Assessment of the Socrative platform as an interactive and didactic tool in the performance improvement of STEM university students
This paper collects and analyzes students' academic results related to the change in teaching methodologies used in different subjects of different science and engineering university courses between 2013 and 2016. This change means introducing active methodologies such as gamification and ICT instead of a traditional methodology. With this purpose the use of Socrative, a platform that has been designed for the educational field, was introduced during said period. Interaction with the Socrative platform took place in well prepared classrooms with computers and internet connections, including the use of personal mobile devices (laptops, smartphones and tablets) according to the BYOD methodology. The active methodology implemented allowed students to improve their academic results while learning and improving their passing rates.
Arulampalam, W., Naylor, R.A. and Smith, J. (2012). Am I missing something? The effects of absence from class on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 363-375. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.002
Badia, J.D., Olmo, F. and Navarro, J.M. (2016). On-line quizzes to evaluate comprehension and integration skills. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(2), 75. doi: 10.3926/jotse.189
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(6), 30-34.
Çakıroğlu, Ü., Başıbüyük, B., Güler, M., Atabay, M. and Yılmaz, B. (2017). Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on engagement and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 98-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.018
Cohn, E. and Johnson, E. (2006). Class attendance and performance in principles of economics. Education Economics, 14(2), 211-233. doi: 10.1080/09645290600622954
Credé, M., Roch, S.G. and Kieszczynka, U.M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272-295. doi: 10.3102/0034654310362998
Chou, P.N., Chang, C.C. and Lin, C.H. (2017). BYOD or not: A comparison of two assessment strategies for student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.024
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.E. and Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. Paper presented at the CHI 2011 gamification workshop proceedings.
Dobkin, C., Gil, R. and Marion, J. (2010). Skipping class in college and exam performance: Evidence from a regression discontinuity classroom experiment. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 566-575. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.004
Fies, C. and Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Freeman, S., Haak, D. and Wenderoth, M.P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 175-186.
Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J.W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D. and Wenderoth, M.P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132-139.
Frías, M.V., Arce, C. and Flores-Morales, P. (2016). Uso de la plataforma socrative.com para alumnos de Química General. Educación Química, 27(1), 59-66. doi: 10.1016/j.eq.2015.09.003
Gámiz-Sánchez, V.M. (2017). ICT-based Active Methodologies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 606-612. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.018
Guarascio, A.J., Nemecek, B.D. and Zimmerman, D.E. (2017). Evaluation of students' perceptions of the Socrative application versus a traditional student response system and its impact on classroom engagement. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn, 9(5), 808-812. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.05.011
Gump, S.E. (2005). The cost of cutting class: Attendance as a predictor of student success. College Teaching, 53(1), 21-26.
Haak, D.C., Hillerislambers, J., Pitre, E. and Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213-1216.
Halpern, N. (2007). The impact of attendance and student characteristics on academic achievement: findings from an undergraduate business management module. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 335-349.
Hamouda, A.M.S. and Tarlochan, F. (2015). Engaging Engineering Students in Active Learning and Critical Thinking through Class Debates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 990-995. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.379
Inda, M., Rodríguez, C. and Peña, J. V. (2013). Gender differences in applying social cognitive career theory in engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 346-355. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.010
Informe GET (2016). Género, Educación y Trabajo. La brecha persistente. Comunidad Mujer, Santiago, Chile.
Lewis, C.E., Chen, D.C. and Relan, A. (2018). Implementation of a flipped classroom approach to promote active learning in the third-year surgery clerkship. American Journal of Surgery, 215(2), 298-303. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.050
Lim, W.N. (2017). Improving Student Engagement in Higher Education through Mobile-Based Interactive Teaching Model using Socrative. 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118-122. doi: 10.1119/1.2162549
Mann, A. and Diprete, T.A. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1519-1541. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.002
Mishkin, H., Wangrowicz, N., Dori, D. and Dori, Y.J. (2016). Career Choice of Undergraduate Engineering Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 222-228. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.033
Moore, S., Armstrong, C. and Pearson, J. (2008). Lecture absenteeism among students in higher education: A valuable route to understanding student motivation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 15-24. doi: 10.1080/13600800701457848
Naismith, L., Sharples, M., Vavoula, G. and Lonsdale, P. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Report 11, Futurelab series. Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nortcliffe, A. and Middleton, A. (2013). The innovative use of personal smart devices by students to support their learning Increasing student engagement and retention using mobile applications: Smartphones, Skype and texting technologies (pp. 175-208): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N.D. and Kost, L.E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(1), 010107.
Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 167-174.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sprague, A. (2016). Improving the ESL Graduate Writing Classroom Using Socrative: (Re)Considering Exit Tickets. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 989-998. doi: 10.1002/tesj.295
Stanca, L. (2006). The effects of attendance on academic performance: Panel data evidence for introductory microeconomics. Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 251-266. doi: 10.3200/JECE.37.3.251-266
Stoner, S.C. and Fincham, J.E. (2012). Faculty role in classroom engagement and attendance. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(5), 75.
Subhash, S. and Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192-206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G.A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S. and Koestner, R. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: the unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342-358. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002
Walters, B., Potetz, J. and Fedesco, H.N. (2017). Simulations in the Classroom: An Innovative Active Learning Experience. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(12), 609-615. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2017.07.009
Yajma, K., Hayakawa, Y., Kashiwaba, Y., Takahshi, A. and Oiguchi, S. (2016). Construction of Active Learning Environment by the Student Project. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 1489-1496. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.195
Copyright (c) 2019 Roberto Gómez-Espina, Delia Rodríguez-Oroz, Manuel Chávez, Cristian Saavedra, María Jesús Bravo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with HLRC agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and publishing rights without restrictions and grant the journal right of first publication. Authors grant Laureate Education, Inc. a license to publish and distribute the work under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in HLRC.
- Authors who submit manuscripts are to declare that their submission to HLRC is not simultaneously under consideration for publication in another journal and has not been published elsewhere previously.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the HLRC's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in HLRC.
- Pre-refereeing and pre-publication: To ensure consistency in the information available to researchers and to safeguard the blind peer-review process, authors are asked to abstain from self-archiving or posting online the submitted manuscript before the review process is complete.
- Post-refereeing and post-publication: Authors are free to self-archive and distribute the peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed version of their work. As a full open access journal, there is no embargo period. Authors are encouraged to archive the published PDF version, which includes a suggested citation with all pertinent information, including a digital object identifier (DOI). If the author decides to self-archive or distribute the work in a format other than the published PDF, the author must include the assigned DOI and acknowledge the work was first published in HLRC.