Overall Satisfaction with Miro
In online courses, we like to foster student engagement and collaborative problem-solving. We used to use Padlet, but the price has risen. Miro provides a free educator license, and with that, we are able to provide students with engagement activities. We also use it to collaborate with faculty and administration when we are working on a problem in an asynchronous situation.
- Asynchronous collaboration.
- Collaboration with graphics.
- Online voting.
- Miro has amazing training resources, but it's still hard to get a clear idea of how to add users where they can collaborate using a link vs. having to sign in.
- I would like to be able to lock some graphics in the workspace but allow users to manipulate or add to others.
- Miro helped my team to gather information from stakeholders to shape a process that had buy-in across the institution.
- Miro has saved us on costs to other products that have upped their prices. It's great because Miro has more and better features.
I was not involved in the implementation of Miro. It was recommended to me by our technology department. So, it was very satisfying to me. And the excellent training resources provided by Miro follow best practices and make it easy to achieve goals.
We use several products in tandem with Miro--Teams, Zoom, Collaborate Ultra, D2L, and SoftChalk. It integrates easily with all of these tools.
We are able to get stakeholder input on important topics and processes easily--either in a virtual meeting or asynchronously. We just send out the email with the link to the board. Before, we were limited to a certain number of boards or words or images with other products, and that is not the case with Miro.
Do you think Miro delivers good value for the price?
Are you happy with Miro's feature set?
Did Miro live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of Miro go as expected?
Would you buy Miro again?
Collaborate Ultra's whiteboard feature was clunky and limited--and there was no way to save it and pass it around after the meeting ended. Padlet is great for educators and students to understand immediately how to use it. It's the known product on the market for student engagement. But Padlet's "free educator account" is now limited to three boards. Lino is my favorite tool for just student discussions. It is completely free and has more functionality than Padlet. However, Miro has more functionality than Lino and has a better look--a better product for impressing stakeholders. I can make individual, virtual worksheets for students using Miro and move students in and out of Miro projects as they work individually, collaborate, and then peer review.
Miro is great for real-time collaboration in current work environments where users are teleworking. Users can update the project, move to another project, come back to see what has changed and add any additional comments or information, or graphics. We tried to use it for voting, and it was difficult for users to see what they were voting on and how to vote--even though Miro has a robust training and a robust voting program. With more use and experience, I think the voting feature will prove valuable and effective. We also used it in a teaching module where users matched the labels to the correct image, and that was a nice, interactive activity for users in a remote learning environment as well as users in an asynchronous online course--every user had an individual Miro board to complete the project.