From Passive Presentations to Active Learning: Integrating Menti Meter into Leadership Development
LDT 440 · Technology Integration Plan
Project Description
This project explores how Mentimeter, an interactive presentation and audience-response platform, can help transform conventional corporate leadership training into a more participatory learning experience.
I developed a technology integration plan for a hybrid leadership development program focused on supportive versus defensive communication. The intended learners are new and experienced supervisors who regularly navigate challenging workplace conversations.
One of the problems I wanted to address was the passive nature of many corporate training sessions. Presentations can certainly introduce useful concepts, but developing interpersonal skills requires more than listening to advice. Learners need opportunities to examine their own reactions and consider how other people might interpret the same situation differently.
To address this challenge, I designed activities using Mentimeter's interactive features. In one representative exercise, participants watch a video depicting a difficult workplace conversation. They then anonymously evaluate a supervisor's communication along two dimensions: empathy and clarity.
The responses appear together on a visual plot, allowing participants to see where their judgments align and where they differ. Rather than simply revealing the most popular response, the facilitator uses the results to encourage discussion. Participants can explain their reasoning and reconsider their initial interpretations after hearing from others.
Key Design Decisions
My main design decision was to use technology to make learners' thinking visible, rather than simply make the presentation more entertaining.
I was especially interested in creating opportunities for quieter participants to contribute. In workplace training, people may hesitate to share their opinions about sensitive communication issues, particularly when senior colleagues or supervisors are present. Anonymous responses can lower some of the barriers to participation and give facilitators a better starting point for an inclusive discussion.
I also chose a two-dimensional rating activity rather than a traditional multiple-choice question. Communication is rarely a matter of something being entirely right or wrong. A manager's response might be clear but lack empathy, for example. Evaluating both dimensions invites learners to think more carefully about the subtleties of a conversation.
Another important decision was to build facilitated reflection into the activity. I did not want the learning experience to end once everyone submitted a response. The real value would come from exploring why people interpreted the situation differently and what those differences might teach us about communication at work.
Learning Theories and Course Ideas in Practice
One of the most influential frameworks in this project was Meaningful Online Learning, discussed by Dabbagh and colleagues (2018). I was particularly drawn to the idea that learners should help construct knowledge rather than simply receive information from an instructor.
The framework's emphasis on active, constructive, and cooperative learning shaped the way I structured the Mentimeter experience. Participants first make an individual judgment about a workplace situation. When they see their responses alongside those of their peers, they have an opportunity to compare their thinking with other interpretations. The subsequent discussion encourages them to question assumptions and possibly revise their understanding.
Dabbagh and colleagues also discuss the use of technology as a Mindtool: a means of representing and working with learners' thinking. This idea helped me see Mentimeter as more than an audience-response platform. In my design, the visual display becomes a shared representation of the group's developing understanding. Learners can examine it together rather than treating their responses as isolated answers.
Bower's (2008) functional affordances framework was another important influence. It encouraged me to begin with the learning task and then identify the technological features that would support it. For example, I selected the two-dimensional plot because it could display different judgments simultaneously, making patterns and disagreements easier to discuss. The real-time nature of the tool also supports immediate feedback during a synchronous session. Its anonymous response feature is particularly relevant when participants are exploring communication challenges that might feel uncomfortable to discuss openly.
What I appreciated about Bower's approach was the reminder that the educational value of a tool does not come from the number of features it offers. A feature is useful when it helps learners do something that matters.
I also drew on Mayer's (2014) multimedia learning principles, particularly the importance of managing cognitive demands. I designed the activity around a short video scenario and a focused evaluation task rather than presenting too much information at once. The visual results would help organize the group's responses, while the facilitator's questions would direct attention toward the reasoning behind them. My goal was to create space for deeper thinking rather than overwhelm participants with content.
Finally, the RIPPLES model, presented by Surry and Ensminger (2006), helped me consider what would be required to implement this experience successfully in an organization. It pushed me to look beyond the instructional activity itself.
For example, even a thoughtfully designed Mentimeter session could be unsuccessful if facilitators were not prepared to interpret responses or manage sensitive discussions. Participants would also need reliable access to the technology and a clear understanding of how their answers might be used. I therefore included facilitator preparation, technical support, privacy considerations, and evaluation as important parts of the implementation plan.
This was a valuable shift in my thinking. I began to understand technology integration not simply as choosing the right tool, but as preparing an environment in which that tool can genuinely support learning.
Personal Reflection
This project helped me appreciate the difference between getting people to participate and helping them learn.
It is easy to feel that an interactive activity has been successful when everyone responds to a poll or the screen fills with colorful results. But those responses tell us relatively little about whether participants have developed a better understanding of supportive communication.
What matters is how the activity influences their thinking. I became particularly interested in the conversations that could emerge when people disagreed about a supervisor's response. Those moments could reveal assumptions that might otherwise remain unnoticed, especially when participants come from different professional or cultural backgrounds.
I also grew more aware of the importance of psychological safety. While anonymity can encourage participation, it does not automatically make a learning environment safe. Facilitators still need to establish trust and respond thoughtfully when participants express different or unpopular opinions.
If I were to implement this plan, I would begin with a small pilot. Beyond examining participation rates and learner feedback, I would want to understand whether the activities helped participants explain communication choices more thoughtfully and apply those insights in real workplace conversations.
Ultimately, this project reinforced an important part of my learning design philosophy: technology is most valuable when it helps people think more deeply and learn from one another.
The Mentimeter activities were never intended to replace meaningful human conversation. Their purpose was to make that conversation richer.
References
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis—Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.
Dabbagh, N., Marra, R. M., & Howland, J. L. (2018). Pedagogical ecology of meaningful online learning: Meaningful online learning design framework. In Meaningful online learning: Integrating strategies, activities, and learning technologies for effective designs. Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Multimedia instruction. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. C. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 385–399). Springer.
Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. C. (2006). Facilitating the use of web-based learning by higher education faculty. ERIC.