skip to main content
10.1145/3513130.3558983acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Miro, Miro: Student perceptions of a visual discussion board

Published:06 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic forced those in education and industry to rethink how collaboration can take place remotely. This experience report describes the way the author reimagined the typical online discussion using a visual discussion board, Miro, in an asynchronous online graduate course, Media Aesthetics, in Fall of 2020. This paper includes student perceptions of benefits and limitations from the use of this platform along with lessons learned and notes for improving the use of this and other digital tools in future courses. Overall, most students reported enjoying the change of pace from the standard learning management system's discussion board and enjoyed the ability to share images, videos, and links within the platform. Students also indicated that they found Miro to be easy to learn and conducive to collaboration and discussion. Perceived limitations included lack of structure, difficulty locating specific posts at times, and a feeling of isolation from peers due to the asynchronous course structure.

References

  1. Rob Abel. 2005. Implementing Best Practices in Online Learning. Educause Quarterly 28, 3 (2005), 75–77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Tom Cavanaugh. 2012. The Postmodality Era: How Online Learning Is Becoming Learning. In Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies, Diana Oblinger (ed.). EDUCAUSE. Retrieved March 6, 2021 from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2012/5/chapter-16-the-postmodality-era-how-online-learning-is-becoming-learningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Linda Dam. 2021. Pandemic Pedagogy: Disparity in University Remote Teaching Effectiveness. In Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during COVID-19. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Klerk E. D. de and J. M. Palmer. 2021. Resetting Education Priorities During COVID-19: Towards Equitable Learning Opportunities Through Inclusion and Equity. Perspectives in Education 39, 1 (March 2021), 12–28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i1.2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Catherine J. Denial. 2021. Feminism, Pedagogy, and a Pandemic. Journal of Women's History 33, 1 (2021), 134–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2021.0006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Rosendy Galabo, Badziili Nthubu, Leon Cruickshank, and David Perez. 2020. Redesigning a workshop from physical to digital:Principles for designing distributed co-design approaches. In Tatiana Rivchun and Liudmila Aliabieva (eds.). SUN, 64–70. Retrieved May 28, 2022 from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/150364/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Justin Grandinetti. 2021. Pandemic Pedagogy, Zoom, and the Surveillant Classroom: The Challenges of Living Our Advocacies in a Pandemic. Communication, Culture and Critique 14, 2 (June 2021), 347–350. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcab021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Steven Higbee, Sharon Miller, Abigail Waterfill, Kayla Maxey, Julie Stella, and Joseph Wallace. 2021. Creating Virtual Spaces to Build Community Among Students Entering an Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Program. Biomed Eng Education 1, 1 (January 2021), 79–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-020-00004-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Steven Higbee, Sharon Miller, Abigail Waterfill, Kayla Maxey, Julie Stella, and Joseph Wallace. 2021. Creating Virtual Spaces to Build Community Among Students Entering an Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Program. Biomed Eng Education 1, 1 (January 2021), 79–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-020-00004-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jared Keengwe and Terry T Kidd. 2010. Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 6, 2 (2010), 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. L. Kiappes and Sarah F. Jenkinson. 2021. Working It Out: Adapting Group-Based Problem Solving to the Online Environment. In Advances in Online Chemistry Education. American Chemical Society, 93–104. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2021-1389.ch007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tina Lim Swee Kim, Wong Kiet Wah, and Tan Ai Lee. 2007. Asynchronous Electronic Discussion Group: Analysis of Postings and Perception of In-service Teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 8, 1 (March 2007), 33–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sarah R. Lambert. 2020. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18. Computers & Education 145, (February 2020), 103693. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aarika Pardino, Iryna Gleyzer, Ilsa Javed, Janet Reid-Hector, and Al Heuer. 2018. The Best Pedagogical Practices in Graduate Online Learning: A Systematic Review. Creative Education 09, 07 (June 2018), 1123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.97083Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Junaid Qadir. 2020. The Triple Imperatives of Online Teaching: Equity, Inclusion, and Effectiveness. DOI:https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/zjdc7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Theerasak Rojanarata. 2020. How Online Whiteboard Promotes Students’ Collaborative Skills in Laboratory Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 8th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET 2020), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68–72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3395245.3396433Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2020. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, (April 2020), 101860. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Anastasia Salter. 2017. Principles of Visual Language Syllabus. (August 2017). Retrieved May 28, 2022 from https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:15245/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Vlada. Miro accessibility features for screen reader users. Miro Support & Help Center. Retrieved May 31, 2022 from https://help.miro.com/hc/en-us/articles/4403828752274-Miro-accessibility-features-for-screen-reader-usersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. About Miro | Meet the team | Our mission. https://miro.com/. Retrieved May 28, 2022 from https://miro.com/about/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Miro, Miro: Student perceptions of a visual discussion board

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SIGDOC '22: Proceedings of the 40th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
      October 2022
      187 pages
      ISBN:9781450392464
      DOI:10.1145/3513130

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 October 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format