Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Copyright © 2016 Harbinger Knowledge Products Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Webinar


If you cannot hear the audio:

1. Click the arrow icon at the upper right, in the webinar panel

2. Expand the Audio section3. Click the Audio setup4. If necessary, choose the Use Telephone option to see

a phone number you can use


Speakers

Lisa Vinney PhD, CCC-SLPAssistant Professor

Illinois State University

K. V. Abbott Ph.D., CCC-SLPProfessor

University of Pittsburgh


Education in Speech-Language Pathology

Clinician Student

Goal: Knowledge & Skill


How do we engage the learner?


Mini Quiz Games (MQGs)


The Testing Effect

► Taking a test on studied material likely promotes: ► Knowledge retrieval

► (Paul, Messina, & Hollis, 2006; Kapicke & Blunt, 2011)

► Calibration of knowledge through immediate and corrective feedback

► (McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, & Morrisette, 2007; Dwyer & Cameron, 2005; Dihoff, Brosvic, Epstein, & Cook, 2004)

► Transfer appropriate processing► (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977)


VS

Use of games in education


Focus Group Results


Gap in Knowledge

► Do electronic content-specific educational games improve learning and test performance in college students beyond traditional study methods?

Vinney L.A., Howles L., Leverson G., & Connor N.P. (in press). Augmenting college students' study of speech-language pathology using computer-based mini quiz games. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.


Hypothesis

MQGs + Traditional Studying

MQGs Alone

Will result in substantial gains in immediate recall and longer-term retention when compared with conventional

study alone or no content review (control condition).


Hypothesis

Students will perceive MQGs more positively than traditional studying.


Subjects

► 93 Undergraduates► Native English speakers► Ages 18-23► No documented

learning disability/cognitive impairment


Groups

Traditional Studying Games

Both Control (no games or studying)


Studying=24

Pre-test & questionnaire

Game=23 Both=23

Lecture

Immediate Recall Posttest & Questionnaire

Control=23


Longer-term Retention Follow-up Test=75

***3 days Later***Studying=1

8Game=19 Both=20 Control=18


Games

►Jeopardy►Voice

Vocabulary Challenge

►Million Dollar Quiz


Games


Control Games Games and Study Study 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Average Difference between Pretest & Posttest by Group

Control Games Games & Study StudyMea

n %

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

Pret

est

& P

ostt

est (

adju

sting

for p

rete

st) *


Control Games Games and Study

Study 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Average Difference between Pretest & Follow-up Test by Group

Mea

n %

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

Pret

est

& F

ollo

w-u

p Te

st (a

djus

ting

for

pret

est)

*


Are games a viable study method?

► All Groups (93 participants)► YES (88%, n=81)► NO (12%, n=11)


Did playing MQGs facilitate learning of lecture content?

► Games & Games/Study Groups only (46 participants)► Yes (93%, n=43)► No (7%, n=3)


Were MQGs perceived as more or less effective than studying?

► Games/Study Group only (33 participants)► More Effective (88%, n=29)► Less Effective (9%, n=3)► Just as Effective (3%, n=1)


Which game was preferred?

► Games & Games/Study Groups only (46 participants)► Million Dollar Quiz (52%, n=24)► Voice Vocabulary Challenge(7%, n=3)► Voice Jeopardy (17%, n=8)► No Preference (24%, n=11)


Discussion► MQGs may be as effective as studying in facilitating recall of recently

learned foundational information► Many students would rather play games than study

► Studying was not significantly better at promoting longer-term retention than no intervention

► MQGs were generally perceived as a viable study method by all participants and as more effective in facilitating new content than traditional studying by Games and Study group members.

► Results are preliminary and should be considered in the context of the current study methodology.


Conclusion

► MQGs are:► Quick to learn, easy to play► Easily implemented into

many educational models► Likely to facilitate recall and

retention of knowledge at lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy

(Bloom, 1956)


Questions

http://engage.doit.wisc.edu/sims_games/showcase/speechpathology/index.htmlhttps://csd.wisc.edu/slpgames/


ReferencesBloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.Dihoff, R. A., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004).Provision of feedback during preparation for

academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207–231.

Dwyer, F. M., & Cameron, B. (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition and feedback type in facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,16, 243–258.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N.(2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494–513.

Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levelsof processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.

Paul, S. T., Messina, J. A., & Hollis, A. M. (2006). A technologyclassroom review tool for general psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 276–279.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.Vinney L.A., Howles L., Leverson G., & Connor N.P. (in press). Augmenting college students' study of speech-

language pathology using computer-based mini quiz games. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.


► Co-Investigator and Mentor► Dr. Nadine Connor

► Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders & Surgery at University of Wisconsin-Madison

► Co-investigator► Mr. Les Howles

► Faculty Associate of the Division of Continuing Studies at University of Wisconsin Madison

► Co-investigator and statistician► Dr. Glen Leverson

► Senior Scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison for the School of Medicine and Public Health

► University of Wisconsin-Madison Engage to Learn Program

► Dr. Lori Bakken► Associate Professor of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Acknowledgements


Speakers

K. V. Abbott Ph.D., CCC-SLPProfessor

University of Pittsburgh


► Reviewed paper by Vinney et al. (in press).

► Findings on the potential utility of electronic game platforms for teaching in voice disorders.

Origins


► Obtained free trial version of Raptivity.

► Received guidance from Dr. Vinney and the outstanding Raptivity team in programming.

Next steps


► Clinical master’s level course in Voice Disorders

► Students in the last semester of their 2-yr M.A. program; work all day and come to class at night; most not particularly interested in voice (more interested in child speech and language etc.)

Application


► How to enhance their in-class learning?

► How to keep them awake?

Application


► Cognitive effort enhances learning (citations x 1 million)

► Repetition enhances learning (citations x 1 million)

► Fun enhances learning (citations x 0.05 but intuitive)

► Keeping students awake enhances learning (citations x 0 but clear)

Theory


► Stated differently: Games are involved, but underlying theoretical underpinnings are non-trivial.

Theory


► Several lectures organized in approximately 10-minute segments, that covered a specific topic

► Raptivity quiz then emailed to students in class, for their immediate response and our collective review

Specifics


Examples

Vocal fold oscillation


Examples

Semi-occluded vocal tract


Examples

Biology of vocal fold wound healing


Examples

Vocal effort and dehydration


Examples

Factors affecting voice output intensity


Examples

Factors affecting vocal fold impact stress


Examples

Acoustic measures


► Voice assessment ► Case history► Voice-related quality of life, effort measures, perceptual

measures of voice► Physiological measures ► Acoustic measures of voice

Examples


► Controlled study not done as by Vinney et al.► Informal observations and reports

► Students liked class and didn’t want to miss due to “value of game activities”

► Students vastly more engaged than for other evening courses (by report of other professors)

► Students generally appeared to do better on exams on relevant materials compared to exams from previous years (informal observation)

► Post-course student evaluations indicated Raptivity games were among the “best” parts of the course

Results


► Extend and deepen games in class (e.g., Wisconsin games posted)

► Possibly create a bank of games to share across instructors (challenge is that different instructors cover different information in voice disorders courses at different institutions)

Future directions


► Ask students to create their own games and swap with partners or other class members

► Challenge due to cost and due to difficulties with Mac platform for now

Future directions


Summary and conclusions

► Absolutely worth the investment► Student involvement (based on their

reports)► Student learning (apparently)► Instructor amusement


Merci


Questions

http://engage.doit.wisc.edu/sims_games/showcase/speechpathology/index.html


Meet The Rapid Interactivity builder


► 190+ customizable interactions (diagrams, exercises, games, simulations, videos…)

► Do-It-Yourself interface► HTML5 & Flash publishing options► Tracking Support (SCORM, xAPI,

AICC)► Multi-Language Support ► Seamless Integration with

Authoring Tools, LMS, websites, PPT & more

Some highlights

http://www.raptivity.com/all-samples-suite


For any queries:

[email protected]

www.raptivity.com Thank You

Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Education

Transcript of Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom