Amelyn THOMPSON and Brenda YUEN
Centre for English Language Communication (CELC)
Amelyn and Brenda discuss their experience of using the digital whiteboard Miro to facilitate real-time online discussion and collaboration activities during online tutorials for their science communication module.
Thompson, A. A., & Yuen, B. P. L. (2022, Aug 29). Using Miro to enhance students’ online engagement and learning in a science communication module. Teaching Connections. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/teachingconnections/2022/08/26/using-miro-to-enhance-students-online-engagement-and-learning-in-a-science-communication-module/
Incorporating Miro Into a Science Communication Classroom
The COVID-19 pandemic paved the way for more strategic use of learning technology to promote students’ engagement in online learning environments. In the module SP1541 “Exploring Science Communication through Popular Science”, we leveraged one of the tools in the NUS Blended Learning 2.0 Initiative1, a real-time collaborative digital whiteboard called Miro. It serves as an online space conducive to discussion and collaboration to help students learn actively online (Meyer, 2014).
As the module’s key learning outcome is to communicate scientific concepts effectively to educated non-specialist audiences, we implemented technology-enhanced learning tasks using Miro in Semester 2 of AY2021/22 for the discussion and analysis of published science news articles during Zoom tutorials (Figure 1). On the whiteboard, students worked in teams to analyse and annotate texts, engage in writing practice, and provide peer feedback.
Team-based templates were created for students to organise their discussions in breakout rooms (check out the examples, presented as animated screen captures in Figures 2a and 2b). Structured discussions with guided prompts, which students value as an important engagement strategy, can lead to more in-depth comprehension (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). These templates also served as visual aids when students presented their ideas in the main room and directed attention by focusing on various parts of the templates. This online space became a depository in which students revisited the curated whiteboard at any time.
Figure 2a. Understanding assessment criteria through whole-class collaboration (click on the image to view the animated screen capture).
Figure 2b. Evaluating the effectiveness of communication strategies in teams (click on the image to view the animated screen capture).
Enhancing Online Engagement When Using Miro
Higher education research suggests the use of learning technology promotes student engagement (e.g. Bond et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2010; Fan & Di, 2020; Fonseca et al., 2014). Engagement is defined as “energy and effort” expended by students in their learning community, observable through “a range of indicators” (Bond et al., 2020, p. 3). In search of these indicators when exploring the collaborative outcomes of these tutorial discussions, we adopted Redmond et al.’s (2018) online engagement framework for higher education (Figure 3)2. Redmond et al. (2018)’s framework extends the traditional definition of engagement as established by Fredricks et al. (2004), which typically considers the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional dimensions, by adding collaborative and social dimensions. Collaborative engagement relates to engagement in collaboration with peers and instructors in academic activities like discussions, groupwork or assessment to develop professional relationships; social engagement involves participation in informal interactions beyond the classroom to build community and trust among peers and instructors (Redmond et al., 2018).
The following templates indicate evidence of various dimensions of online engagement:
Cognitive and emotional engagement: Students evaluated the effectiveness of communication strategies in making concepts accessible for readers through metaphor and analogy. Figure 4 shows how Miro allows for cognitive and emotional engagement. Cognitive engagement is evident as students critically evaluated and commented on the quality of the strategies in the green boxes. Emotional engagement is indicated by students’ creative use of stickers and emojis to express their enthusiasm and communicate emotions like agreement and disapproval in their learning process.
Cognitive and collaborative engagement: Each team evaluated a published science news article using a criterion-referenced rubric for science news articles (Yuen & Sawatdeenarunat, 2020). This analysis helped students understand the criteria and standards of their assessment task. Figure 5 illustrates students’ cognitive and collaborative engagement through interacting with their peers and instructor.
Cognitive, collaborative and behavioural engagement: After identifying missing information from a published news article, each team produced a paragraph to address the information gaps (Figure 6). Cognitive and collaborative engagement were evident as students used Miro to synthesise and integrate relevant information from supplementary texts. Students provided constructive feedback to other teams, demonstrating behavioural engagement through peer support and encouragement.
The two major types of online engagement we identified appeared to be corroborated with the types that students perceived. Student feedback showed they valued Miro for enhancing cognitive and collaborative engagement in the classroom and beyond as a review tool (Figure 7).
Moving Forward
Although getting familiar with Miro and creating customised templates takes time and practice, the use of this learning technology provides valuable data which would be unavailable in traditional contexts. Henrie et al. (2015) stress that technology allows teachers to revisit real-time interactions in the system. The use of Miro has shown evidence of students’ online engagement especially with the cognitive and collaborative dimensions. However, social engagement remains elusive as Miro was used for synchronous academic activities. It could be worthwhile to extend its usage asynchronously to allow for informal interactions.
Regarding implementation, technology-enhanced learning could be more impactful if integrated in the early years of university (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). This is the case with SP1541, a common core writing module for science students in their first two years. It is worth investigating further how this technology-enhanced learning experience can facilitate online engagement and deep learning (Hattie, 2015) in face-to-face or hybrid learning environments.
 |
Amelyn THOMPSON is an Instructor at the CELC, where she has taught undergraduate courses in academic writing and science communication. She is interested in technology-enhanced learning to improve students’ engagement. Her experience and interests also include teaching and learning Baba Malay, which is an endangered language spoken by the Peranakan Chinese community in Singapore. Amelyn can be reached at amelyn.t@nus.edu.sg. |
 |
Brenda YUEN is a Senior Lecturer at the CELC, where she has taught and coordinated undergraduate courses in science communication, academic writing, and critical thinking. She has also been involved in the development and validation of university-wide English language proficiency and placement tests in Hong Kong and Singapore. Her research interests include technology-enhanced feedback for student learning, language testing and assessment, particularly rubric validation using Rasch modelling. Brenda can be reached at elcbypl@nus.edu.sg. |
Endnotes
- Blended Learning 2.0 @NUS aims to provide an opportunity to design/redesign modules and courses through the flexible and meaningful integration of face-to-face teaching with online learning; and engage students to integrate and deepen their knowledge base through both face-to-face and online instructions. More info can be found on the BL 2.0 website.
- It is an interdisciplinary classification derived from a systematic analysis of past literature to redefine engagement in online learning environments.
References
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 17(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222– 1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
Fan, S., & Di, Z. (2020). Technology-enhanced collaborative language learning: theoretical foundations, technologies, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1831545
Fonseca, D., Marti, N., Redondo, E., Navarro, I., & Sanchez, A. (2014). Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of Augmented Reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in Human Behavior 31, 434-445. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.006
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Martin, F. & Bolliger, D.U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205- 222. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1-114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Yuen, B., & Sawatdeenarunat, S. (2020). Applying a rubric development cycle for assessment in higher education: an evidence-based case study of a science communication module. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 53-68. http://nus.edu.sg/cdtl/engagement/publications/ajsotl-home/asian-journal-of-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning/v10n1-Yuen-Sawatdeenarunat
