Two Types of Educational Apps for In-Person and Remote Learning: Student Perceptions and Learning Outcome
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v25i1.7562Keywords:
higher education, educational apps, in-person learning, remote learning, engagement, gamificationAbstract
This study examines students’ feedback on using different educational apps and the relationship between their perceptions and learning outcomes. Two educational apps, each typical of a distinct category (gamification apps and standard apps), were used for in-class exercises in both in-person and online accounting courses. Student feedback was collected at the end of the semester. The results indicate that students have varying preferences for educational apps, with each app featuring characteristics that cater to students’ needs. However, these preferences are not associated with learning outcomes. Additional analysis reveals that students who more strongly agree that using the gamification app for in-class exercises helps them review course materials demonstrate better course performance. This study provides insights for instructors to effectively implement different educational apps to enhance student engagement in both in-person and remote courses, thereby improving teaching practices in higher education.
References
Balta, N., Perera-Rodríguez, V.H., & Hervás-Gómez, C. (2018). Using Socrative as an online homework platform to increase students’ exam scores. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 837–850.
Boulden, D.C., Hurt, J.W., & Richardson, M.K. (2017). Implementing digital tools to support student questioning abilities: A collaborative action research report. i.e.: inquiry in education, 9(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1171738.pdf
Coca, D.M., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–24.
Dayal, M., Green, H., & Browne, C. (2016). Flipping human anatomy lectures: Engaging students using digital media and mini lectures. Retrieved from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/flipped-classroom/resources/11_Anatomy.pdf
Guarascio, A.J., Nemecek, B.D., & Zimmerman, D.E. (2017). Evaluation of students’ perceptions of the Socrative application versus a traditional student response system and its impact on classroom engagement. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(5), 808–812.
Hamilton-Hankins, O.J. (2017). The impact of technology integration on the engagement levels of ten second grade students in an English Language Arts classroom. University of South Carolina Scholar Commons .
Kaya, A., & Balta, N. (2016). Taking advantages of technologies: Using the Socrative in English language teaching classes. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(3), 4–12.
Kokina, J., & Juras, P.E. (2017). Using Socrative to enhance instruction in an accounting classroom. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 85–97.
MacNamara, D., & Murphy, L. (2017). Online versus offline perspectives on gamified learning. GamiFIN Conference, University Consortium of Pori, Finland.
Manning, D., Keiper, M.C., & Jenny, S.E. (2017). Pedagogical innovations for the millennial sport management student: Socrative and Twitter. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 45–54.
Porcaro, P.A., Jackson, D.E., McLaughlin, P.M., & O’Malley, C.J. (2016). Curriculum design of a flipped classroom to enhance Haematology learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 345–357.
Suo, Y.M., & Suo Y.J., & Zalika, A. (2018). Implementing Quizizz as game based learning in the Arabic classroom. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 5(1), 194–198.
Wash, P.D. (2014). Taking advantage of mobile devices: Using Socrative in the classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1), 99–101.
Zhao, F. (2019). Using Quizizz to integrate fun multiplayer activity in the accounting classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 37–43.
