Interactive tools, engaged minds: The impact of ClassPoint and EdCafe on learning strategies
Main Article Content
Abstract
Student engagement is a critical factor in academic success and enriching learning experiences in higher education. This study explores the impact of two interactive educational AI tools—ClassPoint and EdCafe—on enhancing engagement, participation, and content retention in a GS Psychology course. Using a quasi-experimental design, the study involved 70 undergraduate students. Participants were divided into control and experimental groups. The experimental group utilized ClassPoint (interactive quizzes and annotations) and EdCafe (interactive assignments and class activities), while the control group followed traditional instructional methods. Engagement surveys were the primary data collection method pre and post the intervention for both groups. Findings revealed that the experimental group exhibited significantly higher emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement, as well as better test performance, compared to the control group. Students in the experimental group also reported greater enjoyment, motivation, and responsiveness to interactive tasks. These results suggest that incorporating technology-based tools like ClassPoint and EdCafe enhances academic performance and fosters positive student attitudes toward learning. The integration of such platforms creates dynamic and engaging learning environments, promoting deeper comprehension and stronger content retention.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Abdelrheem, T. N. M., & Bendania, A. (2022). The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking among College students and its impact on future time perspectives: The Role of AOT in FTP. Acción Psicológica, 19(1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.19.1.34086
Abdelrady, A. H., & Akram, H. (2022). An empirical study of ClassPoint tool application in enhancing EFL students’ online learning satisfaction. Systems, 10(5), 154. ; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10050154
AlShaikh, R., Al-Malki, N., & Almasre, M. (2024). The implementation of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning in the design and evaluation of an AI educational video assistant utilizing large language models. Heliyon, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25361
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. https://doi.org/110.9790/7388-05616670
Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and improving critical thinking in online discussion forums", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 52-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2015-0034
Bergdahl, N., Fors, U., Hernwall, P., & Knutsson, O. (2018). The use of learning technologies and student engagement in learning activities. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(2), 113–130. DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.1891-943X-2018-02-04
Benhadj, Y., El Messaoudi, M., & Nfissi, A. (2019). Investigating the impact of Kahoot! on students’ engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes: Ifrane Directorate as a case study. International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work, 2(6), 2581–5997. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3250661
Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1). 11, pp. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528
Bong, E. Y., & Chatterjee, C. (2021). The use of a ClassPoint tool for student engagement during online lessons. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Education.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.
Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
Cameron, K. E., & Bizo, L. A. (2019). Use of the game-based learning platform Kahoot! to facilitate learner engagement in Animal Science students. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2225
Cherbonnier, A., Hémon, B., Michinov, N., Jamet, E., & Michinov, E. (2024). Collaborative skills training using digital tools: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2348227
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Connell, J. P., & Welborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.
Fredricks, J. (2013). Behavioral engagement in learning. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 42–44). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
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.
Healey, D. (2018). Technology enhanced learning environments. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0437
Ghilay, Y., & Ghilay, R. (2015). TBAL: Technology-based active learning in higher education. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n4p10
Kay, R.H. and LeSage, A. (2009) Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Using Audience Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
Mentzer, N.J., Isabell, T.M. & Mohandas, L. The impact of interactive synchronous HyFlex model on student academic performance in a large active learning introductory college design course. J Comput High Educ 36, 619–646 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09369-y
Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Mizokami, S. (2018). Deep active learning from the perspective of active learning theory. Deep active learning: Toward greater depth in university education, 79-91. DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-5660-4_5
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., & Bueno Muñoz, C. (2021). Gamification and active learning in higher education: is it possible to match digital society, academia and students' interests?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y
Mohamed, T. N., & Bendania, A. (2024). Investigating the relationship of actively open-minded thinking in future time perspectives among Saudi undergraduate students. Psychological Research, 88(1), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01851-7
Oktadela, R., Shalawati, S., Hadiyanti, P. O., Elida, Y., & Ismail, S. (2024). The Implementation of Classpoint in Learning English: A Case Study. Journal of English Language and Education, 9(3), 46-50. https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v9i3.516
Ozcelik, E., & Arslan-Ari, I. (2024). Enhancing multimedia learning by emotional arousal. The Journal of Experimental Education, 92(2), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2182263
Pane, J., Steiner, E., Baird, M., & Hamilton, L. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. RAND Corporation. http://dx.doi.org/10.7249/RR1365
Pinchuk, O., Tkachenko, V., & Burov, O. (2019, June). AR and VR as gamification of cognitive tasks. In ICTERI (pp. 437–442).
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Qiao, Y., Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Student cognitive presence in small group collaboration facilitated by mobile instant messaging. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning, 2(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2021). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in health sciences education, 16, 465-479.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2023). Self-Determination Theory. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_2630
Sailer, M., Maier, R., Berger, S., Kastorff, T., & Stegmann, K. (2024). Learning activities in technology-enhanced learning: A systematic review of meta-analyses and second-order meta-analysis in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 112, 102446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102446
Sawang, S., O'connor, P., & ALI, M. (2017). IEngage: Using technology to enhance students’ engagement in a large classroom. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v9i3.292
Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., Yang, J. L., Mukama, E., Warusavitarana, A., …Gibson, D. C. (2016). Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 19(3), 58-71. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/19_3/7.pdf
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
Wang, Y. H. (2020). Design-based research on integrating learning technology tools into higher education classes to achieve active learning. Computers & Education, 156, 103935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103935
Yue, C., Kim, J., Ogawa, R., Stark, E., & Kim, S. (2013). Applying the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: An analysis of medical animations. Medical Education, 47(4), 375–387.