Explore publications.

This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of four popular educational technology tools Mentimeter, Google Forms, Socrative, and Kahoot within the context of higher education. The aim is to critically evaluate their respective strengths and weaknesses, focusing on their utility, functionality, and effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience and engagement among college and university students. Mentimeter is a dynamic presentation tool allowing real-time audience engagement through live polls, quizzes, and interactive presentations. Its strengths lie in its user-friendly interface, diverse question types, and real-time feedback capabilities, fostering active participation and knowledge retention. However, limitations include its potential dependency on stable internet connectivity and limited complex assessment features. Google Forms, a versatile survey tool integrated with the Google ecosystem, offers flexibility in creating surveys, quizzes, and assessments. Its strengths include ease of use, data management through Google Sheets, and customizable question formats. However, while suitable for basic assessments, it may lack some advanced features required for complex evaluations and interactive learning. Socrative provides a platform for formative assessment, enabling teachers to create quizzes, assessments, and exit tickets. Its strengths lie in its instant grading, diverse question types, and the ability to track individual student progress. However, its interface might be less intuitive for some users, and its interactive features may be limited compared to other tools. Kahoot is a game-based learning platform that gamifies quizzes and assessments, promoting engagement and motivation among students. Its strengths include its gamified approach, competitive atmosphere, and ease of use. However, its design might favor rote memorization over deeper learning, and it may not be suitable for all types of educational content or assessment formats. This comparative analysis highlights the distinct advantages and limitations of each tool, offering insights for educators and institutions seeking to leverage technology for effective teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Understanding these strengths and weaknesses can aid educators in making informed decisions about selecting and integrating appropriate educational technologies to enhance student engagement, participation, and learning outcomes. Further research and practical implementations can delve deeper into optimizing the use of these tools to cater to diverse educational needs and contexts in higher education.

The study investigated the shortages in a multimodal learning (MML) approach that was used in a science faculty of a selected higher education institution (HEI) in South Africa. The study population consisted of students of the science faculty. The sample consisted of students who willingly offered to participate after being informed of this study. A study questionnaire consisting of MML components was used to collect data. It was distributed by email as Google forms to students who had supplied their email addresses in acceptance of participating. Analysis of data consisted of graphs and measures in percentages to determine the level of how the students experienced the various MML components. The deficiency level was not too high, but the components that were missing were crucial to effect beneficial learning. The components missing in MML were found to be core components of a flipped classroom (FC). The paper recommended a move of MML closer to FC.

This micro-level study conducted on tow Bangladeshi colleges intended to explore how far learners have engaged actively in the process of learning and teaching. This article (1) examines the nature and character of active learning and (2) elucidates the present approach of learning in practice in the higher education of Bangladesh at the college level affiliated with National University, Bangladesh. The investigation completed by applying the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches, though it is primarily focused on qualitative analysis. Data collected based on two cases. In addition, four FGD sessions have arranged with teachers and students and two of them with the teacher and rest two with the students. In this case study, we come across that student-teacher engagement in learning is very low. There are few scopes for reaching students' behavior, motivation levels in the learning situation. Absenteeism is very high in the students as well as in the teacher. Both the learners and instructors involved in learning for a short period of time. Their staying in the institution for short is a barrier to a high level of engagement in teaching-learning. As a consequence, they do not become the anytime, anywhere learner thereby not lifelong learners