007/978-981-33-6804-0_3

Kumaran Rajaram²

1216 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the authentic learning interventions for team-based and flipped classroom collaborative learning that assesses real-time class participation which develops competency and employability skills set. The discussions address the process in achieving the intended learning outcomes with the adoption of these learning interventions. It provides evidence-based results in terms of how these learning interventions facilitate effective learning in terms of higher-order critical thinking (refers to the process of thinking is made intensive through scaffolding approach that potentially enables learners to question and reflect deeply), deeper engagement amongst students (refers to the ability for students to be motivated and their involvement through listening and/or participation is much more spontaneous) and higher level of collaboration at inter- and intra-group levels (refers to much more interactivity, team-based involvement in engaging within the team members and/or across members of another group). Collaborative learning is generally defined as a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together (Dillenbourg in Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches 1:1–15, 1999), whereas in a cooperative learning context, individuals work together to optimize, maximize their own and each other’s learning to attain shared goals. Largely, there are three categories of cooperative learning namely informal cooperative learning groups, formal cooperative learning groups and cooperative base groups. In our context, informal cooperative learning was focused on. In accordance with research scholars (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a; Johnson et al. in Cooperation in the classroom, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN, 1998b), informal cooperative learning entails students working together to achieve common learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period. In a meta-analysis performed by Johnson et al. (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a), studies since 1924 were reviewed and it was found that when students learn together, academic achievement is enhanced. Moreover, students were found to have higher self-esteem and better quality of relationships (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a). The functionalities offered within the learning interventions and support systems fundamentally promote collaboration. Student engagement is correlated with participation in public service, self-reported learning gains, increased student achievement (Carini et al. in Research in Higher Education 47:1–32, 2006) and job engagement (Busteed & Seymour in Gallup Business Journal 19, 2015). The goal of the learning interventions is to maximize student engagement in meaningful learning activities within classroom settings. When students engage in more meaningful learning activities, they are actively learning. DeLozier and Rhodes (DeLozier & Rhodes in Educational Psychology Review 29:141–151, 2017) believed that it is the active learning in class that is responsible for the enhancement in learning performances. The use of learning interventions also increases the number of students participating in meaningful learning activities through providing the quieter students in class an alternative avenue of input other than speaking up in front of the class. Cain and Klein (Independent School 75(1):64–71, 2015) found in their study that quiet students indeed feel more comfortable sharing their ideas online. Moreover, shy and quiet students contribute more through synchronous online discussion than in regular classroom discussion (Warschauer in CALICO Journal, 7–26, 2015). Lastly, with the synchronous online discussion feature of the activity support system and the organized class activity sequences, it is expected that there will be a reduction in time used for transitions between activities, introductions to activities, and disruptions within activities. Both collaborative learning, through “discussion, clarification of ideas, and evaluation of others’ ideas” (Gokhale in Journal of Technology Education 7:22–30, 1995), and high student engagement (Carini et al. in Research in Higher Education 47:1–32, 2006) enhance the development of critical thinking. It was also argued that critical thinking can be learnt through every interaction (MacKnight in Educause Quarterly 23:38–41, 2000) provided the interaction is supported with specific critical thinking activities (Astleitner in Journal of Instructional Psychology 29:53, 2002; Kim in Interactive Learning Environments 22:467–484, 2014; Weltzer-Ward & Carmona in International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 3:86–88, 2008). Therefore, our learning interventions and supports systems, which enhances students’ engagement and collaborative learning, would also lead to a desirable development of students’ critical thinking ability. The chapter will also describe the varying functionalities and the process of how the learning interventions enable the intended learning outcomes to be achieved. This chapter also furnishes the relevant video and training resources that are developed for the learning interventions. The findings from the surveys and interviews serve as evidence based to validate the discussions that emerge from the analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly, 159–174.
Google Scholar
Anthony, S., & Garner, B. (2016). Teaching soft skills to business students: An analysis of multiple pedagogical methods. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 360–370.
Article Google Scholar
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473204.
Article Google Scholar
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.
Article Google Scholar
Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 53.
Google Scholar
Bedwell, W. L., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2014). Developing the future workforce: An approach for integrating interpersonal skills into the MBA classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0138.
Article Google Scholar
Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education—Promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120734.
Article Google Scholar
Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: Emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(7), 1352–1365.
Article Google Scholar
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning. Global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176–188). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development.
Google Scholar
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes were overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44.
Article Google Scholar
Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools. A report for the JISC E-learning Pedagogy Programme. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/learningdesigntoolsfinalreport.pdf.
Busteed, B., & Seymour, S. (2015). Many college graduates not equipped for workplace success. Gallup Business Journal, 19.
Google Scholar
Cain, S., & Klein, E. (2015). Engaging the quiet kids. Independent School, 75(1), 64–71. Retrieved from https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall-2015/engaging-the-quiet-kids/.
Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketized higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714.
Article Google Scholar
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.
Article Google Scholar
Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003.
Article Google Scholar
Clay, T., & Breslow, L. (2006, April 14). Why students don’t attend class. Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/breslow.html.
Coller, B. D., & Scott, M. J. (2009). Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engineering. Computers & Education, 53(3), 900–912.
Google Scholar
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in teaching and learning: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2013). Developing leadership character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024a.
Article Google Scholar
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS), interact, integrate, impact. Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE).
Google Scholar
Dalziel, J. (2014, December 9). LAMS Newsletter 115. Retrieved from https://lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubs/educationalcommunity/forums/message-view?message_id=1891728.
De Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H., Jöbsis, R., Muijtjens, A. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education, 53(1), 1–13.
Article Google Scholar
Delcker, J., Honal, A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Mobile device usage in university and workplace learning settings. Paper presented at the ACET 2017. Jacksonville, FL.
Google Scholar
DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9.
Article Google Scholar
Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encouraging participation in case discussions: A comparison of the mica and the Harvard case methods. Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 394–408.
Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1, 1–15.
Google Scholar
Elise, J. D., Julie, H. H., & Marjorie, B. P. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 354–377.
Google Scholar
Erikson, M. G., & Erikson, M. (2018). Learning outcomes and critical thinking—Good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813.
Article Google Scholar
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.
Google Scholar
Fallows, S., & Steven, C. (2000). Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: A university-wide initiative. Education + Training, 42(22), 75–83.
Google Scholar
Farmer, K., Meisel, S. I., Seltzer, J., & Kane, K. (2013). The mock trial: A dynamic exercise for thinking critically about management theories, topics, and practices. Journal of Management Education, 37(3), 400–430.
Google Scholar
Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 570–591.
Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 1595–1601.
Google Scholar
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 97–131, Springer.
Google Scholar
Freeman, M., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1286.
Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The Interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 74(1), 101–114.
Article Google Scholar
Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J. R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education For Business, 75(5), 274–281.
Article Google Scholar
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_910.
Article Google Scholar
Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75(1), 10–14.
Article Google Scholar
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19–30.
Article Google Scholar
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organisation Science, 12(4), 435–449.
Article Google Scholar
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412.
Article Google Scholar
Hwang, A., & Francesco, A. (2010). The influence of individualism—Collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 243–257.
Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998b). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998a). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629.
Kim, I.-H. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680970.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Kordaki, M., & Agelidou, E. (2010). A learning design-based environment for online, collaborative digital storytelling: An example for environmental education. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 95–106.
Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.
Article Google Scholar
Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211–233.
Article Google Scholar
Latham, A., & Hill, N. S. (2014). Preference for anonymous classroom participation: Linking student characteristics and reactions to electronic response systems. Journal of Management Education, 38(2), 192–215.
Google Scholar
LAMS Foundation. (2004, January 05). Learning activity management system. Available online at https://www.lamsfoundation.org/about_home.htm.
LAMS Foundation. (2012, March 22). Who is using LAMS? Retrieved from https://wiki.lamsfoundation.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2855.
Levy, P., Aiyegbayo, O., & Little, S. (2009). Designing for inquiry-based learning with the learning activity management system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00309.x.
Article Google Scholar
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2009). Student participation in university governance: The role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602000.
Article Google Scholar
Logel, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). The role of the self in physical health testing the effect of a values-affirmation intervention on weight loss. Psychological Science, 23, 53–55.
Article Google Scholar
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93–107.
Article Google Scholar
MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23(4), 38–41.
Google Scholar
Mainkar, A. V. (2007). A student-empowered system for measuring and weighing participation in class discussion. Journal of Management Education, 32(1), 23–37.
Google Scholar
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585.
Article Google Scholar
McGlynn, A. P. (2005). Teaching millennials, our newest cultural cohort. Education Digest, 71(4), 12.
Google Scholar
McKeachie, W. (1994). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Google Scholar
McLeod, J. (2011). Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.572830.
Article Google Scholar
Melvin, K. B. (1998). Rating class participation. The Teaching of Psychology, 15, 137–139.
Article Google Scholar
Melvin, K. B., & Lord, A. T. (1995). The prof/peer method of evaluating class participation: Interdisciplinary generality. College Student Journal, 29, 258–263.
Google Scholar
Ohland, M., Loughry, M., Woehr, D., Bullard, L., Felder, R., Finelli, C., & Schmucker, D. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630.
Article Google Scholar
Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In M. Theall (Ed.), Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishing.
Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., Duncan, J. H., & Yik, M. S. M. (2002). Patterns of shyness in East-Asian and European-heritage students. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(5), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00005-3.
Article Google Scholar
Philip, R., & Dalziel, J. (2004). Designing activities for student learning using the learning activity management system (LAMS). Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education.
Google Scholar
Rajaram, K. (2013). Learning in foreign cultures: Self-reports learning effectiveness across different instructional techniques. World Journal of Education, 3(4), 71.
Article Google Scholar
Rajaram, K. (2020). Educating mainland chinese learners in business education, pedagogical and cultural perspectives – Singapore experiences. Springer.
Google Scholar
Rogers, W. T., 1993. Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 110–127.
Google Scholar
Roohr, K., et al. (2019). A multi-level modeling approach to investigating students’ critical thinking at higher education institutions. Journal of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education., 46(6), 946–960.
Article Google Scholar
Rossiou, E. R. U. G. (2012). Digital natives...are changed: An educational scenario with LAMS integration that promotes collaboration via blended learning in secondary education. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, 468–479.
Google Scholar
Sally, B. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81–89. ISSN 1742–240X.
Google Scholar
Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903342038.
Article Google Scholar
Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28, 19–38.
Google Scholar
Sherrard, W. R., Raafat, F., & Weaver, R. R. (2010). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. the Journal of Education for Business, 70(1), 43–47.
Article Google Scholar
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
Article Google Scholar
Smith, G. F. (2014). Assessing business student thinking skills. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 384–411.
Google Scholar
Thomas, M. J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.
Article Google Scholar
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246.
Article Google Scholar
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82.
Article Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 7–26.
Google Scholar
Weltzer-Ward, L. M. L. W. N. E., & Carmona, G. L. M. U. E. (2008). Support of the critical thinking process in synchronous online collaborative discussion through model-eliciting activities. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3(3), 86–88.
Google Scholar
Yasushi, G. (2016). Development of critical thinking with metacognitive regulation. 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, 353–356.
Google Scholar
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301.
Article Google Scholar
Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635.
Article Google Scholar
Zepke, N. (2018). Student engagement in neo-liberal times: What is missing? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370440.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The above two research studies were funded by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) through the NTU Educational Excellence Grants. The author would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for providing valuable feedback and guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Kumaran Rajaram

Authors

Kumaran Rajaram
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kumaran Rajaram .

Appendices

Appendix A: Post-Survey (After the Intervention of the Learning Support System)

3.1.1 Survey Questions

1.
The experience of using “K^mAlive” in this class is ___________________.
1. a.
  Very Positive
2. b.
  Positive
3. c.
  Somewhat Positive
4. d.
  Negative
5. e.
  Very Negative
2.
What are your thoughts and feelings about your contributions in class being captured?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
3.
The use of “K^mAlive” in this class is a/an _________ way to encourage my participation in class.
1. a.
  Very Effective
2. b.
  Effective
3. c.
  Somewhat Effective
4. d.
  Ineffective
5. e.
  Very Ineffective
4.
What are your thoughts in terms of the impact of class participation through the adoption of K^mAlive?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
5.
The use of “K^mAlive” in this class motivates me to listen more attentively to my classmates’ contributions in class.
1. a.
  Strongly Agree
2. b.
  Agree
3. c.
  Neutral
4. d.
  Disagree
5. e.
  Strongly Disagree
____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
6.
The use of “K^mAlive” in this class developed my critical thinking abilities.
1. a.
  Strongly Agree
2. b.
  Agree
3. c.
  Neutral
4. d.
  Disagree
5. e.
  Strongly Disagree
7.
If you have answered “Strongly Agree/Agree” to question 5, can you explain how the use of “K^mAlive” has enhanced your critical thinking skills?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
8.
I believe the use of “K^mAlive” in this course gives a fair assessment of my participation in class.
1. a.
  Strongly Agree
2. b.
  Agree
3. c.
  Neutral
4. d.
  Disagree
5. e.
  Strongly Disagree
9.
What are your thoughts and feelings regarding the grading of your participation in class using “K^mAlive”?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
10.
What do you like the best about the experience of using “K^mAlive” in class? Please explain why.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
11.
What would you like to change about the experience of the usage of “K^mAlive” in class? Please explain why.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________
12.
Any other comments?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Appendix B: Interview Questions

What are your experiences of using this real-time learning support system—K^mAlive?
How does it explicitly enhance (a) higher levels of class participation; (b) make you think more critically; (c) better engagement with your peers in your group and others in the class
What are your overall perspectives of the features offered in this learning intervention—K^mAlive on how it supports your learning process and how do you learn?

Appendix C: Video Resources

Value Proposition of Learning Support System: K^mAlive (5 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOpR4fWL0s
Value Proposition of Learning Support System: K^mAlive (20 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjDQcbq84V4
Operational Guide: K^mAlive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Iv0q1IdiM

The video trailers with supporting illustrations could also be viewed in the furnished links:

K^mAlive Learning Blog Site: https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/learning-innovations/kumalive/
Research Lab for Learning Innovation and Culture of Learning: https://learningintervention.wixsite.com/researchlab/klive

Appendix D: Screen Shot of K^mAlive Feature Embedded with NTULearn (Blackboard)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rajaram, K. (2021). Learning Interventions: Collaborative Learning, Critical Thinking and Assessing Participation Real-Time. In: Evidence-Based Teaching for the 21st Century Classroom and Beyond. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6804-0_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6804-0_3
Published: 17 March 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-33-6803-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-33-6804-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics