Handbook of Research on Mobile Devices and Smart Gadgets in K-12 Education 9781522527060, 9781522527077, 1522527060

Citation preview

Handbook of Research on Mobile Devices and Smart Gadgets in K-12 Education Amar Ali Khan National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Sajid Umair National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2018 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Khan, Amar Ali, 1989- editor. | Umair, Sajid, 1992- editor. Title: Handbook of research on mobile devices and smart gadgets in K-12 education / Amar Ali Khan and Sajid Umair, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017008845| ISBN 9781522527060 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522527077 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Mobile communication systems in education. | Computer-assisted instruction. | Tablet computers. | Smartphones. | Education--Effect of technological innovations on. Classification: LCC LB1044.84 .H364 2018 | DDC 371.33--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017008845

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series Lawrence A. Tomei Robert Morris University, USA

ISSN:2326-8905 EISSN:2326-8913 Mission

Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and distributed to both child and adult learners. From distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of the educational experience and is also affecting the way educators communicate information to students. The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series is a resource where researchers, students, administrators, and educators alike can find the most updated research and theories regarding technology’s integration within education and its effect on teaching as a practice.

Coverage • Curriculum Development • Higher Education Technologies • Web 2.0 and Education • Collaboration Tools • Instructional Design • Social Media Effects on Education • E-Learning • Online Media in Classrooms • Digital Divide in Education • Instructional Design Models

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2018 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com/book-series

Optimizing STEM Education With Advanced ICTs and Simulations Ilya Levin (Tel Aviv University, Israel) and Dina Tsybulsky (Tel Aviv University, Israel) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 344pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522525288) • US $180.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Classroom Diversity and Inclusive Education Practice Christina M. Curran (University of Northern Iowa, USA) and Amy J. Petersen (University of Northern Iowa, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 552pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522525202) • US $235.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Educational Technology Terry Kidd (University of Houston-Downtown, USA) and Lonnie R. Morris, Jr. (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 493pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522523994) • US $265.00 (our price) Applying the Flipped Classroom Model to English Language Arts Education Carl A. Young (North Carolina State University, USA) and Clarice M. Moran (Kennesaw State University, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 277pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522522423) • US $185.00 (our price) Digital Tools and Solutions for Inquiry-Based STEM Learning Ilya Levin (Tel Aviv University, Israel) and Dina Tsybulsky (Tel Aviv University, Israel) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 371pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522525257) • US $180.00 (our price) Exploration of Textual Interactions in CALL Learning Communities Emerging Research and Opportunities Jonathan R. White (Högskolan Dalarna, Sweden) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 195pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522521426) • US $120.00 (our price) Mobile Technologies and Augmented Reality in Open Education Gulsun Kurubacak (Anadolu University, Turkey) and Hakan Altinpulluk (Anadolu University, Turkey) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 366pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522521105) • US $185.00 (our price) Cases on STEAM Education in Practice Judith Bazler (Monmouth University, USA) and Meta Van Sickle (College of Charleston, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 375pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522523345) • US $195.00 (our price)

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com

Editorial Advisory Board Farzana Ahmad, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Beena Anil, SDNB Vaishnav College for Women, India Todd Sloan Cherner, Portland State University, USA Joshua Elliott, Fairfield University, USA Janell Harvey, DeVry University, USA Kijpokin Kasemsap, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University Bangkok, Thailand Selma Koc, Cleveland State University, USA Kevin S. Krahenbuhl, Middle Tennessee State University, USA R. Parkavi, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India Beverly B. Ray, Idaho State University, USA Ramazan Yılmaz, Bartin University, Turkey



List of Contributors

Abdullah, A. Sheik / Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India...................................................... 177 Adjin-Tettey, Theodora Dame / University of Professional Studies, Ghana..................................... 225 Akrobotu, Vincentia Abui / University of Professional Studies, Ghana........................................... 225 Anastasi, Alessandra / University of Messina, Italy......................................................................... 286 Anil, Beena / SDNB Vaishnav College for Women, India.................................................................. 240 Bennani, Samir / Mohammed V University, Morocco....................................................................... 149 Bennett, Julia / Beaver Area School District, USA........................................................................... 194 Cherner, Todd Sloan / Portland State University, USA..................................................................... 134 Elliott, Joshua / Fairfield University, USA........................................................................................ 308 Epasto, Aldo / University of Messina, Italy....................................................................................... 286 Ezin, Cigdem Cavus / Ministry of National Education, Turkey........................................................... 87 Faure, Caroline E. / Idaho State University, USA................................................................................ 16 Goodell, Joanne E. / Cleveland State University, USA...................................................................... 103 Haq, Noorul / Icon School and College, Pakistan............................................................................. 115 Harvey, Janell / DeVry University, USA............................................................................................ 252 Hasan, Md Mahmudul / Anglia Ruskin University, UK...................................................................... 32 Hashmi, Shazia Iqbal / University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia......................................................... 264 Hohenwarter, Markus / Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria................................................... 45 Idrissi, Mohammed Khalidi / Mohammed V University, Morocco................................................... 149 Karthikeyan, P. / Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India........................................................... 177 Khan, Amar Ali / National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan......................... 1 Khattak, Nayab / Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan...................................................... 115 Koc, Selma / Cleveland State University, USA.................................................................................. 103 Kocadere, Selay Arkün / Hacettepe University, Turkey...................................................................... 45 Kokopeli, Eva Marie / Portland State University, USA..................................................................... 134 Krahenbuhl, Kevin S. / Middle Tennessee State University, USA....................................................... 77 Mahmood, Afshan S. / Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan.............................................. 115 Maqsood, Manzile / National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan.................... 1 Marzouki, Ouiame Filali / Mohammed V University, Morocco........................................................ 149 Mazzeo, Alessandro / University of Messina, Italy........................................................................... 286 McKain, Danielle / Beaver Area School District, USA..................................................................... 194 Nucera, Sebastiano / University of Messina, Italy............................................................................ 286 Parkavi, R. / Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India.................................................................. 177 Pioggia, Giovanni / Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy............................... 286 Ray, Beverly B. / Idaho State University, USA..................................................................................... 16  



Saglam, Asli Lidice Gokturk / Ozyegin University Istanbul, Turkey................................................ 321 Schriever, Vicki / University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia........................................................... 57 Seok, Chua Bee / University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia................................................................... 264 Smeriglio, Donatello / University of Messina, Italy.......................................................................... 286 Sujitha, S. / Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India.................................................................... 177 Tartarisco, Gennaro / Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy.......................... 286 Tomaschko, Melanie / Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria...................................................... 45 Umair, Sajid / National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan....................... 1,115 Yee, Hon Kai / University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia....................................................................... 264 Yilmaz, Fatma Gizem Karaoglan / Bartin University, Turkey........................................................... 87 Yilmaz, Ramazan / Bartin University, Turkey.................................................................................... 87

Table of Contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xix Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx Acknowledgment................................................................................................................................ xxii Chapter 1 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children...... 1 Amar Ali Khan, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Manzile Maqsood, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Sajid Umair, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Chapter 2 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets: Promoting Active Learning of Key K-12 Social Science Skills......... 16 Beverly B. Ray, Idaho State University, USA Caroline E. Faure, Idaho State University, USA Chapter 3 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents................................................................... 32 Md Mahmudul Hasan, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Chapter 4 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps................................................................................................................................. 45 Melanie Tomaschko, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Selay Arkün Kocadere, Hacettepe University, Turkey Markus Hohenwarter, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Chapter 5 Digital Technology in Kindergarten: Challenges and Opportunities..................................................... 57 Vicki Schriever, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Chapter 6 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom........................................................... 77 Kevin S. Krahenbuhl, Middle Tennessee State University, USA  



Chapter 7 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Tablet PC Acceptance............................................................................................................................................. 87 Ramazan Yilmaz, Bartin University, Turkey Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz, Bartin University, Turkey Cigdem Cavus Ezin, Ministry of National Education, Turkey Chapter 8 Preparing Teachers for Mobile Learning Applications Grounded in Research and Pedagogical Frameworks.......................................................................................................................................... 103 Selma Koc, Cleveland State University, USA Joanne E. Goodell, Cleveland State University, USA Chapter 9 Technology Integration and Upgradation of Higher Secondary Education: Need of the Hour in Pakistan................................................................................................................................................ 115 Afshan S. Mahmood, Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan Nayab Khattak, Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan Noorul Haq, Icon School and College, Pakistan Sajid Umair, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Chapter 10 Using Web 2.0 Tools to Start a WebQuest Renaissance...................................................................... 134 Todd Sloan Cherner, Portland State University, USA Eva Marie Kokopeli, Portland State University, USA Chapter 11 Investigating Students’ Acceptance and Intention to Use Mobile Learning in Moroccan Higher Education............................................................................................................................................. 149 Ouiame Filali Marzouki, Mohammed V University, Morocco Mohammed Khalidi Idrissi, Mohammed V University, Morocco Samir Bennani, Mohammed V University, Morocco Chapter 12 Mobile Devices in the Classroom........................................................................................................ 177 R. Parkavi, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India A. Sheik Abdullah, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India S. Sujitha, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India P. Karthikeyan, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India Chapter 13 The iPad: A Mobile Learning Device and Innovative Note-Taking Tool............................................ 194 Julia Bennett, Beaver Area School District, USA Danielle McKain, Beaver Area School District, USA



Chapter 14 A Critical Analysis of the Use of Mobile Devices in the Classroom and Its Implication for Teaching and Learning......................................................................................................................... 225 Theodora Dame Adjin-Tettey, University of Professional Studies, Ghana Vincentia Abui Akrobotu, University of Professional Studies, Ghana Chapter 15 Smart E-Communication Through Smart Phones............................................................................... 240 Beena Anil, SDNB Vaishnav College for Women, India Chapter 16 An Analysis of Mobile Applications for Early Childhood Students With Bilateral Hearing Loss..... 252 Janell Harvey, DeVry University, USA Chapter 17 Does Gadget Usage Hamper the Psychological Aspects of Pre-Schoolers?........................................ 264 Hon Kai Yee, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Chua Bee Seok, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Shazia Iqbal Hashmi, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Chapter 18 Ubiquitous, Wearable, Mobile: Paradigm Shifts in E-Learning and Diffusion of Knowledge............ 286 Sebastiano Nucera, University of Messina, Italy Gennaro Tartarisco, Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy Aldo Epasto, University of Messina, Italy Donatello Smeriglio, University of Messina, Italy Alessandro Mazzeo, University of Messina, Italy Giovanni Pioggia, Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy Alessandra Anastasi, University of Messina, Italy Chapter 19 Using Mobile Technology for Formative Assessment in the Classroom............................................. 308 Joshua Elliott, Fairfield University, USA Chapter 20 The Integration of Educational Technology for Classroom-Based Formative Assessment to Empower Teaching and Learning........................................................................................................ 321 Asli Lidice Gokturk Saglam, Ozyegin University Istanbul, Turkey Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 342 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 396

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xix Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx Acknowledgment................................................................................................................................ xxii Chapter 1 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children...... 1 Amar Ali Khan, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Manzile Maqsood, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Sajid Umair, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan English is considered as a universal and global language. It serves as a bridge between different cultures and countries. Owing to its great importance research studies are being carried out across the world in order to find out the best ways of teaching English Language at earlier stages of schooling. One such identified way is balanced literacy. This is a systematic approach towards teaching English not as a subject but as a language. This study was conducted to see the effect of technology infused balanced literacy approach on the learning skills and engagement level of English learners in context of Pakistani schools where English is taught as a second Language. An intervention of six weeks was carried out. During the study the conventional teaching methodology of English was also observed. The results of the study suggest the use of balanced literacy for improvement of reading skills. Chapter 2 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets: Promoting Active Learning of Key K-12 Social Science Skills......... 16 Beverly B. Ray, Idaho State University, USA Caroline E. Faure, Idaho State University, USA The chapter proposes to outline best practices in the use of a set of mini-robots (i.e., smart gadgets) to promote active and meaningful learning in the Social Sciences. Key K-12 social science skills supported by their use include coding, sequencing, including time lining, map making, planning, organizing, peer collaboration, and the comprehension and interpretation of maps and written texts. The theoretical foundation supporting the use in the Social Sciences of is examined in this chapter. Next, barriers to use are explored before moving into an examination of one strategy for integration into the Social Sciences. Finally, the chapter concludes with an exploration of issues and recommendations for mitigating those issues will be discussed along with linkage of use to specific Social Science concept (i.e., discovery, exploration, and technology). 



Chapter 3 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents................................................................... 32 Md Mahmudul Hasan, Anglia Ruskin University, UK This chapter sheds light on gamification aspects in a course content and how it can be implemented to enhance students’ performance. The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of designing gamified content in the classroom by ‘gamispire-wheel’. It also focuses on implementing existing tool such as ClassDojo. It is especially written for teachers, researchers, practitioners, educationists and students. To make the chapter self-explanatory for the readers, a case study has been illustrated that can be utilised in the classroom. In addition to that, key gamification elements have been mentioned. Moreover, this chapter provides step by step guidelines to design, develop and implement gamified course contents using the web or mobile phones. Chapter 4 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps................................................................................................................................. 45 Melanie Tomaschko, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Selay Arkün Kocadere, Hacettepe University, Turkey Markus Hohenwarter, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria The development of mobile devices as well as the technical possibilities going along with this progress are extensive. Especially since the last few years, the widespread availability of mobile technologies offers new opportunities to improve learning and teaching both in- and outside of classrooms. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) models can help to support the shift towards more student-centered learning environments with their unique benefits for learning. This chapter takes a closer look at GeoGebra, a set of apps for learning and teaching mathematics and science, and how they can support teaching, learning, and assessing in relation to the aspects of participation, personalization, and productivity of BYOD. Chapter 5 Digital Technology in Kindergarten: Challenges and Opportunities..................................................... 57 Vicki Schriever, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia This chapter examines the literature surrounding digital technologies within kindergarten. It highlights the ways in which mobile devices and smart gadgets are used by early childhood teachers and young children in diverse teacher-focused and child-centred approaches. The challenges faced by early childhood teachers to successfully use and integrate mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten will be explored. These challenges include, meeting curriculum requirements, mediating parental expectations, seeing the potential of digital technologies, having the confidence and self-efficacy to use digital devices and determining the value and place of digital technologies within a play-based environment. Each of these challenges are explored within the chapter and the ways these challenges can be overcome are detailed. The opportunities which mobile devices and smart gadgets present to maximise young children’s learning, play and engagement and which facilitate and support the role of the early childhood teacher will also be examined.



Chapter 6 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom........................................................... 77 Kevin S. Krahenbuhl, Middle Tennessee State University, USA This chapter presents a contextual overview of common misconceptions, challenges, and conceptual frames of importance with respect to learning with technology. Having explored these foundational elements, it adapts principles of learning and multimedia informed by empirical research in cognitive science for the technology-enhanced classroom. The chapter concludes with areas for future research expanding on this synthesis of research and a discussion of its implications and applications for educators in these technologically rich learning environments. Chapter 7 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Tablet PC Acceptance............................................................................................................................................. 87 Ramazan Yilmaz, Bartin University, Turkey Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz, Bartin University, Turkey Cigdem Cavus Ezin, Ministry of National Education, Turkey In this study, it has been attempted to examine the role of self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation in students’ status of tablet PC acceptance at a high school where each student’s processes of classroom and out of class learning are tried to be supported upon delivery of tablets to each student. The participants of the research have been consisted of 310 high school students. The data of the research has been obtained with use of questionnaire questions developed by the researchers, the tablet PC acceptance scale, self-directed learning with technology scale and the academic motivation scale. The structural equation modelling has been made use of data analysis. Research findings have shown that self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation were in turn effective in students’ tablet PC acceptance. Some suggestions have been made for students, teachers and administrators in the light of findings of the research. Chapter 8 Preparing Teachers for Mobile Learning Applications Grounded in Research and Pedagogical Frameworks.......................................................................................................................................... 103 Selma Koc, Cleveland State University, USA Joanne E. Goodell, Cleveland State University, USA Contrary to the benefits and opportunities mobile learning may provide, “Teacher preparation programs are often devoid of opportunities to teach with mobiles” (Herro, Kiger, & Owens, 2013, p. 31). Educators need to understand the pedagogical affordances and limitations of mobile technology tools and develop materials and lessons based on frameworks or models grounded in research and practice. This article presents an overview of research and mobile learning integration frameworks in order to provide a theoretical and practical basis for app selection and integration in the K-12 and higher education classroom. Educators need to understand the pedagogical affordances and limitations of mobile technology tools and develop materials and lessons based on frameworks or models grounded in research and practice. This article presents an overview of research and mobile learning integration frameworks in order to provide a theoretical and practical basis for app selection and integration in the K-12 and higher education classroom.



Chapter 9 Technology Integration and Upgradation of Higher Secondary Education: Need of the Hour in Pakistan................................................................................................................................................ 115 Afshan S. Mahmood, Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan Nayab Khattak, Pakistan Degree College Nowshera, Pakistan Noorul Haq, Icon School and College, Pakistan Sajid Umair, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Given the growing impact of Science and Technology, particularly, information and communication technologies on every dimension of human life today, many parts of the world have been quicker in their response to the change for their own betterment. The wise realize that education lies at the centre of development in all fields. Therefore, these nations are now focused on upgrading all tiers of education to equip their youth with all essential skills to not only survive but lead their nations through 21st century. Pakistan is, unfortunately, one of the countries that lag behind. It has been, though, successful in upgradation of higher education. A lot needs to be done to bring school and college education up to the mark. Higher secondary education needs specific focus as this stage marks transitional phase of a child from adolescence to early adulthood at 16-18; hence significant changes in child’s overall personality. Chapter 10 Using Web 2.0 Tools to Start a WebQuest Renaissance...................................................................... 134 Todd Sloan Cherner, Portland State University, USA Eva Marie Kokopeli, Portland State University, USA Technology is part of the modern world and students must have authentic experiences using it as part of their compulsory education. The challenge, however, is that models for embedding technology into classroom instruction can be vague, misleading, or promote the use of technology for technology’s sake. In this chapter, the authors open with a discussion of WebQuests. They then explain how WebQuests can be redesigned using Web 2.0 tools – mainly apps that run on digital devices – in a way that develops students’ inquiry skills and digital literacy abilities. The chapter concludes with examples of these enhanced WebQuests that teachers can use as a scaffold when developing their own versions. Chapter 11 Investigating Students’ Acceptance and Intention to Use Mobile Learning in Moroccan Higher Education............................................................................................................................................. 149 Ouiame Filali Marzouki, Mohammed V University, Morocco Mohammed Khalidi Idrissi, Mohammed V University, Morocco Samir Bennani, Mohammed V University, Morocco Giving the mobile technologies increasing adoption in Morocco, the authors explore students’ intention to use mobile learning in their learning and teaching processes. A survey has been purposely designed targeting final year students from different Moroccan universities. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is used to determine students’ intention to use mobile learning determinants. The chapter details the data analysis results using descriptive and inferential statistics to test TAM hypothesis and answer research questions. The survey also investigates the main instructional teaching approaches used inside and outside the classrooms. 1298 Responses were analyzed, 44.3% of the respondents were male and 55.7% were female and both show positive attitude and perception towards mobile learning. Smart devices ownership and areas of study proved to be determinants of mobile learning intention to use with large effect size. Student’s prior experience, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use influence the behavioral intention to use mobile learning.



Chapter 12 Mobile Devices in the Classroom........................................................................................................ 177 R. Parkavi, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India A. Sheik Abdullah, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India S. Sujitha, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India P. Karthikeyan, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, India Mobile Learning plays a vital role in the field of education technology. Technology changed from time to time from traditional method of teaching to e-learning and then now moved to m-learning (mobilelearning), but the concept of education remains the same. In this chapter the objective is to review the benefits and challenges of using mobile devices (m-learning) in class room in the field of educational technology. The term educational technology is the combination of education and technology. Technology changes from time to time with the development of digital technology, but education remains the same. Chapter 13 The iPad: A Mobile Learning Device and Innovative Note-Taking Tool............................................ 194 Julia Bennett, Beaver Area School District, USA Danielle McKain, Beaver Area School District, USA Mobile learning is becoming more prominent in all levels of education. While educators strive to keep up with the learning needs of twenty-first century students, research on best practices for mobile devices in the classroom is limited. There is a great deal of research on traditional note-taking, but mobile devices have changed the way students take notes. While electronic note-taking began with simply typing notes on a laptop computer, it has quickly transformed into a multitude of options with various note-taking applications (apps). The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief review of mobile devices and note-taking in K-12 classrooms. Additionally, it reviews and compares features of eight note-taking applications. These apps change how notes are taken, organized, stored, and accessed. This chapter provides an overview of each application with specific examples using Notability, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of taking notes on the iPad. Chapter 14 A Critical Analysis of the Use of Mobile Devices in the Classroom and Its Implication for Teaching and Learning......................................................................................................................... 225 Theodora Dame Adjin-Tettey, University of Professional Studies, Ghana Vincentia Abui Akrobotu, University of Professional Studies, Ghana The use of mobile devices, especially, by teens has been looked at with much apprehension and suspicion with some saying that it can be used to acquire information which can be detrimental to their social and psychological growth. Some teachers complain that it affects teens’ studies as these teenagers stay up late in the night browsing, chatting, watching movies and playing games which cause them to sleep in class or pay little attention because of tiredness. In Ghana students in public schools up to Senior High School are not allowed to use personal mobile phones, laptops and other mobile gadgets in school because of implications such as those enumerated above. On the other hand, some, including those in prominent positions in government, have called for a rethink of such a directive by the Ministry of Education. This chapter critically looks into previous literature on the use of mobile devices in the classroom and suggests ways in which it can be effectively used to advance academic work in the classroom.



Chapter 15 Smart E-Communication Through Smart Phones............................................................................... 240 Beena Anil, SDNB Vaishnav College for Women, India The advancements in digital technology have made the learning and understanding process, a simple and candid one. Today’s children want to learn colorfully and practically in the classroom. In this technological era, gadgets are helpful for teachers to develop e-teaching in the classroom. Smartphone is a very common gadget that is being used in all the developed and developing countries. Smartphone is an interesting teaching tool which would help students to learn deliberately. This paper examines how Smartphone is helpful for learners from K-12 grades to learn and develop e-communication Chapter 16 An Analysis of Mobile Applications for Early Childhood Students With Bilateral Hearing Loss..... 252 Janell Harvey, DeVry University, USA The present research reviews Dolch Sight Word Apps and their potential impact on early childhood classrooms when students with bilaterial hearing loss are present. Little research exists that articulates the impact of such technological intervention, this paper therefore provides a framework for future study. Although few teachers incorporate mobile apps into the early childhood classroom, this paper provides a strategy for instructors should they choose to in the future. This strategy entitled, low-tech, mid-tech, high-tech, provides examples of a number of activities that help teachers to design their classroom ranging from basic activities to those that are technologically focused. Chapter 17 Does Gadget Usage Hamper the Psychological Aspects of Pre-Schoolers?........................................ 264 Hon Kai Yee, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Chua Bee Seok, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Shazia Iqbal Hashmi, University Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia The society is keen to rely on gadgets in everyday life due to versatile gadgets that help them to connect with the world in the 21st century. On the flip side of using gadgets, several researches argued that screen time is affecting children’s psychosocial, behavioural and health problems. The present study interviewed 14 preschool teachers to perceive their knowledge in gadget usage, sedentary behaviour and social skills among preschoolers. Besides that, teaching methods and teachers’ opinions on gadget usage were also discussed. Inductive analysis (IA) revealed that parents habitually offer children gadgets at home. Also, the teachers expressed a positive opinion on gadget usage where preschoolers simply learn from media and gadget’s applications. However, the teachers asserted that usage time needs to be controlled and the amount of usage depends on the role of parents and teachers. Teachers’ attitude and habits were found to be moderate in lesson planning and improving the social skills of preschoolers but minimal for addressing their sedentary behaviour.



Chapter 18 Ubiquitous, Wearable, Mobile: Paradigm Shifts in E-Learning and Diffusion of Knowledge............ 286 Sebastiano Nucera, University of Messina, Italy Gennaro Tartarisco, Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy Aldo Epasto, University of Messina, Italy Donatello Smeriglio, University of Messina, Italy Alessandro Mazzeo, University of Messina, Italy Giovanni Pioggia, Institute of Applied Sciences and Intelligent Systems, Italy Alessandra Anastasi, University of Messina, Italy Ubiquitous devices and wearable technologies are becoming smaller and more rich in features to meet user demands and applications. The emergence of ever more sophisticated technologies has created new relationships between real, virtual, and augmented world. This is quite evident, within educational contexts. This chapter will explore new learning approaches based on virtual and augmented reality technologies. Virtual and augmented realities dispense specific knowledge and information. This chapter will discuss augmented reality and education applications based on virtual reality. The chapter will differentiate between ways in which wearable technologies enhance and restructure teaching and learning processes. To circumscribe a well-defined level of analysis, the chapter will examine experiences of using wearable technology within educational contexts. Chapter 19 Using Mobile Technology for Formative Assessment in the Classroom............................................. 308 Joshua Elliott, Fairfield University, USA A Bring Your Own Device Policy (BYOD), although open to criticism, has many benefits. One significant benefit of a BYOD policy is the opportunities for formative assessment opened up when students can access devices on an individual level. BYOD policies are often implemented in an effort to place a device in the hands of every student when district funding would not allow it. The value of formative assessment lies in its ability to provide teachers with information about the level of student understanding. This chapter provides an overview of BYOD, formative assessments, and where they can intersect. States possible concerns and issues associated with the use of personal student devices in an educational setting along with possible ways of addressing these concerns and issues. It also gives specific strategies for developing and implementing formative assessments in a BYOD classroom. This chapter also includes specific tools as well as their strengths and weaknesses.



Chapter 20 The Integration of Educational Technology for Classroom-Based Formative Assessment to Empower Teaching and Learning........................................................................................................ 321 Asli Lidice Gokturk Saglam, Ozyegin University Istanbul, Turkey As educational technology continues to change the face of educational contexts in the digital age, the way in which teachers can incorporate various existing online resources and applications within their everyday classroom activities deserves closer attention. In particular, it is important to explore how interactive Web 2.0 tools might be integrated into classroom-based assessment practices. This way, the efficacy of online tools and their ability to both facilitate teacher assessment practices and empower student learning can be adequately assessed. This chapter aims to explore, showcase and discuss how Web 2.0 tools can be integrated into teachers’ classroom-based language assessment to get information that can be used diagnostically to adjust teaching and learning with reference to current literature, explore challenges and focus on suggestions and avenues for further research. Furthermore, examples of web tools that could be used for formative assessment will be briefly enlisted. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 342 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 396

xix

Foreword

The increasing need for technology integration in education reveals a focus on associated tools and strategies applied to various educational settings, while less emphasis is placed on the appropriate use of pedagogy. That is due, in part, to the fact that reaching a balance between instructional technology and pedagogy is a difficult endeavor. Across the world, new solutions or initiatives, such as One Tablet per Child, blended learning, formative assessment and instant feedback systems are pursued to help both researchers and practitioners understand better how to improve instruction mediated by emerging technologies. While these solutions or initiatives have been proven to facilitate instruction as well as associated management processes, further investigation is needed with regard to student learning outcomes. As most recent models are technology-centered rather than user-centered, further questions remain about how to customize learning according to varied student needs. To that effect, the principles of Universal Design of Learning state that content should be presented in multiple formats to enhance accessibility for students, given their wide range of learning styles and preferences. The aforementioned solutions or initiatives seem to facilitate learning by providing students maximum visual representation, while not keeping kinesthetic and auditory delivery modes in balance. Moreover, due to the lack of hands-on activities, learners who may have less of a preference for visual instruction may find content more difficult to comprehend. Under these circumstances, this handbook provides insights into how to balance emerging instructional technologies with pedagogical tools and strategies designed to support their effective applications into practice. I found the theoretical considerations and practical examples included in the handbook to be both interesting and valuable. Therefore, it is my hope that your professional endeavors may be informed by any of the chapters you are about to read. Marius Boboc Cleveland State University, USA



xx

Preface

Technology is transforming each facet of life, whether it is communication, travelling, transfer of money (Banking) or even in sports the role of technology is significant. The technology has also an enormous role in the educational field. In terms of pacifying the learning process, improving the feedback systems, facilitating the students, the teacher and the management of the educational intuitions the technology comes as a handy tool. With the advent of personal gadgets such as smartphones, laptops and tablet PCs’ the role of technology in education further strengthens. Each day new applications and methods are developed for the appropriate use of technology in education. However, there are many unraveled areas in this field. This book aims to gather ideas for reaping the maximum potential of innovative technologies in education for the benefits of the academia and the industry. The academia will learn new ways of maximizing the learning using technology while the industry will get a look at the demand of new software’s, hardware’s, gadgets for the improvement of in class and out of class educational practices. This books aims to look into the opportunities of using hand held mobile devices in K-12 Education. Furthermore, it looks into the challenges associated with use of these gadgets and technology integrated course in class rooms. The international practices in integration of technology in education, lays emphasis on the maximum use of technology in classrooms while less focus is being paid to the appropriate use of pedagogy. Achieving the right mix of technology and pedagogy i.e. the instructional method of implementation of technology in class room is the challenging issue. Across the world, new interventions like One Tablet per Child, Blended Learning, Formative Assessment and instant feedback system are being carried out to pace up the learning process. These interventions though facilitates instructors, make the learning process easy for those students and make the life of management easy, but again the questions are being raised over the learning outcomes. The optimum learning outcomes are yet to be achieved. Most of these models are technology centered rather than user centered. No such advances have been made to make the learning process as individualized and customized according to the needs of student. The principals of Universal Design of Learning states that the learning content should be present in multi formats to make it easily assessable to each learner. Every student has his/her own learning styles and preferences. The auditory, kinesthetic and visual forms the main categories of these learning styles. The initiatives as earlier mentioned, if on one hand facilitates the learning process of the visual learners by providing them maximum visual representation, on other hand keeps the other kinesthetic and auditory learner at a slight disadvantage. Due to lack of hands on activities and auditory lessons the other two forms of learners finds it difficult to grasp the content knowledge. A part from learning styles several other issues in class can be tackled with the appropriate use of technology. The book explores these opportunities and challenges associated with the use of mobile devices in K-12 education. Class insights, theories, class intervention and practical demonstration are welcomed to be included in the book.  

Preface

The objective of the books is to provide the scholars with a platform to disseminate the ideas, advancement and practices about the role of technology, especially the mobile technology like tablet PCs’, smart phone and other smart gadgets in education in general and with special emphasis on K-12 education. One of the purposes is to create the awareness in the academia about thinking new ways of teaching using technology. The extended purpose of the book brings the technology related and education related people on a single platform for the welfare of education and the people related to the field of education. There are many experienced teachers who have the craft of teaching but are not aware about the technology; this is an attempt to reach such teachers so they can benefit from the ever-growing advancement of technology. The book has a direct impact on teachers and industry while it has indirect impact on the students learning the knowledge through formal setting in educational institutions or informally through online resources. The book will add value to the role of education in technology by disseminating new ideas and discussing new trends on the use of technology in education. The chapter on literacy in the handbook sets the tone by discussing the implementation of Balanced Literacy, a new approach to teaching reading comprehension, via tablet PC in classroom. The chapter sheds a light on the impact of combining Pedagogy and Technology to improve the reading skills of early graders. Another noteworthy chapter is Ubiquitous, Wearable, and Mobile: Paradigm Shifts in E-Learning and Diffusion of Knowledge which reviews a series of technology applications in the education system using augmented and virtual realities. The chapter also looks at what transpires when these technologies are used in a structured and unstructured educational setting. A special read for the trainers and special school teachers is a chapter titled as Preparing Teachers for Mobile Learning Applications Grounded in Research and Pedagogical Frameworks. This chapters attempts to provide an overview of current research and practice of mobile technology in schools in order to provide a theoretical and practical basis for app selection and integration in the classroom for effective teaching and learning. On a final note this handbook will serve as handy tool for the educational practitioners, teachers, subject experts, pedagogic, psychologists, researchers, policy makers, students and technology experts. It is a must read for the institutional administrations as they would learn from the best practices and will be able to apply these to their own institutions, thus leveraging the use of technology in education. Amar Ali Khan National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Sajid Umair National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan

xxi

xxii

Acknowledgment

First of all, we would like to thank Almighty ALLAH for making us capable to finish this work on time, without HIS help it wouldn’t have been possible. Secondly, the editors would like to thank all the contributors, authors, reviewers and specially IGI Global for providing us the platform to bring all the ideas from diverse background in one place. Finally, we would like to thank our alma mater i.e. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan where we nourished our ideas, learnt numerous research skills and enjoyed our life on campus.

 

1

Chapter 1

Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children Amar Ali Khan National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Manzile Maqsood National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan Sajid Umair National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan

ABSTRACT English is considered as a universal and global language. It serves as a bridge between different cultures and countries. Owing to its great importance research studies are being carried out across the world in order to find out the best ways of teaching English Language at earlier stages of schooling. One such identified way is balanced literacy. This is a systematic approach towards teaching English not as a subject but as a language. This study was conducted to see the effect of technology infused balanced literacy approach on the learning skills and engagement level of English learners in context of Pakistani schools where English is taught as a second Language. An intervention of six weeks was carried out. During the study the conventional teaching methodology of English was also observed. The results of the study suggest the use of balanced literacy for improvement of reading skills.

INTRODUCTION Reading is a fundamental and significant aspect of education. Various educational surveys undertaken by organizations reveal that students in Pakistan are lagging behind in reading scores in English language. Students in Pakistan are struggling with reading. The ASER (2014) report shows that only 57% of the 5th grade students were able to read sentences which they are supposed to be able to read in grade 2 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch001

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

(Daily Times, 2015) The same survey showed that the difference in reading level of Public schools and Private school, 63% of Grade 5 school children were able to read grade 2 level sentences as compared to 57% in Public Schools. Similarly, a report by UNESCO shows that 36% grade 5 students are unable to read an English sentence (5.5 Million out of school children UNESCO report, 2014). This is resulting in low literacy rate, low reading outcomes and decreased student performance. To overcome these barriers, pedagogical reforms are needed for proper imparting of English reading comprehension. One such Pedagogical reform is known as Balanced Literacy Approach. Unlike the conventional approaches of teaching reading comprehension, which focuses on reading drills, this approach takes in account different strategies to build sound reading capabilities of the students. The Balanced Literacy Approach usually requires enhanced amount of class duration, to decrease this time taken technology comes into play. Through proper use of technology, the components of Balanced Literacy Approach can be imparted without consuming additional class time. The focus of this study is to see the effectiveness of Technology Infused Balanced Literacy Approach as compared to conventional skill based approach in primary schools. In skill based approach the students are passed through mere reading drills and no focus is laid on their comprehension and phonic abilities. Whereas the Balanced Literacy Approach, through its multiple facets, takes in account different strategies like Read Aloud, Guided Reading, and Shared reading this not only improves the reading capabilities but also enhances the comprehension skills of individuals. A balanced literacy instruction can solve the problem of under achievers in reading and increase the reading potential of struggling reader (Baumann, 1997). In public schools the whole focus is on skills based approach, where the English is taught from curriculum books and stress is laid upon the learning of curriculum words (Bibi, 2009). This skills-based approach is also taking students away from reading books whether these are general or academic. It makes the students unable to apply the learned topics outside the classroom (Carr, 2007). To encourage students for reading books their reading skills needs to be enhanced, for this enhancement a methodology is needed to resolve this issue of low reading outcomes. Balanced Literacy, in which, reading comprehension is taught in interesting and effective way can be used to enhance the reading skills and stop this deviation of students from book reading. Books contains a treasure of knowledge, reading reduces stress and results in improved memory. It is a wellknown saying that “Readers of today are leaders of tomorrow”.

Reading “Reading is the process of looking at a series of written symbols and getting meaning from them” (My EnglishClub, 1997). The effective and proper reading takes place when the meaning is taken out of these symbols. Reading plays an important role not only in education but also in the day to day life of individuals and society (Freire, 1983). In education, its role is obvious, as the basic element for learning is a book and to get meaning out of the book one has to know how to read (DeMit, 2014). Similarly, in daily life one comes across reading medical prescriptions, reading traffic signs, reading the newspaper and such other things involves reading. The main goal of reading is not just to read but to derive meaning of what is being read. For deriving meaning reading comprehension comes into play. The ability of reading a text, processing it and then understanding it is called Reading comprehension (Taboada, 2012). Fundamentals of reading compre-

2

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

hension are taught at early level grades in schools (Yale, 2012). For a child to be able to read properly and understands it’s meaning he has to learn reading comprehension.

Approaches of Teaching Reading Comprehension There are two main approaches to teaching reading comprehension namely as Phonics approach and the Whole language approach (Brooks, 2005). Phonics approach is conventional approach towards teaching reading comprehension (Phonics, 2012). Phonics refers to associating letters or letter groups with sounds they represent. In this approach of teaching reading comprehension, the focus is laid on individual alphabets and letter. It is a systematic approach towards teaching the reading comprehension where a child is taught about the sound of individual alphabet, individual letter and then presented with the meaning and sound of complete word (Rayner, 2002). Whole language approach on other hand is method of teaching reading by recognizing words as a whole piece of language. This approach emphasizes on learning complete meaning of the word, there is no need of breaking word into pieces. This approach also suggests that student should be more concerned about the meaning rather than the sound. Whole language is believed to be constructivist approach to teaching reading comprehension where students create their own knowledge from what they see (Bomengen, 2010). Both of these approaches to teaching and learning reading comprehension have their pros and cons and there has been a historical debate on the issue of adopting either approach for teaching the English reading comprehension (Cromwell, 1997). The whole language approach can affect the learning of dyslexic students, students who find hard to see the whole picture and concentrate on small chunks. Whereas Phonic approach might result in sluggishness as it focuses on systematic way of learning so students might lose the track while focusing on rules of reading. Research shows that for better reading and understanding there is a need of integrating the whole language and the phonics (Heymsfeld, 1989). Luckily, we have this blend in the form of Balanced Literacy. A balanced literacy program strikes balance between whole language and phonics. Balanced Literacy approach towards reading comprehension combines the good aspects of whole language and phonics. The strongest elements of each are incorporated in balanced literacy program to enable the fluent, proficient and lifelong reading (Frey B. B., 2005). This results in positive and meaningful approach towards reading comprehension. Balanced literacy is a comprehensive program of language arts acquisition. It contains all the components necessary for students to master written and oral communication (Bennet).

Balanced Literacy Approach Balanced literacy has five components namely as read aloud, guided reading, shared reading, independent reading and word study (Balanced Literacy, 2014). By using the balanced approach to teach reading comprehension, positive results in terms of learning can be yielded. The research has proved that balanced literacy is the best approach towards teaching reading comprehension (Marshall, n.d.). Balanced Literacy has many definitions and interpretations (Freppon, 1998). From those many definitions, one interesting definition is that Balanced literacy is “a philosophical orientation that assumes that reading and writing achievement are developed through instruction and support in multiple environments in which teachers use various approaches that differ by level of teacher support and child 3

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

control” (Frey, 2005). These multiple environment means school environment, home environment and other such learning environments. In a Balanced approach to the development of literacy the teacher makes decisions each day, the decisions about the best possible ways to facilitate the child in better ways to make him a good reader and writer (Spiegel, 1998). Balanced Literacy asks for the teachers to plan the lesson creatively according to the student’s needs, and then decide about the appropriate lesson for a specific child (D’Amico, 2002). The Balanced Approach to reading has been described in any ways. Initially conceived of as a balance of “whole language” and “phonics” (Mclntyre & Pressley, 1996), balanced literacy instruction was expanded to many other dimensions, including curriculum control, text genres, and independent and assisted learning, text and task authenticity, and reading skills instruction and literature response (Pearson & Raphael, 1997). A little research has been carried out on Balanced Literacy Instruction. This study by (Frey B. B., 2005) examined the implementation of Balanced Literacy Instruction in urban schools in a district. The aim of the study was to see the activities of Balanced Literacy Instruction, time allotted for the activities and also to observe the environment provided for these activities. The study carried out observations, field notes and surveys across 32 elementary schools in the district. The sample size of the study was 67 elementary school teachers. The results of the study showed that the time allotted for Balanced Literacy Activities was 90 minutes each other. More ever the following daily activities were observed during the class. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Read Aloud: The teacher reads loudly and students listen silently. Shared Reading: Teacher and Students read the text together. Guided Reading: The teacher guides a group of students in reading the text from the book. Independent Reading: Each of the students has the copy of the book and is involved in independent reading.

The results also indicated that the school’s environment provided good opportunity for the Balanced Literacy Activities, as the classes were spacious, there was a library in each school and each of the class contained a book corner. In another study by (Tarat, 2014) the effectiveness of Balanced Literacy Instruction on Thai student was measured. According to (Tarat, 2014) the Thai students have difficulty in pronouncing f, v, s and z. These alphabets are difficult to perceive, produce and distinguish for Thai students. So the Balanced Literacy Approach was used for the Phonemic awareness of these letters. The study aimed to measure the effectiveness of Balanced Literacy Instruction on increasing the Phonemic awareness of these letters and on increased motivation and engagement in class activities. 30 students participated in the study for 10 weeks. A pretest was administered to measure the phonemic awareness before the intervention. The Balanced Literacy Activities in class were mainly focused on Phonemic Awareness, the class started with teacher singing a song. Then the teacher ran a CD player with words containing the targeted letters. The students would repeat the words after the CD player. Other activities including the students predicting the first and last sound of a word. Through this exercise the students were able to learn how to produce, use and distinguish the targeted alphabets. A post-test affirmed these observations, the post-test showed a significant increase in the phonemic awareness of the students under study.

4

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

Use of Technology in Early Grade Education In recent time the developed countries have shifted towards the use of technology in early grade education whereas the developing countries are in transition stage (Smith, 2012). The technology is used in form content on computer or on gadgets like tablet PC’s, smart phones and other devices (Briggs, 2013). Several software applications, animations and interactive games have been developed to improve the early grade education. The technology has shown positive effects in terms of improved grades, content retention and engagement (Frey S., 2015).

Technology in Early Grade Reading Developed countries like USA and UK are using technology inspired programs for improving the reading skills of early graders. In one such project at USA digital story telling was used to improve the reading skills of early grade children. The project was joint initiative between USAID and the US Ministry of Education. As a part of project digital story telling was used in 172 primary schools. The use of digital story brought the stories to life with animated characters. This not only increased the performance of the students but also increased the engagement of teachers and students in English Reading Classes (Williams, 2013).

METHODOLOGY Participants The convenient sample for the study was drawn from 85 5th grade students in Morha Nagial Village at a rural higher secondary school near Sihala, Islamabad. This school serves to a lower class and lower middle class population of around 700 students. Majority of the students are from working class whose main priority is earning bread and butter while education is considered as lavished and unaffordable privilege. The students of the school studies in school at day time whereas at evening they are helping their families by earning a penny by either working in mechanic workshops, working in general stores or other such pity jobs. This results less study time for them, the only time they study is in the school. The average attendance rate in the school is very less and it was around 60% in 2014. This lag in attendance in mainly associated to the negligence of parents towards their children’s’ study, additionally some students attends the school in first three days of the week while they work at different places in the rest of the week. The School has qualified faculty with all the teacher having MPhil, MS or M.A Degrees and having an experience of 10-15 years of teaching. However, the school performance has been poor in the Board Exams held under the Federal Directorate of Education. Especially worst results were witnessed in the 5th grade class where the passing ratio was as low as 6%. The main reason of this worst result is the introduction of board exam in 5th Grade, students go through home exams till 4th grade where they enjoy an easy ride and pass on to the higher grades, but it is the fifth grade where they face the challenge of standardized board exams. The 64 students in convenience sample were selected because they were student of 5th Grade Science Class in which the researcher was acting as Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant, the researcher used

5

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

the same sample for the balanced literacy approach in English Class. The experimental group composed of 31 students while there were 32 students in the controlled group. The participants of the study including the class teacher and the students were informed about the study and the intervention was carried out by seeking the approval of School Principal and the parents of the students. The school was a boy’s school so all the 64 participants of the study were boys. All these students were somewhat similar (with exceptions) in the reading fluency, comprehension at the time of the study.

Implementation Procedure Balanced Literacy Instruction was used as a treatment in this study. Traditional Skill based Instruction will be used as the control group with which the treatment group will be compared. Using the EGRA a basic standard reading level for each participant in each group was established. The EGRA assessment is discussed later in this section. The treatment group received balanced literacy instruction for approximately one hour daily for a period of 6 days over 6 weeks. Whereas the traditional skill based instruction was used for the controlled group during the same amount of time. A large variety of Instructional Methods were deployed for the treatment group as compared to the controlled group as shown in Table 1. The opening activities included the words review from the previous day and the Read Aloud session by the teacher. The teacher would read the story from the tablet PC and the students listened to the story silently as shown in Figure 1. During the read aloud session the Teacher was helped by the researcher in writing the meaning of difficult words on the black board. The read aloud session would usually last for twenty to thirty minutes depending upon the complexity of words in the story. After the read aloud session, a questions session was carried out to get an idea about the story from the students. This five minute session would usually conclude after a couple of students presenting their ideas about the story. The questions session was taken over by the Whole Group activity in which a group containing six students each read the story on tablet PC. Each group had a one tablet and one Group leader, the group leader read the passage and the members listened. The roles were frequently changed in the group to ensure the participation from all the members of the group. The same story which the teacher read in Read Aloud session was read in the group activity. The teacher wandered around the groups to sort out any difficulty the students face while reading. The teacher also emphasized on the use of “Phonics” button in the applications, for the Phonics part a student would normally tap on a word and then the Application read out the Phonemes and the word in isolation. This would lead to the correct pronunciation of words by the students. Now that students are done with the group activity, the Table 1. Balanced literacy activities Time

6

Reading Activities

15 Minutes

Read Aloud & Writing Meanings of Difficult Words

5 Minutes

Questions & Reflections

10 Minutes

Shared Reading

10 Minutes

Guided Reading

20 Minutes

Independent Reading

30 Minutes

Regular Lesson from Book

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

Figure 1. Read Aloud Session

tablets were distributed amongst all the students to start the shared reading, the shared reading activity can be seen in Figure 2. Here the teacher read the passage from his tablet and the students followed on their own tablets. The students were encouraged to raise questions during the process of shared reading. The shared reading resulted in synchronization of teachers’ accent with that of the children. Finally, the students being passed through the rigorous read aloud, guided reading and shared reading, now they are ready for the independent reading. In independent reading, each student had his own tablet and had the option of reading the story on the tablet or listening from the application. “Read me Stories” application was used for achieving the deployment of the four components of the Balanced Literacy Approach. The application had multiple modes namely as 1. Test Mode 2. Read Mode 3. Listening Mode In the test mode, the students’ baseline level was determined, based on the level found the application got adjusted to the desired level. This ensured the student centred and self-paced learning. In read mode Figure 2. Shared reading activity

7

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

the students read the story, in group as well as individually. Whereas in listening mode the applications it narrated the story and the children would just tap the next button to move on to the next page on the tablet. In listening mode, the student could also tap the individual words and sentences for listening it repeatedly and in isolation. This all resulted in student first starting from depending on teacher, then in group and finally he/she is let alone to read and listen individually as shown in Figure 3. The final 30 minutes were allocated to the regular lessons from the course book to cover the course work. The instructional methods for the controlled group were limited as it was taught using traditional skilled based approach. The teacher would usually start the class by reading out loud from the book while students repeated the words uttered by the teacher. The lesson used for the reading purpose was from the course work. One such lesson was named as “The flag of Pakistan”. The teacher read out the story, students repeated the words. In the 2nd part of the class, teacher asked those students who could read to, read out loud the story again and the whole class followed. These were the two practices of the class, reading out loud by the teacher followed by students, and reading out loud by a student, followed by his class mates. The images from the class performing different activities are shown below. During the read aloud session the researcher wrote the meaning for difficult words on the board as shown in figures. The different activities are shown in figures while the tables summarises the activities performed in treatment and controlled groups as shown in Table 2. Figure 3. Independent reading activity

Table 2. Controlled Group Activities Time

8

Literacy Activity

30 Minutes

Shared Reading by Teacher

30 Minutes

Shared Reading by Students

30 Minutes

Writing Words Meaning in Notebook

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

Data Collection and Sources The two data Collection tools used in this study are: 1. EGRA 2. Engagement Questionnaire

EGRA The EGRA (Early Grade Reading Assessment) tool is used in this study to measure the fluency and engagement of the participants. This is an authentic tool developed by World Vision and used by Organizations such as USAID, UKAID and DIL (Development in Literacy). Critical Information regarding children’s foundation reading skills is provided by EGRA. The main objective of the tool is to test the reading skills such as fluency and comprehension of early grade children. Although the tool is intended for the early graders i.e. K-3 but since the reports show that the reading level of 5th grade students studying in public schools of Pakistan is below the level of grade appropriate level of grade 2 students therefore the use of this tool is justified. EGRA tool specifically focuses on the Fluency and comprehension because these play a significant role in terms of predictive power over cognitive development in later stages of education. The EGRA is specially designed for Grade 2 because it is essential for a student have a reading pace of at least 45 words per minutes when he is about to shift to grade 3. This stage is known as transitioning stage i.e. shifting from learning to read towards the stage of reading to learn. In developed countries, the reading tests are administered to the students in grade 4 and above as it is considered that this is the stage where they are able to read and write. However, in Pakistan the situation is different and English being a 2nd language the student is not able to achieve this transition even after qualifying the fifth grade. So according to customized needs, the fact that students at grade 5 are still not capable enough to read even a single sentence in English and the established importance of reading after the end of grade 5 the EGRA was administered and the intervention was carried with the students of Grade 5 at a Public School. These students appears in Board exams for the first time so it is important to judge that whether they show poor performance in exams due to lack of knowledge or the fact that they are not able to read and comprehend what is being asked in the paper. The EGRA tools are attached in the appendix of the study.

Engagement Questionnaire For the Measurement of Engagement, a checklist comprising of 17 questions was used. This Questionnaire was developed for a study which aimed at measuring the Engagement level of the students in technology enabled class room environment. As rationalized in earlier section that the optimal way of measuring the engagement is through observation. The Engagement checklist had been developed in the light of Engagement theory. (Shneiderman, 1994, 1998; Shneiderman et al., 1995; Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1997). The engagement theory is based on the observation that that meaningful engagement occurs through interactive tasks and through interaction with each other’s i.e. interpersonal interaction. The checklist contained three subscales, measuring cognitive (e.g. ‘Child appears engaged in tasks’), Emotional (e.g. ‘Child is keen to try new experiences) and behavioural (‘Childs speaks appropriately to the class mates’). The measurements were taken against the subscale and overall engagement score. 9

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

The scale used had 17 questions, five questions were used to measure the emotional engagement, six were used for the cognitive engagement and six questions were related to behavioural engagement. The Engagement checklist is attached in the appendix.

Authenticity of Tools The authenticity of both the tools i.e. EGRA tool for measuring the comprehension and fluency, the engagement tool for measuring the Engagement is given in terms of its use and validity of the tool. The EGRA tool is an international tool developed by RTI institute in collaboration with World Bank and World Vision to assess the basic reading level of students in developing world. Since its’ development in 2006, the RTI International, along with help of donors, has collaborated with education experts for the implementation of EGRA tool in many countries and different languages. The EGRA tool has been used in 50 countries and in 70 different languages across the world. The United States Organization USAID administered EGRA across Taiwan, Ethiopia, Mali and other developing and underdeveloped countries. In Pakistan, the EGRA tool has been use to test as much as 33000 students from grade 3 to grade 5 (Msiworld Wide Projects, n. d.). Whereas the Engagement questionnaire was developed for a study in west Scotland for measuring the Engagement level of students while using touch screen tablets. Since this study using the touch screen tablets for the deployment of Balanced Literacy components so this is appropriate to use the existing tried and tested questionnaire. The Scale deployed for the measurement of different components of Engagement had a moderate to good reliability. The reliability was found using SPSS statistical tool and the values of Cronbach’s alpha came out to be 0.82 for Cognitive Engagement, 0.56 for emotional engagement and 0.55 for Behavioral engagement respectively. These values of Cronbach’s alpha shows the reliability has a moderate to good reliability.

Data Analysis Descriptive analysis was carried out to see the immediate effect of the Balanced Literacy Intervention, whereas Statistical Analysis were carried out for finding the significance of the derived results. The statistical analysis was used to determine that whether there is a significant difference between the fluency, comprehension and engagement level of the students. To measure this significance the appropriate test is the independent t-test, however since the data was not normal owing to the small sample size so Mann-Whitney test which is the alternate of independent t test was used to determine the significance of difference between the reading attainments of both the groups. The Mann-Whitney test was used first for the EGRA Pre Tests to determine whether the baseline reading level of the students is equal or not. In case of inequality the significance of the balanced literacy approach could not have been established. Similarly, the Mann-Whitney test was again used for the Posttest to determine the effect of balanced literacy instruction and its’ effect on the reading attainment. The means, standard deviation and variance for both groups were calculated accordingly. This gave the insights about the comprehension and fluency levels of both the groups’ i.e. Treatment and controlled groups.

10

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

For the establishing and measuring the significance of the Engagement level the same Mann-Whitney test was used. Here this test was used on the main engagement scale as well as the subscale to see the impact of technology based balanced literacy approach on the overall engagement as well the cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement of the students.

RESULTS Descriptive Analysis Results The descriptive analysis was carried out using the excel tool. The following results were drawn after the descriptive analysis. • • •

17 Percent increase in the fluency of treatment group as compared to 7 percent increase in controlled group. Equal increase in comprehension level of both groups. 74 Percent increase in Engagement level of treatment group as compared to 50 percent increase in control group.

Statistical Analysis Results The statistical analysis were carried out using SPSS statistical tool, the following results were deducted after the statistical analysis. 1. There is significant difference between the fluency rate of the controlled group and treatment group (p = 0.004) thus rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternative hypothesis. 2. There is no significant difference between the comprehension level of the controlled and treatment group (p = 0.976) thus retaining the null hypothesis and rejecting the alternative hypothesis. 3. There is significant difference between the engagement level of both the treatment and controlled group (p = 0.00) thus rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternative hypothesis. The above statements conclude to the result that the Balanced Literacy Approach had improved the fluency and engagement level of the students however the comprehension level of the participants remained the same irrespective of the mode of instruction.

DISCUSSION The balanced literacy intervention was aimed at improving the reading skills i.e. the Comprehension and fluency of the 5th grade students. These students are unable to read the basic sentences of English and neither can they comprehend what is being read to them. The intervention was carried out with treatment and control group. To improve the reading and comprehension skills of the students the technology in the form tablet PC was used. The application used for the improvement of reading skilled was Read me Stories. After a six week intervention where 11

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

the students went through rigorous activities to improve their reading fluency and comprehension, the results showed that the fluency of the treatment group was improved i.e. the Balanced Literacy instruction over tablet PC had a positive effect on the fluency of the study. However, their comprehension level remained the same. The reason for this lag, as observed by the researcher and also from the feedback of the students was the use of foreign application. The read me stories application had foreign characters and the scenarios used in application were not according to the local needs. Thereby the students could not create association with the characters and scenarios. Though the application was able to increase their vocabulary and fluency after reading on the tablet and listening from the tablet but their comprehension level was not increased. Similarly, the Engagement level of the both treatment and controlled group were measured using the Likert scale based questionnaire. The cognitive and emotional level of the treatment group was observed to be more than the controlled group however the behavioural engagement remained the same. This was due to the reason that same behaviour was observed in both the classes. And as the school was a government school and the teachers were strict so the intervention had no impact on the behaviour of either group.

CONCLUSION The technology infused balanced literacy instruction significantly influenced the reading fluency, comprehension and engagement level of the students are compared to the student receiving the skill based instruction. The inclusion of technology in Balance literacy instruction benefited the students in two ways. First their engagement level was enhanced which increased their motivation towards the learning and secondly the advanced features in the application allowed the students to learn at their own pace. Multiple activities in the class ensured that the engagement level of the students in not decreased. The instruction level was varied, first in read aloud session the students were dependent on the teacher, then in group session they would read along their class mates and finally in independent reading it was all up to them to read the passage or story on the tablets. In this way from dependent readers they were becoming independent.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS The study suggests following recommendations •

• •

12

To increase the learning capabilities and performance of the students in English class the teachers needs to be trained on Balanced Literacy approach. As this approach addresses of the basic needs of learners, it provides a right mix of Phonics and Whole language to prepare the students for reading not only curriculum but general English books as well. The existing methodology of rote memorization should be replaced by the systematic way of teaching the English comprehension. To increase the engagement level of student’s appropriate technology such as tablet PC should be used as and when required.

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

• •

A localized application having local characters and themes, based on the Pedagogical approach of Balanced Literacy, should be developed and deployed in schools using tablet PC. Further studies are required to measure the effectiveness of technology less balanced literacy approach.

REFERENCES K12 Reader. (2014, February 3). Balanced Literacy. Retrieved March 26, 2015 from http://www.k12reader. com/category/balanced-literacy/ Baumann, J. F. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244–275. Bennet, C. (n.d.). What Is Balanced Literacy. Western Region Education Service Alliance. Retrieved march 27, 2015 from http://www.wresa.org/ERR/Module%201.pdf Bibi, H. (2009). Improving the teaching of reading comprehension in English as a foreign language classroom in Karachi. Karachi, Pakistan: Agha Khan University. Bomengen, M. (2010, September 23). What is the “Whole Language” Approach to Teaching Reading? Reading Horizons. Retrieved 3 26, 2015 from http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2010/09/23/ What-is-the-Whole-Languagee-Approach-to-Teaching-Reading.aspx Briggs, S. (2013, July 13). 10 Emerging Educational Technologies and How They Are Being Used Across the Globe. OpenColleges. Retrieved from http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/ the-ten-emerging-technologies-in-education-and-how-they-are-being-used-across-the-globe/ Brooks, M. C. (2005). Whole Language or Phonics: Improving Language instruction through general semantics. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 62(3), 271-280. Carr, M.E. (2007). Effects of balanced literacy and skills-based programs on beginning reading achievement [Doctoral dissertation]. Walden University. Cromwell, S. (1997). Whole Language and Phonics: Can They Work Together? Education World. Daily Times. (2015, April 18). 15pc children still out of school in Punjab. Retrieved 18 4, 2015, from Daily Times: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/punjab/28-Jan-2015/15pc-children-still-out-of-school-in-punjab DemiT. (2014, June 16). The importance of books in child development. Hubpages.com. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from http://demit.hubpages.com/hub/The-Importance-of-Books-in-Child-Development Express Tribune. (2014, February 15.5 Million out of school children UNESCO report. Retrieved April 18, 2015 from http://tribune.com.pk/story/666285/5-5-million-children-out-of-school-in-pakistanunesco-report/ Freire, P. (1983). The Importance of the act of reading. The Journal Of Education, 5-11.

13

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 240–251. doi:10.1598/RRQ.33.2.5 Frey, B. B. (2005). Balanced Literacy in an Urban School District. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280. Frey, S. (2015, February 11). Technology takes hold in the early grades. Edsource Organization. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/2015/technology-takes-hold-in-the-early-grades/74465 Heymsfeld, C.R. (1989). Filling the hole in whole language. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 65-68. Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1313–1344. Marshall, P. (n. d.). Balanced Literacy Instruction. K12Reader. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from http:// www.k12reader.com/balanced-literacy-instruction/ MSIWORLD WIDE PROJECTS. (n. d.). Testing Pakistani children on reading for a brighter future. Retrieved from http://www.msiworldwide.com/project/testing-Pakistani-children-on-reading-for-abrighter-future/ My EnglishClub. (1997, January 2). What is reading? Retrieved March 26, 2015, from https://www. englishclub.com/reading/what.htm Phonics, T. (2012). Martin Cothran. Louisville: Memoria Press. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American-American Edition, 286(3), 70-77. Winthrop, R., & Smith, M. S. (2012, January 3). A New Face of Education: Bringing Technology into the Classroom in the Developing World. Brookings. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/ papers/2012/01/education-technology-winthrop Spiegel, D.L. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literature response groups in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 114-124. Taboada, A., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Teachers Conceptions of Reading Comprehension and Motivation to read. Teachers and Teaching, 18(1), 101–122. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.622559 Tarat, S., & Sucaromana, U. (2014). An Investigation of the Balanced Literacy Approach for Enhancing Phonemic Awareness of Thai First-grade Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2265-2272. Williams, M. (2013, June 2). Jamaican Educators. Jamaica Educators Share. Retrieved from http://www. jamaicaneducatorsshare.com/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=165 Yale, B. (2012). Teaching Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten. K12Reader. Retrieved March 2015, 2015 from http://www.k12reader.com/what-is-reading-comprehension/

14

 Technology-Infused Balanced Literacy for Enhancing the Reading Skills of Early Grade Children

ADDITIONAL READING Arrowood, D. (2004). Using technology to motivate children to write: Changing attitudes in children and preservice teachers. In Proceedings of the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4985-4987). Barkatsas, A. K., Kasimatis, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning Secondary Mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education, 52(3), 562–570. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.001 Schmid, R., Miodrag, N., & Francesco, N. D. (2008). A human-computer partnership: The tutor/child/ computer Triangle promoting acquisition of early literacy skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 63–84. doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782523 Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. Tamin, R. B. (2011). What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Active Learning: Active learning is a process whereby students engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Apps in Education: The role of different digital applications in Education. Assessment: Educational assessment is the process of documenting, usually in measurable terms, knowledge, skill, attitudes, and beliefs. Balanced Literacy: Balance of Phonics and Whole Language Approach to reading. Digital Literacy: Digital literacy is the knowledge, skills, and behaviors used in a broad range of digital devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktop PCs, all of which are seen as a network rather than computing devices. Early Grades Literacy: The ability to read and write in early stages of development. Engagement in Education: Student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show. Peer Learning: Peer learning essentially refers to students learning with and from each other as fellow learners without any implied authority to any individual. Phonics Approach to Reading: Phonics is a method for teaching reading and writing of the English language by developing learners’ phonemic awareness.

15

16

Chapter 2

Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets: Promoting Active Learning of Key K-12 Social Science Skills Beverly B. Ray Idaho State University, USA Caroline E. Faure Idaho State University, USA

ABSTRACT The chapter proposes to outline best practices in the use of a set of mini-robots (i.e., smart gadgets) to promote active and meaningful learning in the Social Sciences. Key K-12 social science skills supported by their use include coding, sequencing, including time lining, map making, planning, organizing, peer collaboration, and the comprehension and interpretation of maps and written texts. The theoretical foundation supporting the use in the Social Sciences of is examined in this chapter. Next, barriers to use are explored before moving into an examination of one strategy for integration into the Social Sciences. Finally, the chapter concludes with an exploration of issues and recommendations for mitigating those issues will be discussed along with linkage of use to specific Social Science concept (i.e., discovery, exploration, and technology).

INTRODUCTION Meaningful and successful civic life in the 21st century requires a global citizenry “literate in both computer science and computational thinking” (Megan Smith, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2015). As such, agreement about coding as a necessary skill for success within our global society has emerged in recent years within many disciplines. This agreement should not exclude any areas of academic inquiry. K-12 Social Science educators must carefully consider whether or to what extent they must share in this global civic mission. While this proposed area of academic inquiry may not be immediately apparent to all Social Science teachers, it does present a global need for educators to integrate innovative use of technology with an exploration of its impact on DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch002

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

society across time and place. Given these obligations, Social Science teachers cannot easily ignore this obligation and must identify innovative and effective ways that allow learners to think about technology and its evolving impact on society, both locally and globally. We cannot fail in our obligation to identify ways to appropriately integrate use of current and emerging technologies, such as the smart gadgets examined here, into our instructional practices (Bennett & Berson, 2007). Integration and use is further supported by the critical mission of assisting students to acquire and hone critical thinking, problem solving, computational, technology, and decision making skills, each of which can be further supported via the use of coding activities such as the exemplar activity presented later in this chapter.

Background Smart gadgets are small electronic devices that operate independently or by attaching to larger electronic devices using Bluetooth or other wireless connections. Most smart devices are interactive and many are autonomous devices that allow users to connect and share information with the device. Many, but not all, allow users to interact with other users as well. Examples include mini-robots, smartphones, smartwatches, exercise monitors, and streaming devices for televisions (Techopedia, 2016). As one example of a smart gadget, a mini-robot is a small, usually less than 10 centimeters in size, robot designed to perform a specific set of tasks. Most function using a wireless connection to a tablet or other computing device. Because of their size they tend to be among the more inexpensive robots (Friends, 2013) and, therefore, have useful applications for teaching computational thinking in varied K-12 learning environments.

Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Smart Gadgets The supporting principles and defining purposes of civic education are integral to the mission of the Social Sciences. In fact, those purposes are inextricably tied to society’s need for an informed global citizenry. An American educational philosopher, John Dewey, made explicit the relationship between the need for competent citizens and the purpose of civic education in 1916 stating, “…a government resting upon [democratic principles] cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated” (p. 88). Drawing inspiration from this foundational purpose in many countries around the globe, Social Science instruction is centered on a set of subject area that provides K-12 learners with subject matter knowledge, skills, and dispositions that they can apply to the study of the human experience whether on an individual, local, national, or international scale. Across the globe, Social Science curriculums strive to help K-12 learners make sense of the world around them even as they strive to equip learns with the critical skills, including technology skills, needed for responsible citizenship within a diverse, global society (NCSS, 2010). As such, use of purposeful, meaningful, and authentic technology supported learning tasks, grounded in an understanding of Constructivism, are critical for the field’s continued well-being. As a category of technology, smart gadgets provide one way of doing so. K-12 students learn best and remember more over longer periods of time when learning occurs as a part of authentic and meaningful activities (Darling-Hammond, 2006). This includes those grounded in technology use (Maxim, 2014). Furthermore, learning theorists know that learning is closely aligned with learners’ cognitive, social, and emotional development (Bloom, Mesia, & Krathwohl, 1964). Given this understanding of learning theory, effective Social Science educators recognize that not all children learn at the same pace or, even, in the same way. As such, they know that they must rely on both cognitive and developmentally appropriate teaching strategies, including use of technologies such as the 17

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

smart gadgets examined here, if they are to get and maintain K-12 students engaged in their own learning (Piaget, 1950). Because constructivist thought so deeply influences the way Social Science educators approach instruction, it useful to understand its basics tenets. Such understanding allows educators to provide age-appropriate, constructivist-supported learning experiences with technology that support deep understanding (Noddings, 2005) along with skill development (Maxim, 2014). This respect for varied learners and learning methods provides Social Science educators with an opportunity to not only guide, or facilitate learning, but also to positively motivate learners (Schunk, 2011). Willingness to embrace constructivist principles and the use of smart gadgets allows educators an opportunity to respond to the needs of unique learner in ways that are purposeful, meaningful, authentic, and age appropriate (NCSS, 2010). Constructivism turns the social and intellectual learning environment into a catalyst for meaningful learning (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Vygotsky, 1986). Meaningfulness, or relevance, occurs as learners connect the content knowledge, skills, beliefs, and attitudes that are useful inside the classroom to the world beyond the classroom (Bruner, 1991). This authenticity also allows learners to make personal connections with technology and its role and purpose within our ever-expanding global society. Authentic learning experiences also provide Social Science learners with opportunities to feel more connected to technology even as it helps them understand how societies are shaped by technology (Isaacson, 2014). To further ensure authentic and effective social studies teaching and learning with smart gadgets and other technologies, Social Science educators should integrate their use with the use of primary and secondary source materials, such as, texts, maps, pictures, diaries, biographies, and other documents, that go beyond traditional textbooks or instructional methods (Schunk, 2011). In this manner, smart devices because of their personalized, hands on use, promote positive aspects of learning.

Literature Review Smart gadgets, including the mini-robots to be examined here, can be purposefully used to teach and/ or hone critical K-12 social science (i.e, civic) skills even as those skills support other curricular areas, including mathematics, science, and engineering. We note however, that technology for technology’s sake is never appropriate. Therefore, we offer a way of thinking about use that can provide guidance for those planning first time use of the smart gadget mini-robots discussed in this chapter. The way of doing highlighted within this chapter is both reflective of learning theory (Bloom, Mesia & Krathwohl, 1964; Goleman, 1995; Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1986) and an emerging research base (e.g., Corneliussen, & Prøitz, 2016; Hayes, & Stewart, 2016; Su, Yang, Hwang, Huang, & Tern, 2014; Vavassori Benitti, 2012; Whittier & Robinson, 2007) that suggests the efficacy of using coding and robotics within K-12 educational settings. For example, Rockland, Bloom, Carpinelli, Burr, Hirsch and Kimmel (2010) argued for the efficacy of robotics as a teaching and learning tool across the K-12 curriculum. In particular, the authors stressed their use as motivation and learning tools that help students link content knowledge to an understanding of how real world problems can be solved using technology. The smart gadget mini-robots presented in this chapter promote similar gains among students thanks to their hands on, personalized size and varied creative uses. Likewise, Cavanagh (2009) argued for the “blending” of robotics into varied classes at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels in order to promote a better understanding of the role of robotics within society shaped by engineering, including coding and robotics. Because of their size and inexpensive price tags, mini-robots are well positioned to further enhance integration across the K-12 curriculum. 18

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Use of robotics to turn a 2-D representation into a 3-D representation is promoted by Aronowitz (2009). The example provided below will demonstrate one example of effective use of smart gadget minirobots. Use of robotics is further prompted when the teacher functions more as an informal “guide on the side” rather than as an expert coder (King, 1993). Further, Barreto and Benitti (2012) found in their meta-analysis of research on the efficacy of robotics, including mini-robots, in education that their use enhanced learning in most cases but not in all cases examined before concluding that further research is required. Similar findings are reported by other researchers (e.g., Mubin, Stevens, Shahid, Mahmud, & Dong, 2013). Finally, De Cristoforis, et. al (2012) identified the need to integrate user-friendly robotics, such as the mini-robots examined here, into K-12 subject areas beyond STEM stating the need to provide ample opportunities for “inexperienced students to approach topics in fields unrelated to robotics” (p. 61).

Smart Gadgets and Constructivist Ways of Learning Engaged Inquiry Smart gadgets, such as the mini-robots examined here, promote engaged inquiry and offers the best aspects of simulations and role-plays because they each allow learners to engage in a process of problem solving and discovery learning (Bruner, 1961; Larson & Keiper, 2011). Smart gadgets can be used to allow learners to think, not only like engaged citizen, but also like the very professionals working to resolve issues associated with technology use and development. As they do so, they engage in a process of questioning, analyzing, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations and/or taking action that mirrors the real-world process followed by those involved in solving real world issues and challenges (Gallagher, Sher, Stepien, & Workman, 1995). In summary, smart gadgets function as a method of engaged inquiry and serve as catalysis for civic awareness, self-efficacy, and agency. This use promotes within learners the confidence, will, and ability to propose solutions to solve real-world problems. In terms of geography, inquiry involves helping learners think geographically, solving problems, and adapting to the challenges that face the world. It is a way to not only know where things are, but also how that location shapes events and response to events and how those responses shape relationship across time and place (Maxim, 2014). Use of geographic inquiry, when coupled with the use of robots, can allow students to take on the role of geographer by asking questions, acquiring and organizing information, analyzing information to draw conclusions or hypothesis possible answers to geographic questions.

Task Analysis Task, or skill, analysis involves helping students learn how to acquire and hone critical thinking, problem solving, computational, technology, and decision making skills. Skills such as these involve cognition along with the ability to think through and execute a systematic set of steps that must not only be learned, but also practiced across multiple times in order to be mastered. A successful task analysis process involves breaking a skill down into a set of smaller steps (e.g., charting a sequence of events) that are then self-taught or practiced by the student (Maxim, 2014). This process is particularly useful when teaching social science skills, such as time lining, sequencing of events, and map making and interpretation skills (Bednarz, Acheson, & Bednarz, 2006). The addition of the mini-robots to the task allows learners to build a visual model that portrays visually the pathway and challenges faced along a geographic path (e.g., the expedition’s path across North America) (Geography Education Standards Project, 1994). 19

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Computational Thinking Computational thinking, as a form of task analysis, is important for the Social Sciences. Agreement has emerged in recent years about the importance of computation thinking within the STEM fields. Out of this agreement, a need for K-12 students to learn about coding and robotics has emerged globally. Because computational thinking involves “the use of abstraction, automation, and analysis [for] problem solving (Lee, et al., 2011, p. 32), its usefulness goes beyond traditional STEM fields to include the Social Sciences. That is because beyond procedural thinking and programming, computational thinking also includes “the thought process in formulating problems and their solutions…[using] computational steps” (Grover & Pea, 2013, p. 39). Agreement regarding its broad educational value is grounded in an understanding of computing, or computational thinking, as a creative and collaborate human endeavor aimed at understanding, innovating, and solving problems (Grover & Pea, 2013). Within the Social Sciences this can be seen particularly within the fields of geography and political science.

Peer or Collaborative Learning Cooperative strategies have a long history in the Social Sciences and other disciplines (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). There is an extensive research base supporting their efficacy in terms of student achievement (Slavin, 1990), motivating students to try their best, help or teach one another, and verbally organize their thinking via group discussion and feedback (Newmann & Thompson, 1987; Slavin, 1990). Using cooperative or peer learning allows teachers to promote positive interdependence among learners who must explore and problem solve coding the robots collaboratively even as they discuss challenges and propose and test solutions together. Use of small peer or collaborative groups also allows individuals working in small groups to communicate ideas and findings first within that small group before moving into larger or whole group discussion of what was learned. This method of learning also serves to promote individual accountability within the groups if specific tasks are assigned by the teacher (Maxim, 2014).

Active Learning Successful learning can often take the form of play. In fact, play provides learners opportunities to acquire or hone information or skills even as the learner is pushed to consider the why of thinking and the how of decision making (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002). Play supports concept formation and attainment (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), encourages role playing, and working together cooperatively. Active learning also supports content learning, or even a sense of geographic or historical place and time (Maxim, 2014). Guided by the teacher, active learning makes the learner responsible for his or her own learning. This works best when both the teacher and the learner discuss and reflect on meaningfulness and understanding (NCSS, 2010). With active learning, the teacher’s role is to step back and allow the learner, with guidance from the teacher, to engage in inquiry either individually or as a member of a group of learners. As such, active learning promotes life-long learning skills even as it helps students acquire self-regulating behaviors (Schunk, 2011). Finally, active learning’s success in grounded in the use of content specific, authentic and real world related activities (NCSS, 2010).

20

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

APPLICATION OF SMART GADGET MINI-ROBOTS TO PROMOTE CRITICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE SKILLS Overview of the Ozobot Mini-Robot Ozobots are one example of a smart gadget. These tiny, smart robots use a system of color coordinated commands to teach the basics of coding. Ozobots can be coded onto sheets of plain paper using black, red, green, and blue markers. Code is written using one or more colors which tell the mini-robot what function or action to perform, such as slow down, speed up, whirl, tornado, or jump from one line to another (Ozobot & Evollve, 2016). Free introductory and advanced lessons along with a teacher’s guide are available online at the Ozobot web site (See http://www.ozobot.com/education).

Engaging the Inquiry Using Mini-Robots Effective use of the mini-robotics requires pre-planning and a commitment to interdisciplinary learning. Without that commitment, including careful alignment of use to regional, national, and/or international standards for learning, use may not go beyond play. And while play is not a bad thing for learners to engage in at times (Jackson & Angelino, 1974), it must be coupled with a specific educational purpose that allows the teacher to justify use of the mini-robots within the Social Science curriculum. As such, what follows is a process for implementation, using as one example the 1803-1805 Lewis and Clark Expedition (aka, the Voyage of Discovery) across the North American continent. NOTE: Other possible expeditions or routes of exploration that might be used instead include the Silk Road, from China to the Mediterranean Sea, or Magellan’s 16th century circumnavigation of the world. Examining the Voyage of Discovery’s route across North America allows Social Science teachers to meet national (United States’) standards for geography and history even as it allows for interdisciplinary learning (i.e., coding and robotics) via the use of the mini-robots. Examination and use of the mini-robots also allows learners to visually explore key Social Science concepts (i.e., exploration and discovery) via the creation of one or both of the following 2-D representations: •

Map Making

A to-scale map of the expedition’s route across North America from Camp Wood, Missouri to Fort Clatsop near the mouth of the Columbia River in what is now the US state of Oregon. •

3-D Modeling

A 2-D graphic chart (or model) that mimics the pathway of exploration and identifies key challenges and successes along that pathway is another option. Once charted onto the paper, the model becomes 3-D with the addition of the mini-robots moving along the coded critical stops and starts mapped or charted for the event used in the activity.

21

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Getting Started Following a process of geographic inquiry allows learners to use the robots to help them meet the following goals: 1. Ask geographic and historic questions about the Voyage of Discovery. 2. Collect and organize geographic and historical information, including informational texts, maps, diaries, and letters related to the Voyage of Discovery. 3. Analyze and draw conclusions about the quality of that information. 4. Draw conclusions about the Voyage of Discovery in terms of important events and discoveries. 5. Apply an understanding of that process to the development of a map or other 2-D model that shows the pathway and interactions that occurred across the Voyage of Discovery. 6. Use mini-robots to animate the route and show points of key contact or discovery.

Asking Geographic and Historical Questions As students collect information about the Voyage of Discovery, including informational texts, maps, and copies of diary entries and letters, the teacher’s role is to assure that appropriate questions are generated to drive the inquiry process. As learners engage in this and other steps in the activity, the teacher’s role is to scaffold the experience and guide students toward evidence based conclusions. As such, essential questions such as these should be generated and used across the activity: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Why was it important for this region of North America to be explored during this time period? What key events occurred during the timeframe of the Voyage of Discovery? What is the geographic significance of the Voyage of Discovery? What is its historical significance? How did this expedition shape our understanding of North America? How did it shape our understanding of who we are as a nation? What do you think it was it like to be a member of this expedition? What geographic challenges do you think the voyagers faced? How does use of the mini-robotics animate the route and help us understand what occurred?

Accessing and Organizing Information As students read, view, or interact with the information in this step, teachers should have them take field notes, sketch rough maps, and write reflective statements that get at the idea of what it was like to be a part of the Voyage of Discovery. Students can work on this independently, in pairs, or in small groups organized in advance by the teacher. The teacher’s job at this point in the inquiry is to monitor and prompt learning. Whole group discussion at this point should center on what happened, which Native Peoples the expedition came into first contact with, what expedition members saw or experienced, and, specifically, what they learned about North America in terms of the native people, landscape, climates, and the flora and fauna. Use of one or more graphic organizers to collect and sort this information provides students with ample materials to use when mapping or charting the route later in the activity. Additional essential questions to consider at this point include: 22

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

1. Why were particular geographic features, such as waterfalls, are found where they are along the route? 2. What do you think caused a particular geographic feature to occur at that location? 3. Why do you think the native people lived the way they did in a particular location? Speculation at this point in the inquiry is both appropriate and essential to learning. In particular, the focus should be on when and where questions with why questions remaining important, as well. Students should also identify and share what they have learned about weather, climate, landforms, and natural resources, including flora and fauna so that the teacher can check for understanding and assure that students are using successfully a process of systematic and deductive reasoning. At this point in the process, it is important for learners to do something with the information (Maxim, 2014). There are two primary goals for this stage of learning: 1. Access knowledge understanding at this point in the inquiry process (interim assessment) 2. Organize information for future use (i.e., the map or charting process) Use of a graphical organizer can facilitate the process at this step since they allow for the formal organization of information into a usable format that then can be used to launch a whole group discussion or guide the map making or chart activity below.

Implementing the Mini-Robots Using the informational materials, graphical organizers, paragraphs, and other materials, it is time for learners to map or chart the route of the expedition in order to visually see the route and the sequence of events occurring across the Voyage of Discovery. Grouping students into small groups of three can be useful at this stage in terms allowing for positive collaboration and peer learning. •

Map Making

To assure acquisition of effective and accurate map making skills, the teacher must allot ample time for careful and precise map making. Key elements of a map, including title, legend, compass rose, and scale should be included. Materials needed include large sheets of white paper, a projection device to project the route onto sheets of paper taped to the wall, clear or transparent tape, pencils for tracing the route onto the paper, erasers, rulers to determine or check the distance between points (scale), and red, blue, green, and black Ozobot, Crayola Classic Markers, or Sharpie Chisel Tip Markers (be sure not to use fine, ultra-fine, or oversize Sharpie® points), scrape sheets of paper to practice on in advance of the actual coding activity. •

3-D Modeling

Charting provides a useful, but less precise and less time-consuming option that still allows students a general idea of the route. It also provides a clearer understanding of the sequence of events that occurred along the route. Unlike formalized map making, the distance between events in a charted model

23

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

can be less precise, if needed. Many of the elements of the map, as outlined above, remain useful for the chart. The materials needed for charting are the same, with a projection device becoming optional. Once the route is mapped or charted onto the sheets of white paper in pencil, each small group should spend some time playing with and coding commands for the mini-robots on scratch sheets of paper. Depending on previous experiences with coding, the time required for this phase will range from 10 to 30 minutes. Doing this in advance of the next step helps assure a basic understanding of how to code the mini-robots using the simple, color coordinated coding process works. It also saves time correcting mistakes when using a pencil to code the maps or charts. Mistakes made on the main map or chart sheet can be corrected by using clear tape to cover a corrected sequence of code. NOTE: Use of a different, pale color sheet of paper for all corrections allows the teacher to see how students learned from and corrected their coding mistakes. Ample time is needed to assure precision in terms of coding the map or chart. Plan for more time if this is the first time that coding has been attempted by learners, or if the learners are young. Less time is likely required for older or more experienced coders. Time needed might range from 15 minutes for the chart to 3 hours for the maps. Once coded, each group should share with the whole group their routes. Students should be encouraged to explain their choices in terms of events included and how those events where coded. Alternatively, the teacher could scaffold the activity by providing a mandatory key, or legend, outlining how to code specific events. See Appendix for examples. Use of a coding key, similar to a map key that visually describes what items on a map represent, allows uniformity when using various codes to represent specific event in the sequence. Requiring learners to build specific codes into the sequence helps students hone their understanding of coding and how each code used gives specific meaning to the mini-robot’s action at each point in the sequence. Once shared, whole group discussion should focus on identifying new content to add to the graphical organizers. Likewise, use of an interim assessment at this point is important. For example, ask students to write either short statements or paragraphs summarizing what was learned. The teacher could next ask students to further summarize in one sentence the main idea of what was learned about the Voyage of Discovery.

Analyzing and Drawing Conclusions At this stage in the process, it becomes critical to carefully analyze and interpret information so that students may draw evidence-based conclusions regarding the Voyage of Discovery. Essential questions to consider at this stage include: 1. What were the goals of the Voyage of Discovery? 2. What evidence suggests those goals were met? 3. Where any goals not met? If so, what might have happened? The teacher’s role is to ask good follow up questions that push learners to deeper understanding. Also, teachers should really try to push students to apply reasoning skills to the development of authentic oral presentations of their maps or charts to parents, younger students, or other interested parties in the school or local community.

24

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Issues, Controversies, Problems Associated with the Use of the Smart Gadget Mini-Robots Traditional Social Science instruction errs on the side of teacher-directed instruction, rather than the use of hands-on student centered activities, such as map making and 3-D modeling. This fact remains true despite a mountain of research demonstrating the efficacy of more student-centered types of learning and instruction. 3-D model and map making activities, each of which have a place in the Social Science curriculum globally, are largely ignored. Given the evolving nature of our high tech global society, such neglect can be problematic for our children’s future success. This activity highlights one way of using smart gadget mini-robots to integrate technology, STEM, and computational thinking into the Social Science curriculum. It is hoped that review of this strategy will encourage Social Science teachers globally to think of new ways to encourage their learners to think like Social Scientists. Teachers are encouraged to use the tools of the professional, appropriate in age and curricular ways, to help students envision themselves doing these very tasks in their future professional lives. Use of smart gadget mini-robots, including the ones demonstrated here, can be expensive for schools and teachers in many settings. However, costs are coming down. The mini-robot highlighted in this chapter costs approximately €54 ($57 USD) per unit. Thus, it can allow many teachers to justify the purchase of at least one unit for classroom use. As costs come down, access and use is expected to expand. Another issue for consideration when considering using smart gadget mini robots in the Social Science curriculum relates to issues of teacher resistance. Many Social Science teachers will not consider themselves expert coders or robotics users. In fact, the thought of even learning to code can be intimidating for some. In order to combat this lack of efficacy, those interested in integrating robotics use with Social Science curricula should be encouraged to step back from their traditional teacher-centric methods of instruction and to accept the educational efficacy of and allowing students to gain some measure of control over their own learning. Teachers are encouraged to embrace Constructivist ways of thinking about learning, in both principle and in practice. By becoming that “guide on the side” (a teacher who does not have to know everything about coding or robotics), students can be inspired to explore and apply their knowledge and understanding to the use of robots, such as those used here.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Solutions to the integration of robotics into Social Science instruction includes effective professional development opportunities for teachers along with a commitment to using scarce funds to invest in robots. Sharing of robots across the school can help. Teachers should also be encouraged to seek out and apply for grants to help purchase robots and other equipment. Additionally, many free or inexpensive educational apps also exist that can be used to help introduce the theories behind and practice of coding and robotics.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The research base supporting the use of robotics across the K-12 curriculum, particularly within mathematics and science fields, is largely in place. However, within the Social Sciences there is a dearth 25

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

of research supporting its use. Opportunities for qualitative interviews, exploratory, and/or large scale quantitative studies exist. As such, the following research directions are proposed: •

•

•

Research Examining Social Science Teachers’ Willingness and/or Resistance to use of Coding and Robotics as a Part of Their Instructional Practice: Research of this nature would allow teacher educators, professional development leaders, instructional coaches, and others to determine current levels of willingness and to track changes in willingness across time and place. Research of this nature would also help researchers identify and mitigate barriers to effective use, even as it helped to determine whether findings can be generalized across our global society. Research Examining How Early Adapters in the Social Sciences are Using Coding and Robots to Teach Critical Social Science Content and Skills: This research would also help to identify which, if any, learning is best supported by use of coding and robotics. Specifically, research of this nature could lead directly to researchers examining whether and to what extent learning occurs. Research Examining Whether and to what Extend Coding and Robotics can Support Critical Social Science Learning, Including Content Learning, Skill Acquisition, and Critical Thinking: For example, using the activity above, critical content learning about a key event in (US) history could be measured using a quasi-experimental design (pre and post assessment to determine whether and to what extend content learning within a treatment group was enhanced by the use of the mini-robots. Likewise, a pre- and post-assessment of map making or charting skills could be assessed using a similar quasi-experimental design.

CONCLUSION In K-12 Social Science classroom, targeted use of robots has the potential to provide instructional support to introduce or reinforce facts, concepts, timelines, interactions, and other social studies concepts (Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008). The targeted use of robots across the K-12 Social Science curriculum can help hone students’ critical thinking and dispositional skills. This, in turn, can enhance interest, motivation and knowledge retention. Learning while using robots allows learners to travel outside their own place in time and to participate as members of an exciting expedition. This immerses the learners in interdisciplinary, inquiry-rich learning that goes well beyond the traditional, text-based means of instruction (Parker, 2003). Targeted use of robots within the Social Sciences has the potential to provide instructional support to introduce or reinforce facts, concepts, timelines, interactions, and other social studies concepts (Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008). The use of the robots for the specific activity outlined in this chapter further allows learners to engage with and consider the lived experiences of the expedition’s members. Essentially, the students are encouraged to assume the identities of the men and women who lived in a previous time period in history.

REFERENCES Aronowitz, S. (2009, June 11). Re: Engineering in the 21st century. THE Journal. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/06/11/engineering-21st-century-skills.aspx

26

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Barreto, F., & Benitti, V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(2), 978–988. Bednarz, S. W., Acheson, G., & Bednarz, R. S. (2006). Maps and map learning in the social studies. Social Education, 70, 398–404, 432. Bennett, L., & Berson, M. (2007). Introduction. In L. Bennett & M. J. Berson (Eds.), Digital Age: Technology-based K-12 lesson plans for social studies (p. 3). Washington, D. C.: National Council for the Social Studies. Bloom, B. S., Mesia, B. B., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives (two vols: The Affective Domain & The Cognitive Domain). New York, NY: David McKay. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1992). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9 Bruner, J. (1961). Acts of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–22. Bruner, J. (1991). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Corneliussen, H. G., & Prøitz, L. (2016). Kids Code in a rural village in Norway: Could code clubs be a new arena for increasing girls digital interest and competence? Information Communication and Society, 19(1), 95–110. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093529 Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education, lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. De Cristoforis, P., Pedre, S., Nitsche, M., Fischer, T., Pessacg, F., & Di Pietro, C. (2012). A behaviorbased approach for educational robotics. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 61–66. doi:10.1109/ TE.2012.2220359 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2002). The Creative Curriculum® for preschool. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Friends, M. (2013). Developing computational thinking. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://blog. ltc.mq.edu.au/henriettesahagian/2015/05/25/robotics/ Gallagher, S., Sher, B., Stepien, W., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136–146. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995. tb15748.x Geography Education Standards Project. (1994). Geography for life: National geography standards 1994. Washington, D. C.: National Geographic Research & Exploration. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computation thinking in K-12: A review of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051

27

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Haley, J. B. (1992). Deconstructing the map. Passages, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Publishing. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/passages/4761530.0003.008/-deconstructing-the-ap?rgn=main;view=fulltext Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 397–411. doi:10.1111/bjep.12114 PMID:27062159 Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the digital revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jackson, D. W., & Angelino, H. R. (1974). Play as learning. Theory into Practice, 13(4), 317–323. doi:10.1080/00405847409542527 King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94305197 doi:10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781 Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young child learning. The Future of Children, 18(1), 39–61. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0002 PMID:21338005 Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2011). Instructional strategies for middle and secondary social studies: Methods, assessment, and classroom management. New York: Routledge. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., ... & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32-37. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maxim, G. W. (2014). Dynamic social studies for constructivist classrooms. Boston, MA: Pearson. Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J.-J. (2013). The applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1(1). doi:10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015 National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment (Introduction). Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies Publications. Newmann, F. M., & Thompson, J. (1987). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement in secondary schools: A summary of research. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Noddings, N. (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ozobot & Evollve. (2016). Play to learn STEM and coding. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http:// get.ozobot.com/starter-pack/?gclid=CKWvjIjxitACFQ5Efgod4lsCNw Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press. Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.

28

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1). Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v36/v36n1/rockland Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill/Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Su, A. S., Yang, S. H., Hwang, W., Huang, C. J., & Tern, M. (2014). Investigating the role of computersupported annotation in problem-solving-based teaching: An empirical study of a scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647–665. doi:10.1111/bjet.12058 Techopedia. (2016). Smart Device. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/31463/smart-device Vavassori Benitti, F. B. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006 Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language [Rev. ed.]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19–28.

ADDITIONAL READING Artisan Education LLC. (2016). Part One: Use of Ozobots in a classroom. Artisan Education: Where art and technology meet. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from https://artisaneducation.com/part-oneusing-ozobots-in-a-classroom Brown, P. (2016, March). Coding with Ozobots. TechLearning.com. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://www.techlearning.com/blogentry/10525 Robots, E. (n. d.). Elementary robots curriculum for Ozobot. Exploringrobots.com. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://www.exploringrobots.com/index.php/grade-levels/elementary-schools-grades-k-5/ curriculum-for-ozobot.html The Curriculum Corner. (2016). Using Ozobots to introduce coding in the classroom. Retrieved November 30, 2016 from http://www.thecurriculumcorner.com/thecurriculumcorner123/2015/01/27/using-ozobotto-introduce-coding-in-the-classroom/

29

 Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 21st Century Learning: A set of core competencies that promote collaboration, digital literacy, critical thinking, and problem solving aimed at helping K-12 learners function successfully in what is expected to be a high tech, globally connected century. Cartography: A systematic practice of drawing or making accurate maps (Haley, 1992). Civic Engagement: A process, or disposition, for active participation in the democratic, or governmental, process. Coding: A process of directing a computer or machine to perform a specific, systematic task. Computational Thinking: A way of thinking or doing that involves solving problems, designing solutions using computer systems. Robotics: A branch of technology that involves the design, construction, operation, and/or application of robots to perform a task or solve a problem. Smart Gadgets: An electronic device that uses the internet or an intranet to connect to and communicate with other devices or networks to complete a task or solve a problem. Skill/Task Analysis: Process of observing and deconstructing how an action is completed or a goal is achieved. Timeline: A 2D or 3D linear or comparative graphical representation of time and its passage.

30

Mini-Robots as Smart Gadgets

APPENDIX Sample Coding Key • • • • • • • •

Departure (Camp Wood): 1 Spin followed by a Go Straight command Travel along the route: 1 zig zap; 1 snail, and 1 cruise command mixed with Go Straight commands Portaging Great Falls = Line Jump Left or Right New Year/Calendar Year Changes = Tornado command Long stops = Timer On command for long stops Pauses = Pause command for short stops Key Discoveries = Tornado command for important discoveries; Nitro Boost command for people encountered Arrival at the Pacific Ocean (Ft. Clatsop): 1 pause; 1 u turn line end followed by a nitro back to Camp Wood

31

32

Chapter 3

Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents Md Mahmudul Hasan Anglia Ruskin University, UK

ABSTRACT This chapter sheds light on gamification aspects in a course content and how it can be implemented to enhance students’ performance. The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of designing gamified content in the classroom by ‘gamispire-wheel’. It also focuses on implementing existing tool such as ClassDojo. It is especially written for teachers, researchers, practitioners, educationists and students. To make the chapter self-explanatory for the readers, a case study has been illustrated that can be utilised in the classroom. In addition to that, key gamification elements have been mentioned. Moreover, this chapter provides step by step guidelines to design, develop and implement gamified course contents using the web or mobile phones.

INTRODUCTION Gamification is a technique to implement game elements in a non-gaming environment. This term was first coined by Nick Pelling in 2003 (A brief history of gamification, 2013). However, gamification started to use commonly in teaching and learning until 2010 (Deterding, et al., 2011). The other related terms like ‘game based learning’ and ‘educational games’ are also used as like as gamification to enhance engagement for students. It has received enormous attention in recent days. This new terminology has harnessed its capacity in various domain. There are significant research works that clearly illustrate the gamified content’s applicability in education (Bonde et al., Christy & Fox, 2014), government services (Bista, Nepal, Paris, & Colineau, 2014), gaming (e.g. FarmVille2, CityVille), fitness (Nike+ app for iOS and Android) and in military unit (e.g. game based training for US army). Technology and social networks play a vital role in education from early childhood to grown-up stages (Kayımbaşıoğlu, et al., 2016). Leah and Erin (2017) argued how gamification and digital games can be used in higher education. Joana (2017) explained the role of gamification in operations research. In her paper, the author distinguishes between gamified and non-gamified courses and demonstrates how gamified courses DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch003

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

increase the engagement of students. Besides, gamification can help the children with intellectual disabilities (Colpani and Homem, 2015). In this research paper, authors showed how a set of cutting edge technologies such as augmented and virtual reality can be integrated with gamification model and its significance towards disabilities. David et al. (2016) proposed a platform called ICT-Flag funded by the Spanish government which can be used to benefit students, teachers, and academic contributors. Patrick and Elaine (2016) investigated different levels of expectation from the gamified environment based on personality. Here, authors used the National Tax Forecasting Project (NTFP) which is an Irish gamified learning intervention platform that helps to forecast the national budget by asking input from the students. Furthermore, a platform called Edutronics is introduced to teach electronics by doing various tasks (Assante et al., 2016). Lane, et al., (2016) prototyped an educational platform to teach geometry for children. Hence, we can draw a portrayal of how a gamification model could be productive in education sectors especially in teaching and learning.

Background The key factor of gamification is obviously motivating the targeted audiences. In this section, a brief overview of using gamification tools is illustrated, which are commonly used in different scenarios. In addition, a motivation behind this chapter will also be discussed. Typical features of gamification components include badges, achievements, quests collection, leaderboard, resources, virtual goods or currency, unlock new features, avatar, gifts, level boosters and so on. According to Marczewski’s user type (2015), motivation works in different layers: 1. Base 2. Emotional 3. Trivial These layers are also divided into several sub-layers: 1. Base: security, health, physiological, safety, needs 2. Emotional: relatedness, autonomy, mastery, purpose 3. Trivial: badges, points, leaderboard, bonus, gifts The above list contains the big-picture of implementing gamification model. There are several hormones, such as oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins and so on, which are responsible for motivating human. In other words, hormones are responsible (the brain game, 2017) for changing emotional states, mood, behaviour, social attitudes, sleep, heart function, metabolism, focus and learning ability. And the common strategy of motivating students is rewarding them and guide them in a way that they feel comfortable as well as challenging. There are many application in the market which are using gamification techniques. For example, Compettia (http://www.compettia.com) which is a mobile application that enhances employees and consumers to understand the products using gamification technique. Another interesting application called Bounden in iOS and Android platforms teaches dancing using two players including gamified features. Similarly, there are many popular games that use gamification aspects to engage users. For instance,

33

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Candy Crush Saga (i.e. a match-three puzzle game released by King on April 12, 2012 for facebook) and Clash of Clans (i.e. a mobile MMO strategy game developed and published by Supercell in 2012) employ gamification elements such as badges, gifts, rewards and points. Moreover, these two apps use similar tactics, like appointment dynamics, to engage users and get them back after a certain time of interval. Table 1 distinguishes between traditional and gamified approaches of teaching-learning activities. As per previous discussion, most of these tools require some other tools or technologies to be implemented in gamification domain. However, the proposed model has the facilities to design, develop and implement in any situations. To be precise, the purpose of this study is to design a gamified course contents where it is possible with or without using any technological tools. For this reason, this study considers a simplified format of including gamification tools which can be integrated. The next section will describe how to design and implement gamified course contents in any situation to motivate students.

Designing Gamified Course Content Many people consider the game design and gamification as identical while they are not. Game design refers to technical aspects of the game architecture and sometimes programming skills, art and aesthetics. However, gamification is concerned with the engagement of players and enhancement of their productivity and performances towards positivity. Therefore, an extraction in various game elements could be a useful mechanism to implement suitable gamified content for the students. In this section, “gamispire-wheel” has been introduced, which can be implemented by anyone and anywhere with (e.g. Microsoft Word, Excel, notepad) or without (i.e. paper, pen or pencil) using any technical tools. It is an easy and effective way to improve engagement and enhance the performance of the students in the classroom. To design a workable and effective gamified course contents, I focus on the simplified gamification components that are easy to understand and deploy. They are as follows: 1. Motivating students by rewards 2. Challenging students by giving scores/points The overall agenda of this model is to create a competitive environment where students become more engaging and interactive to the studies. Gamispire-wheel has the following components which are shown in Table 2. This game mechanics does not need any special skills to be implemented. The components have been classified into three broad categories such as numerical, attitudinal and incentivize. Table 2 also shows the category index along with components. Table 1. Differences between traditional and gamified approaches Traditional Approach

Gamified Approach

Requires direct intervention to get feedback

Access to direct/indirect feedback to enhance performance

Only answer scripts reflects the way of giving feedback

Rewarding to motivate students intrinsically/extrinsically

Cannot draw a bigger picture

Visualize competitive environment and take actions according to it

34

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Table 2. Components to implement gamification using gamispire-wheel SL.

Item

Category

1

Achievements based on scores or points

Numerical (+ index)

2

Daily bonus (attendance)

Numerical (+ index)

3

Invitation or challenge others

Attitudinal (+ index)

4

Appointment dynamics

Attitudinal (+ index)

5

My gift

Incentivise (+ index)

6

Leaderboard

Numerical (+ index)

7

Educational health-meter

Attitudinal (+ index)

8

Unlock new features

Incentivise (+ index)

9

Boosters to overcome obstacles

Incentivise (+ index)

10

Mastery on each level

Attitudinal (+ index)

11

Hygiene health-meter

Attitudinal (+ index)

From Table 2, it is clear that eleven parameters are used in this model. The first one is the achievement which is under the numerical category. This one depends on the completion of the tasks and after each successful completion of the task, students will be rewarded with points. And total points will be the score which is earned by a student. The second one is also related to a numerical value which encourages students to be attentive and regular in the classroom. By attending classes regularly, one student will be compensated by bonus points. The third one is related to attitudinal which reflects the competitive environment. Appointment dynamics deals with the time management and timely accomplishment of the given tasks. ‘My gift’ is an incentivise item which deals with various gifts that are offered as an explicit reward. The leaderboard is the ranking scales where students will be ranked according to their performances. Educational health-meter is the life line to overcome a level. If someone scores less in a particular level, his health meter will go down and thus he will be motivated to do better at the next level. The next one unlocks some extra features of the tasks which rectify students to be looking forward to the next tasks and helps to create an exciting environment. The boosters are the power pill which helps to overcome particular obstacles in complex tasks. The mastery level enables the feature to become a student as a consultant. The last one is again attitudinal which take cares with the hygiene and cleanliness of the students. To implement the gamispire-wheel in the classroom one needs to have a simple paper and pencil. The following diagram needs to be drawn and identify the weight of each block. The best result can be obtained if teachers can prepare the gamispire-wheel before their class when they prepared for their lessons. He/she needs to categorise the weight according to the class contents. For instance, according to the requirement of the classes and the course content, the teacher can select four components in a coordinator. In a single wheel gamispire model, users need to select the required elements from the above table such as achievements, appointment dynamics, bonus, hygiene health-meter and so on. And each segment needs to be weighted equally. For example, in the following setup users set the weight of each block at the mark of 5. According to the performances of the students, teacher will set the weight of each band. After this, the teacher needs to set the total weight and set a Leaderboard to make a competitive environment. Students will be motivated to see them on the Leaderboard, and eventually, this Leaderboard can be updated in every week. 35

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Figure 1 illustrates a symmetric gamispire-wheel where teachers evaluated students according to the pre-defined factors and distribute the points out of 5 according to the relevant performances. Table 3 shows a Leaderboard according to the scores those have been obtained by the students and the ranking shows the particular places in the Leaderboard.

Analytics of the Gamispire-Wheel Teachers can get a clear overview and insight of the students’ performance from the analytics of the gamispire-wheel. To do this, they need to map between the components those have been chosen to generate the Leaderboard and then it will be easily measurable which parts need to be focused and how performance can be improved. This can be done by adding more incentivise, numeric or attitudinal contents based on the requirements of the classroom and the course contents. In other words, changing components may improve students’ ranking in the Leaderboard.

Implementing Gamified Course Contents Using Existing Tools This segment of this chapter describes existing technologies which can be used to design, develop and implement gamification model in the classroom using various gadgets. There are several gamification platforms available in the market such as Openbadges.me (i.e. https://www.openbadges.me/), ClassDojo (http://classdojo.com), ClassBadges (http://classbadges.com/), BadgeVille (https://badgeville.com/), Inter-

Figure 1. Gamispire-wheel [A=Achievements, B=Daily bonus, C=Appointment Dynamics, D= Booster; out of 5]

Table 3. Leaderboard according to the scores SL.

36

Name

ID

Scores (out of 20)

Ranking

01

Peter

S-2A-1

13

03

02

Ahmed

S-2A-2

18

01

03

John

S-2A-3

12

04

04

Tina

S-2A-4

17

02

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

activia (http://www.interactivia.ro/) and so on. However, not all of them can be used as a free tool. In this chapter, ClassDojo (i.e. a free platform) is used as a reward platform to enhance students’ performance. ClassDojo has the facilities to create classes and add students. It also gives an opportunity for the teachers to connect parents of the individual student. The following case study will show a journey of a teacher who uses the tool.

Case Study Mr. John has newly joined in the St. George primary school as a math teacher and he is very excited to take his first class in the 5th grade. •

Students: All of the students are aged between 10 to 12

Mr. John uses the ClassDojo platform to design the gamified class content as his lesson plan. Using ClassDojo is a very simple task. A step by step guideline has been provided below: At first, users of the ClassDojo need to sign up as shown in the following figure 2 into ClassDojo web app or mobile app from their Personal Computer (PC) or mobile devices such as Android iOS or Windows Phone. Users are classified as a teacher, parent, student and school leader. However, in this chapter, the creation and utilisation of the gamified content have been described in the context of teachers’ perspective. After signing up, users need to login into the application to create their own class as illustrated in figure 3. As shown in the following figure, teachers are able to create their class according to the level such as nursery, grade 1, 2, 3 and so on. After creating the class, the next essential task is to add the students to the class. Figure 4 shows the user interface of adding students. Figure 5 shows the class with added students. After the above tasks, the classroom looks like the following figure 6. Figure 2. Sign up for ClassDojo

37

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Figure 3. Creating class in ClassDojo

Figure 4. Adding students in the class at ClassDojo

38

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Figure 5. Added students in the class at ClassDojo

Figure 6. Added students in the class at ClassDojo

Teachers can add skills in two ways. The first one deals with the positive aspects of students’ performance and the other one focuses on the areas need to be improved by the students. Figure 7 shows the ways of adding positive tasks. It deals with the performance as well as attitudinal objectives such as helping others, on task, participating, persistence, teamwork, working hard and so on. Teachers or practitioners have also facilities to give negative feedback showed in figure 8 based on bullying, disrespect, unprepared, not doing homework and so on. Teachers can also add, remove and edit any skills. 39

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Figure 7. Adding skills into the classroom (positive marking)

Figure 8. Feedback and negative marking

40

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Teachers have also the facilities to create groups and see the progress of the students group-wise as shown in the following figure 9. Teachers and practitioners have the benefit to reward the group which is shown in the following figure 10. Furthermore, teachers can create the stories as shown in the following figure 11. They can also send private messages to the students as well as parents which is depicted in figure 12. In addition to these essential features, ClassDojo also offers some important facilities. Teachers can transfer a class to another teacher, creating and providing zero-point feedback, undo a point and a note, setting up quiet hours, sending photos to parents, taking attendances, using timer, awarding multiple students at once, separate or hide point totals and so on. Figure 9. Making groups of students

Figure 10. Rewarding groups

41

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Figure 11. Creating stories

Figure 12. Send messages to the students/parents

CONCLUSION In this chapter, a comprehensive plan (i.e. gamispire-wheel) has been described to design the gamified course content using technologies where it is available or not. ClassDojo has been selected as a platform in this case and the steps have been explained unambiguously with relevant images. The gamispire-wheel can be used successfully to create a healthy competition among the students, give them challenges and improve their performance. These two models can be utilised using the web and mobile phones and can be easily implemented to enable an effective gamification platform for the students. To sum up, this chapter will help to make the classroom more joyful and engaging using various gamification techniques.

42

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

REFERENCES Assante, D., Fornario, C., Sayed, A. E., & Salem, S. A. (2016). Edutronics: Gamification for introducing kids to electronics. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi (pp. 905-908). doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474659 doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474659 Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2014). Gamification for online communities: A case study for delivering government services. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 23(2). doi:10.1142/S0218843014410020 doi:10.1142/S0218843014410020 Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. A. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32(7), 694–697. PubMed doi:10.1038/nbt.2955 doi:10.1038/nbt.2955 PMID:25004234 Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43-55. Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for womens math performance. Computers & Education, 78, 66–77. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.005 doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.005 Colpani, R., & Homem, M. R. P. (2015). An innovative augmented reality educational framework with gamification to assist the learning process of children with intellectual disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2015 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Corfu. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. Paper presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 Dias, J. (2017, March). Teaching operations research to undergraduate management students: The role of gamification. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(1), 98-111. doi:10.1016/j. ijme.2017.01.002 FarmVille2, CityVille developed by Zynga (2009). Retrieved on 29 January 2016 from https://www. zynga.com/ Gañán, D., Caballé, S., Clarisó, R., & Conesa, J. (2016). Analysis and Design of an eLearning Platform Featuring Learning Analytics and Gamification. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS), Fukuoka (pp. 87-94). doi:10.1109/ CISIS.2016.42 doi:10.1109/CISIS.2016.42 Heartspring.net. (2017). The Brain Game, Balancing Neurotransmitters and Hormones. Retrieved April 15, 2017 from http://www.heartspring.net/brain_improving_happy_balance.html Kayımbaşıoğlu, D., Oktekin, B., & Haci, H. (2016). Integration of Gamification Technology in Education. Procedia Computer Science, 102, 668-676.

43

 Design and Implementation of Gamified Course Contents

Marczewski, A. (2015). User Types. In Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design (1st ed., pp. 65-80). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Primo, L., Ulbricht, V., Rocha, E., Mesacasa, A., & Queiroz, R. G. (2016). Poligonopolis: Prototype of accessible and gamified learning object to teach Geometry. In Proceedings of the XI Latin American Conference on Learning Objects and Technology (LACLO), San Carlos. doi:10.1109/LACLO.2016.7751786 doi:10.1109/LACLO.2016.7751786 Sera, L., & Wheeler, E. (2017). Game on: The gamification of the pharmacy classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 155-159. Zefcan.com. (2013). A brief history of gamification. Retrieved 28 January 2017 from http://zefcan. com/2013/01/a-brief-history-of-gamification

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Appointment Dynamics: A specific time to gain or earn some extra features. Class-Dojo: It is a platform available in web and mobile platforms to engage students effectively. Game-Based Learning: A learning style which is actively driven by games. Gamification: A mechanism of applying game elements in non-gaming context. Gamified Environment: This refers to an environment where the gamification components are actively arranged to engage users. Gamispire-Wheel: A method of using gamification components in a simplified format by using any technical or non-technical tools anytime and anywhere. Hormones: It refers to chemicals which are secreted from glands for specific function of organs. Leaderboard: A ranking of players which reflects highest achievements based on performances and earned points.

44

45

Chapter 4

Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps Melanie Tomaschko Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Selay Arkün Kocadere Hacettepe University, Turkey Markus Hohenwarter Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

ABSTRACT The development of mobile devices as well as the technical possibilities going along with this progress are extensive. Especially since the last few years, the widespread availability of mobile technologies offers new opportunities to improve learning and teaching both in- and outside of classrooms. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) models can help to support the shift towards more student-centered learning environments with their unique benefits for learning. This chapter takes a closer look at GeoGebra, a set of apps for learning and teaching mathematics and science, and how they can support teaching, learning, and assessing in relation to the aspects of participation, personalization, and productivity of BYOD.

INTRODUCTION The dynamic mathematics software tool set GeoGebra (Hohenwarter et al., 2016) is used by millions of students and teachers worldwide for learning and teaching mathematics and science. For the development of the GeoGebra math apps, an international team of researchers and open source software developers are working together in order to continually improve the functionality and usability of this software. Since a few years, the interactive mathematics learning tool GeoGebra is also available as apps for the DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch004

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

major tablet and smartphone platforms. Concerning the use of GeoGebra in BYOD classrooms, it is essential to support all the different kinds of mobile devices as well as their different operating systems. In addition to the mathematical applications GeoGebra also provides an online materials platform where users can publicly share and collect interactive online materials or browse through already more than 700k shared open educational resources. For the use in school GeoGebra has also released a specialpurpose learning management system called GeoGebra Groups (Hohenwarter, 2016). Using GeoGebra Groups allows easy sharing of privately authored as well as publicly available GeoGebra materials. Currently the system supports basic elements like text, videos, questions, interactive GeoGebra tasks, public commenting, and private feedback all usable across different platforms including smartphones. Today our society is changing due to the increased dissemination of mobile devices and their impact on how people are connected and related to each other (K-12 Blueprint, 2014; Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2010). In addition to the changes of the mobile devices in everyday life also the use of these technologies in education entails a change of design and organization for teaching and learning (Alberta Education, 2012). The integration of technology such as (pocket, graphing) calculators or computers with special software programs in education is nothing new (Burrill, 2011; Pimm & Johnston-Wilder, 2005). Already in the 1970s the first hand-held, arithmetic calculator was established in the UK (Pimm & Johnston-Wilder, 2005). Although these devices were even restricted for the use in class at its inception, their potential was soon recognized and calculators were adopted for teaching and learning purposes (Pimm & Johnston-Wilder, 2005). Moreover, it was already proposed many years ago that technology enhanced learning and teaching environments are essential for high-quality mathematics education (Burrill, 2011; Pimm & Johnston-Wilder, 2005; NCTM, 2008). Especially the new approach of dynamic interactive software activities was seen as great potential for teaching and learning, because it could engage students in exploring, reflecting, and observing mathematical concepts (Burrill, 2011). Today teaching environments are expected to take our mobile device-centered lifestyle into account, to enable collaborative learning, and to offer opportunities for digital learning (Bachmair, 2013; Kerres, Heinen, & Stratmann, 2012). Many authors (Alberta Education, 2012; K-12 Blueprint, 2014; Rogers, 2015) recommend a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) model as a successful strategy for supporting learning and teaching in the 21st century. As the main part of this chapter, the open source mathematical learning apps of GeoGebra are considered as example tools for a BYOD model and how they can support learning and teaching with personally owned devices related to the aspects of participation, personalization, and productivity (Alberta Education, 2012).

Technological Impact on Human Life Due to the recent technological progress, computers were becoming suitable for mobile usage because they were lighter, easier to handle, and also adapted to the aesthetic ideas of users. A major step for the evolution of computers was the breakthrough with smartphones, that can be defined as mobile computers (Wildt & Meister, 2012). Important features that characterize a smartphone are a touch-sensitive screen, a camera, GPS positioning, access to the Internet, a variety of sensors, and of course the possibility to write messages and to make phone calls. Because of the combination of a touch-sensitive screen, textand speech-input, such as a variety of sensors, or a camera, there is wide range for interaction and input. Thus, a smartphone can be seen as a small miniaturized mobile version of a computer which supports the same technological possibilities (in some cases with weaker performance capacity). In addition to the enhanced hardware of the smartphone, there is also the possibility to enhance the software with so46

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

called mobile applications (Wildt & Meister, 2012), that are application programs for mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. Mobile devices are still constantly enhanced and also the opportunities for their use are extended through different services. The market of mobile devices booms since the last few years. As an example, for Germany, it is reported in the statistics of the German JIM-Study (Feierabend, Plankenhorn, & Rathgeb, 2015) that the most important device owned by children at the age of twelve to nineteen is the mobile phone. Almost every child (98%) owns a personal mobile phone with 92% of them being smartphones. Furthermore, the statistics show that the use of other devices such as desktop computers or radios is decreasing (Feierabend et al., 2015). According to the authors, a reason for this could be the multi functionality of the devices: most of the functionalities of the previously used devices are also integrated in smartphones, which obviates the need for the other devices. Today, mobile devices such as tablets or smartphones have taken an important role in human’s life. They are used for private and work purposes and can be found in many areas of everyday life (Feierabend et al., 2015). Today’s students are growing up in a digital age where technology is a part of their everyday life. The change of mobile technology is a major factor of how people are related to each other and also to a vast amount of information (Sharples et al., 2010). Also in the field of education exists a great interest in learning with mobile devices. The use of mobile devices as a learning medium to complement education is not yet widespread in today’s schools, however, it is becoming increasingly popular. Among other things this is due to the comfortable size, low weight, or the technical equipment of the devices. Mobile applications in the field of education become increasingly popular. An important advantage of mobile apps in contrast to traditional learning programs or learning management systems is the self-explanatory and clear use of the applications. Furthermore, the learner can access nearly endless learning resources anytime and anywhere. In addition to the changes of the mobile devices and their applications also the use of mobile technologies in education requires a change of design and organization to best support teaching and learning with these devices (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004).

Mobile Learning In many definitions, mobile learning is described in its intuitive form: mobile learning is seen as consuming learning materials. Therefore, Kinshuk, Sutinen, and Goh (2003) describe mobile learning as the “ability of using handheld devices to access learning resources”. Other authors do not focus their comprehension explicitly on the transmission of learning materials but rather on the usage of mobile technology. For example, Sharma and Kitchens (2004) formalize this as follows: “Mobile-learning is learning supported by mobile devices, ubiquitous communications technology, and intelligent user interfaces”. Döring and Kleeberg (2006) also mention an essential advantage of the new mobile technology. Until now computer based learning was laborious because in most schools, desktop computers with network connections were placed in separated rooms. With the new mobile technologies, technology-enhanced learning can be integrated more flexibly and more often in classrooms. Another point of view of mobile learning is an extension of conventional e-learning to mobile devices. According to Quinn (2000) mobile learning is “e-learning through mobile computational devices”. Ktoridou and Eteokleous (2005) share this opinion and define mobile learning as “e-learning using mobile devices and handheld IT devices”. Other authors, such as Traxler (2005) or Stoller-Schai (2010), emphasize that mobile learning should be delineated and defined independently by conventional 47

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

e-learning. If the difference between mobile learning and e-learning is merely reduced to the mobility of the devices, this will be unrewarding (Traxler, 2005). According to Traxler (2010), all of these early definitions were too techno-centric and imprecise. Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) shared this opinion already some years earlier and also suggested to break away from the technological aspect and to put the learner more into the focus. They describe the learner as the important element and extend their definition by the learning environment, which is mobile: We thus deduct that a socially and educationally responsible definition must view the learner as the one being mobile and not his/her devices! What needs to move with the learner is not the device, but his/her whole learning environment. (Laouris & Eteokleous, 2005). Bachmair, Risch, Friedrich, and Mayer (2011) describe mobile learning as an educational answer on the changed culture of media and learning of many children. They emphasize that educational methods which are especially designed for the requirements of mobile learning, have to react to the current social culture and also the consequent transition of technology. Particularly in the 21st century, a teaching environment is expected, which makes it possible to meet the mobile lifestyle and to enable cooperative learning and integration of digital learning resources (Bachmair, 2013; Kerres et al., 2012). Adopting new technologies in teaching and learning processes entails unique benefits for mobile learning. It enables and facilitates personalized, situated, and seamless learning anytime, anywhere, and bridges the gap between formal and informal learning (West & Vosloo, 2013). Through the constant connection of students through their mobile devices new communities are created which can improve their communication skills and also allow immediate feedback in learning environments (West & Vosloo, 2013). Due to the swift changes in our digital age, students need to be flexible, innovative, and independent to be well prepared for their life outside and after school. Shifting the educational system to student-centered learning can support these requirements and broaden students’ competencies required in today’s world (Alberta Education, 2013). With such a student-centered focus, the use of technology can strengthen their skills in critical thinking, managing information, and problem solving.

Bring Your Own Device As a strategy to enrich the knowledge of using mobile devices in order to enhance learning and teaching, Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger Hall, Cummins and Yuhnke (2016) suggest the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) concept as a suitable model. In Alberta Education (2012) BYOD is described as “technology models where students bring a personally owned device to school for the purpose of learning”. With the BYOD model, the authors explicitly point to the fact that the use of personally owned devices has several advantages over using school-owned devices. Students are more familiar with their own devices and they tend to spent a lot of time customizing them. Consequently, they are adept at using these devices, which entails the possibility of seamless learning that bridges the gap between informal and formal learning (Alberta Education, 2012). Moreover, the use of students’ own devices allows them to focus on the learning content rather than on the used technology (European Schoolnet, 2015). However, Rogers (2015) emphasizes that BYOD should not be limited to the choice of devices, it also means to be “productive, connecting, and having access to information and knowledge”, which also shifts the role of the knowledge keeper from the teacher to the student.

48

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

The BYOD concept in classrooms builds on the essential role of mobile devices in students’ lives and can thus support personalized student-centered learning especially well (Stavert, 2013; Rogers, 2015). It offers opportunities to increase student engagement, collaborative, and differentiated learning, as well as communication (Rogers, 2015) and thus enhances these 21st century skills (Stavert, 2013). Alberta Education (2012) suggests a BYOD model for teaching, learning, and assessing consisting of three aspects, namely participation, personalization, and productivity. The authors describe personalized learning as an enhanced form of learning where students are engaged through personal interests and needs and get possibilities for making choices related to their own learning progress. To support the productivity of the students, they emphasize the importance to provide opportunities for students to show what they have learned in their own creative ways. With participation, they suggest to support the social and cognitive interactions of the students while they are learning.

GeoGebra Mathematics Apps We will now have a closer look at the GeoGebra math apps as an example that could support the described aspects of personalization, productivity, and participation in a BYOD model. The GeoGebra mathematics apps allow students and teachers to create, share, browse, and collect interactive mathematics materials via an online platform, called GeoGebra Materials. The apps are available both for desktop (Windows, MacOS, Linux) and mobile (Android, iOS) platforms and also as web applications, shown in Figure 1, which can be used in any web browser. The math apps consist of Figure 1. GeoGebra Web Application

49

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

different views: a Graphics View for creating geometric constructions, an Algebra View to enter equations, functions, and coordinates, a computer algebra system (CAS) view for symbolic computations like equation solving, a 3D Graphics View, a Spreadsheet View for working with statistical data, and a Probability Calculator for graphing and calculating probability distributions. To use the GeoGebra apps as mathematics software tools in class students can either install them as native applications on their devices or access them through a web browser. For this reason, pupils can bring any device to class, as long as it has Internet connection, which is described by Dixon and Tierney (2012) as one of their BYOD models, called “Bring your own whatever connects to the Internet.” The advantage of this very open model is that parents and students are not limited to a specific operating system or type of device. The user interface of the GeoGebra math apps is adapted according to the operating system of the used mobile device, so that users can interact with the application as they are used to from other apps installed on their personally owned devices. GeoGebra apps allow the user to sign in, so regardless of whether using the installed or web application, users stay connected to their accounts, where they can save constructions to the GeoGebra Materials cloud service. Students can also browse through publicly available materials and mark them as their favorites. In this way, the specific materials can easily be reopened from the user’s profile page. Within the GeoGebra apps it is also possible to customize and save default settings, e.g. font size, rounding or language, for the used device. For the native phone applications, this feature will be added soon in order to better support the advantages in terms of the use of personally owned devices. To use the GeoGebra math apps while taking an exam in BYOD classrooms, special exam apps have been developed. These allow the use of all or a subset of GeoGebra features in special exam environments (Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2016), either accessed from a web browser or installed on tablets. Because the used software has to meet certain criteria depending on the age level or country where the exam takes place, it is possible to restrict the functionalities that GeoGebra offers. Before the exam is started, the user has the possibility to disable specific features, if the scope of the functionality should be restricted. If students bring their own tablets, different GeoGebra Exam apps with a predefined scope of functionalities are currently available: • • •

GeoGebra Exam Simple Calculator: This application serves as a simple pocket calculator, where only the Algebra view is included. All other functionalities such as the Graphics view or CAS commands are disabled. Only simple functions like sin, cos, or tan can be used. GeoGebra Exam Graphing Calculator: The Exam Graphing Calculator app includes the Algebra and Graphics views. CAS commands and symbolic computations like derivatives and integrals are disabled. GeoGebra Exam CAS: The Exam CAS app includes all the power of GeoGebra including equation solving and symbolic commands, only the 3D view is deactivated.

At the moment, these exam applications are only available for tablets. To use GeoGebra during exams on smartphones, additional exam applications will be published in the future. Nevertheless, the existing GeoGebra apps for smartphones, namely the GeoGebra Graphing Calculator and the GeoGebra 3D Grapher, can be used in combination with App Pinning (for Android devices) or Guided Access (for iOS devices), which is a feature of the underlying operating system of the used device, in order to pin

50

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

an application to the screen of the device, which restricts the user from leaving the app or being interrupted by notifications during exams. In addition to the mathematics apps, GeoGebra recently launched a special-purpose learning management system called GeoGebra Groups (Hohenwarter, 2016), which allows easy sharing of both privately authored and publicly available GeoGebra materials. While many general purpose LMS usually focus on student use for homework, GeoGebra Groups simplify the file-handling for student-authored content and support real-time collaboration, commenting, and feedback in BYOD classrooms in connection with the GeoGebra math apps. GeoGebra Groups currently allows the use of elements like text, open and multiple choice questions, videos, and interactive GeoGebra tasks all usable across different platforms and operating systems. In the following sections, the mathematical learning apps of GeoGebra are considered according to Alberta Education’s (2012) BYOD model and how these apps can be used in order to support teaching, learning, and assessing in relation to the participation, personalization, and productivity aspects.

Participation With participation Alberta Education (2012) suggests the support of social and cognitive interactions of the students while they are learning. Thereby, the authors define three aspects of participation: • • •

Communication: Communication is the foundation of participation. Using interactive communication tools, such as online chats, social media, or blogs and wikis, allows students to participate in cooperative and collaborative interactions. Cooperation: The goal of cooperation is to increase the student’s own learning level, while they are working together in pairs or groups. Collaboration: Collaboration differs from cooperation since it builds on the purpose of creating a joint project. The team members work together on creating and constructing perspectives and ideas to reach a common goal.

GeoGebra offers different approaches to support participation in BYOD classrooms. On the one hand, the apps can be used for technology based cooperative work. While students operate with the mathematical learning tool, they can share their knowledge, discuss, and work together on a solution, which strengthens their skills by listening and learning from the interaction. On the other hand, GeoGebra Groups can be used for collaboration on sharing, collecting, and creating GeoGebra materials with other group members, i.e. students and teachers. Furthermore, a group allows students to participate in interactive communications, by posting different types of materials, images, videos, pdfs, and commenting posts of other group members. In the future, special mobile apps for GeoGebra Groups are planned that should even better support the participation aspect of BYOD by adding social learning features, like real-time multi-user authoring and real-time chat.

Productivity Today’s students both need and want to produce and also present their work in their own ways and whenever they want, and according to Alberta Education (2012) this is mostly done by using digital

51

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

tools. Thereby, the authors distinguish four different types of digital toolsets which can either be used to streamline learning or to demonstrate what students have learned: • • • •

Organizational Tools: Students can use organizational tools in order to plan and record their personal milestones, appointments, and learning progress. Production Tools: These tools essentially allow students to design, construct, produce, and present their work. Thinking Tools: Thinking tools can be used in order to support students in organizing, analyzing, and evaluating their ideas. Online Assessment Tools: Student can present what they have learned either by school-based or standardized tests.

With regard to the digital toolsets mentioned by Alberta Education (2012), GeoGebra can serve as organizational, production, thinking, and online assessment tools to support the student’s productivity using their personally owned devices. GeoGebra Groups allow teachers to create different tasks which have to be done by the pupils and it is also possible to set a specific deadline for each task. Although these features can only be used by teachers, they will help students to organize their learning. Students have an overview screen of their work, where they can also see which exercises they have already started or finished, and which ones are still to do. To better support the productivity aspect of the BYOD model the students should have the possibility to organize their learning goals by themselves. Teachers could use GeoGebra Groups to support this by allowing students to choose among an offered set of suggested exercises or tasks. Students can use GeoGebra as a production tool to create their own materials and to show what they have learned in many different ways. At the personal profile page of each user, all created worksheets and books are collected, whereby students can present their own products. Each material can either be shared on the GeoGebra materials platform or within a group. Using an additional digital tool, e.g. a screen recorder, students can also create videos or pictures of their work which they can share in various ways, e.g. via YouTube in a GeoGebra worksheet. As a dynamic and interactive learning environment GeoGebra math apps can be used as a thinking tool, since multiple opportunities for students are provided to implement and evaluate their ideas and to capture, analyze, and explore mathematical concepts in a variety of ways. It is also mentioned by Alberta Education (2012) that students prefer to use their personal devices during exams. With the recently launched GeoGebra exam environments (Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2016) students can use their own devices during exams.

Personalization According to Alberta Education (2012) the main goal of personalized learning is to engage students through their personal interests, needs, and regulation of learning. In order to achieve this purpose, the authors recommend to provide a learning environment that is related to topics of students interests and that allows students to get the control of their own learning. Actually, they describe personalization as

52

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

the shift toward student-centered learning. In a personalized learning environment students have the opportunity to choose what to learn and how to learn it, in particular with relation to content, assessment, communication, resources, learning tasks, and learning strategies. If students have the chance to relate their interests and academic studies, it will support their learning because of increased intrinsic motivation, engagement, and attention (Alberta Education, 2012). To leverage the student’s personally owned mobile devices for personalized learning in class, the teacher is responsible for setting up an environment where personalization is supported and encouraged (Alberta Education, 2012). Although the curriculum standards have to be followed students’ interests can still be considered for the choice of subtopics they should focus on. Furthermore, topics can be explored rather than presented from the teacher, which facilitates opportunities for discussions, that are actually driven by the students. To support personalized learning in combination with GeoGebra various possibilities in terms of content, assessment, communication, resources, learning tasks, and learning strategies are offered. The GeoGebra materials platform (2016) has already more than 700k shared open educational resources, which provides a large assortment of different materials students can choose on their own. All publicly available materials can be shared with others. Concerning personalization, this could be a possibility for teachers to share worksheets, videos, and various assessment types through GeoGebra Groups that are specifically adapted to students’ interests. Nevertheless, students can also search for alternative resources independently from the provided materials of the teacher. For this purpose, students can either use one of the different GeoGebra math apps or directly browse the GeoGebra materials platform using a web browser. GeoGebra offers different channels to get in touch with other students or the teacher and multiple opportunities how students, teachers, or other users can communicate with each other. The GeoGebra forum can be used publicly to discuss questions, problems, ideas or every other issue related to GeoGebra or how to solve certain mathematical problems using the GeoGebra math apps. For GeoGebra Groups also a more private form of communication exists. The main page of each group collects all posts within one group and serves as a communication platform for all members. Posts can be used to communicate and share different types of materials, e.g. images, videos, tasks, GeoGebra Worksheets, and GeoGebra Books, within a group. All of them can be publicly commented by the teacher and students. For individual tasks within a group private conversations between the student and the teacher are possible. In addition to the existing possibilities, the planned GeoGebra Groups app will even better support the communication aspect through the possibility of real-time chat. GeoGebra Groups offer different types of assignments such as multiple choice and open questions, or interactive GeoGebra tasks with embedded applets. Question elements offer the possibility for automatic checking and even for GeoGebra applets it is possible to integrate automatic checking of geometric constructions. This allows students to work independently on GeoGebra tasks with immediate feedback. All other elements can be assessed by personal feedback from the teacher. As GeoGebra math apps were developed for students, they are seen as active constructors of their knowledge (Hohenwarter, 2006). Primarily, GeoGebra math apps allow students to explore and understand mathematical concepts in self-directed experiments. Additionally, to the constructivist concept, also problem-solving and inquisitive and exploratory learning can be supported. Depending on the design of the tasks different and individual learning strategies can be addressed.

53

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

CONCLUSION The widespread use of mobile technology such as smartphones and tablet computers offers new possibilities for learning and teaching both in- and outside classrooms. Mobile learning means that today learners and their whole learning environments can move anywhere and anytime. The Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) concept in classrooms builds on the essential role of mobile devices in students’ lives and can thus support student-centered learning especially well. In this chapter, we have described the GeoGebra mathematics apps as an example for how such mobile apps can support participation, productivity and personalization in the BYOD model.

REFERENCES Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Alberta Education. (2012). Bring Your Own Device: A Guide for Schools. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from http://www.castledome.yuma.org/filestore/YumaEl_BYODGuide_072413.pdf Alberta Education. (2013). Learning and Technology Policy Framework. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from https://education.alberta.ca/media/1046/learning-and-technology-policy-framework-web.pdf Bachmair, B. (2013). Auf dem Weg zu einer Didaktik mobilen Lernens. In P. Micheuz, A. Reiter, G. Brandhofer, M. Ebner, & B. Sabitzer (Eds.), Digitale Schule Österreich (pp. 313–327). Wien, Austria: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft. Bachmair, B., Risch, M., Friedrich, K., & Mayer, K. (2011). Eckpunkte einer Didaktik des mobilen Lernens: Operationalisierung im Rahmen eines Schulversuches. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 19, 1–38. Burrill, G. (2011). ICT in the United States: Where We Are Today and a Possibility for Tomorrow. In A. Oldknow & C. Knights (Eds.), Mathematics Education with Digital Technology (pp. 12–22). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Dixon, B., & Tierney, S. (2012). Bring your own device to school. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from http://download.microsoft.com/documents/Australia/EDUCATION/2012008/Bring_your_own_device_to_school_briefing_paper_K-12.pdf Döring, N., & Kleeberg, N. (2006). Mobiles Lernen in der Schule. Entwicklungs- und Forschungsstand. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 34(1), 70–92. European Schoolnet. (2015). BYOD - Bring Your Own Device. A guide for school leaders. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from http://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/624810/BYOD+report_Oct2015_final.pdf Feierabend, S., Plankenhorn, T., & Rathgeb, T. (2015). JIM-Studie 2015: Jugend. Information, (Multi-) Media. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. Hohenwarter, M. (2006). GeoGebra - didaktische Materialien und Anwendungen für den Mathematikunterricht [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Salzburg, Austria. 54

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

Hohenwarter, M. (2016). GeoGebra Groups - Zusammenarbeit für SchülerInnen und LehrerInnen. In Institut für Mathematik und Informatik Heidelberg. Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2016. Munster: WTM-Verlag. Hohenwarter, M., . . .. (2016). GeoGebra materials platform. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from https:// www.geogebra.org K-12 Blueprint. (2014). Getting started BYOD. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from https://www.k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Getting-Started-BYOD.pdf Kerres, M., Heinen, R., & Stratmann, J. (2012). Schulische IT-Infrastrukturen: Aktuelle Trends und ihre Implikationen für Schulentwicklung. In R. Schulz-Zander et al. (Eds.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9 (pp. 161–174). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94219-3_8 Kinshuk, S. J., Sutinen, E., & Goh, T. (2003). Mobile technologies in support of distance learning. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 60–68. Ktoridou, D., & Eteokleous, N. (2005). Adaptive m-learning: technological and pedagogical aspects to be considered in Cyprus tertiary education. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.3001&rep=rep1&type=pdf Laouris, Y., & Eteokleous, N. (2005). We need an educationally relevant definition of mobile learning. In Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Cape Town, South Africa. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. FutureLab Report 11. NCTM. (2008). The Role of Technology in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Pimm, D., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Technology, mathematics and secondary schools: A brief UK historical perspective. In S. Johnston-Wilder & D. Pimm (Eds.), Teaching Secondary Mathematics with ICT (pp. 3–17). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: mobile, wireless, in your pocket learning. Retrieved January 27, 2017, from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm Rogers, K. (2015). Bring your own device: Engaging students and transforming instruction (Kindle ed.). Solution Tree Press. Sharma, S. K., & Kitchens, F. L. (2004). Web services architecture for m-learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(1), 203-216. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In B. Bachmair (Ed.), Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 87–99). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92133-4_6 Stavert, B. (2013). Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Schools: 2013 Literature Review. Eveleigh. New South Wales Department of Education and Communities.

55

 Opportunities for Participation, Productivity, and Personalization Through GeoGebra Mathematics Apps

Stoller-Schai, D. (2010). Mobiles Lernen - die Lernform des Homo Mobilis. In A. Hohenstein & K. Wilbers (Eds.), Handbuch E-Learning (pp. 1–20). Köln, Germany: Deutscher Wissenschaftsdienst. Tomaschko, M., & Hohenwarter, M. (2016). The use of GeoGebra during exams alongside paper and pencil. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applied Computing (pp. 4308-4314). Traxler, J. (2005). Defining mobile learning. In IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning (pp. 261-266). Traxler, J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education, 31(2), 129–138. doi:10.1080/01587919.2010.503362 West, M., & Vosloo, S. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris, France: UNESCO. Wildt, P., & Meister, R. (2012). Das Smartphone als sichere Burg. In S. Verclas & C. Linnhoff-Popien (Eds.), Smart mobile apps (pp. 209–224). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-64222259-7_14

56

57

Chapter 5

Digital Technology in Kindergarten:

Challenges and Opportunities Vicki Schriever University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia

ABSTRACT This chapter examines the literature surrounding digital technologies within kindergarten. It highlights the ways in which mobile devices and smart gadgets are used by early childhood teachers and young children in diverse teacher-focused and child-centred approaches. The challenges faced by early childhood teachers to successfully use and integrate mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten will be explored. These challenges include, meeting curriculum requirements, mediating parental expectations, seeing the potential of digital technologies, having the confidence and self-efficacy to use digital devices and determining the value and place of digital technologies within a play-based environment. Each of these challenges are explored within the chapter and the ways these challenges can be overcome are detailed. The opportunities which mobile devices and smart gadgets present to maximise young children’s learning, play and engagement and which facilitate and support the role of the early childhood teacher will also be examined.

INTRODUCTION No longer are digital technologies in kindergarten destined to be the domain of the lone desktop computer located in the corner of the classroom. Instead, mobile devices and smart gadgets enable young children and early childhood teachers access to a wealth of information, along with the ability to document children’s play, learning and engagement, just as easily from within the sand pit or beside the edible garden, as from within the four walls of the kindergarten classroom. Given the fluid, fast paced nature of children’s play and learning, mobile devices and smart gadgets can be a highly valuable teaching and learning tool for early childhood teachers to utilise and for young children to engage with and use. Successfully integrating mobile devices and smart gadgets into a kindergarten learning program for efDOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch005

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

fective use by both young children and early childhood teachers, is not as easy a task as simply providing access to these technological devices. Instead, there are both challenges to overcome and opportunities to embrace when planning for and successfully implementing digital technologies into a kindergarten learning environment. The objective of this chapter is to examine the literature surrounding digital technologies, early childhood teachers and young children, in order to provide insights into how early childhood teachers utilise mobile devices and smart gadgets with children to support and extend their play, learning and engagement and to also undertake their role as an early childhood teacher. It will also examine the internal and external challenges encountered by early childhood teachers in relation to successfully integrating digital technologies and will present ideas and strategies to overcome these potential challenges. The opportunities that mobile devices and smart gadgets afford both early childhood teachers and young children will also be examined. This chapter moves beyond simply stating a position of being for or against digital technology use within kindergarten and instead reveals and highlights the ways in which early childhood teachers are engaging with digital technology, meeting curriculum expectations and mediating the challenges and opportunities mobile devices and smart gadgets present in order to maximise and enhance young children’s learning, play and engagement.

BACKGROUND The literature surrounding the use of digital technologies within early childhood education showcases a conflicted and contested space, with both strong advocates and strong opponents of digital technology presenting their viewpoints. It is widely recognised that young children are born into, immersed within, and growing up in a digital world, where an extensive array of technologies are present and utilised in both the home and kindergarten classroom (Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen & Rose, 2011; Lia, Toki & Pange, 2014; Marsh et al., 2005) however; the development and integration of digital technologies within society and education has not been unproblematic and as such opposing viewpoints prevail. The introduction of digital technologies into early learning settings has resulted in extensive debate regarding the place of digital technologies within this environment, which reflects the problem of resistance towards a change in pedagogical practices (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012a). Furthermore, as a result of digital technologies entering early learning settings, it has become a significant task for early childhood teachers to navigate technologically-mediated childhoods (Marsh et al., 2005). In many respects, the challenge and resistance experienced by some early childhood teachers towards digital technologies, is reflective of a wider, societal debate and public concern regarding digital technologies and young children, with everyone from child development experts, to teachers and parents, all having an opinion about the role of technology in the lives of young children (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2010; Sharkins, Newton, Albaiz & Ernest, 2015). While some parents and teachers may have reservations and concerns about the place of digital technologies in early childhood education, government initiatives in various countries have sought to introduce digital technologies into progressively earlier stages of education (Plowman & Stephen, 2003). New initiatives and policies are being implemented across Australia with the aim being to support and enhance young children’s development, well-being and success through early childhood education (Schriever, 2013). A critically important policy document was developed in Australia in 2008 by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. The policy document titled, 58

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians details the future direction of early childhood education and schooling within Australia (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008). This important policy document which is driving early childhood education and schooling initiatives, includes many statements regarding the importance of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the need to educate young children to be successful and confident users of technologies. The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008) write that successful learners have the essential skills in literacy and numeracy and are creative and productive users of technology, especially ICT, as a foundation for success in all learning areas. Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) is a curriculum document specifically designed for use in Australian early childhood settings with children aged from birth to five years. It articulates a vision for children’s learning, pedagogy, principles, practices and learning outcomes. In relation to digital technology, the EYLF states, “Contemporary texts include electronic and print based media. In an increasingly technological world the ability to critically analyse texts is a key component of literacy. Children benefit from opportunities to explore their world using technologies and to develop confidence in using digital media” (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009, p.38). The acquisition of digital literacies are also specified as learning outcomes within the EYLF. This is evident in the following two outcomes: •

Outcome Four: Children are Confident and Involved Learners

Children resource their own learning through connecting with people, places, technologies and natural and processed materials; and •

Outcome Five: Children are Effective Communicators

Children use information and communication technologies to access information, investigate ideas and represent their thinking (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009). The inclusion of learning outcomes focusing on the development of digital technology knowledge, skills and confidence, for children aged from birth to five years of age, is reflective of the needs of 21st century learners and citizens. Selwyn (2011) writes that introducing and using digital technologies in educational settings is a response to the need to ‘keep up’ with the rest of modern life and to meet the needs of the ‘knowledge economy’. Incorporating digital technologies within educational settings is also indicative of the need for children to develop technology related skills required to work in the knowledge economy, with digital competence and digital literacy seen as essential capabilities required for contemporary life across all stages of education from kindergarten to an adult education centre (Selwyn, 2011). The imperative and desire to utilise digital technologies in education comes from a belief and hope that digital technologies will change learning, revolutionise teaching, support a range of improvements, overcome long-existing problems and limitations and support cognitive processing, thinking skills and connections with other learners (Jewitt, 2006; Lee & Winzenried, 2009; Selwyn, 2011). Along with developing the knowledge, skills and confidence necessary to mediate technological childhoods and develop as digitally competent citizens; digital technologies also provide young children with many positive opportunities for play, learning and engagement. Willoughby and Wood (2008) wrote that 59

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

the introduction of digital technology tools provide learners with many new possibilities for autonomy in their choice of learning activities, a dramatically increased range of resources and the opportunity to place the products of their learning in a public forum such as a website or a blog. Digital technologies can also provide young people with the ability to further their own learning, enquiry and be active participants in the use of technology (Williams & Easingwood, 2007; Willoughby & Wood, 2008). Through the use of mobile devices and smart gadgets a new system of education can begin to emerge that enables education to occur in many different and more adaptive venues (Collins & Halverson, 2009). As a result of government and curricular initiatives to develop children’s knowledge, skills and understandings with digital technologies, early childhood teachers need to recognise the importance of their role in developing young children to become competent and confident user and creators with technology. The needs of a 21st century society requires citizens to be able to engage in a technological world; therefore young children need opportunities to engage with mobile devices and smart gadgets in authentic and meaningful ways. The ways in which mobile devices and smart gadgets can be effectively used by both children and early childhood teachers will now be presented.

Teacher-Focused and Child-Centred Uses of Digital Technologies When focusing upon young children’s access to and use of mobile devices and smart gadgets within the kindergarten, it is of significant importance to initially recognise that before children undertake their first day in kindergarten, many children are already familiar with digital technologies having used them for educational and entertainment purposes in their home (Lia, Toki & Pange, 2014). Figure 1 shows a young child engaging with a technological toy. Reported findings by Spink, Danby, Mallan & Butler (2010) show that young children were sometimes performing complex Web search interactions at the level of Figure 1. A young child engaging with a technological toy

60

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

some adults. It is therefore critically important for early childhood teachers to gain an understanding of children’s prior knowledge and engagement with digital technologies so that children’s existing toolkit of experiences, knowledge, skills and understandings can be recognised, valued and meaningfully built upon and enhanced. Recent advancements in touchpad and tablet-sized devices have opened up a new world of interactivity and technology for young children (Lentz, Seo & Gruner, 2014). In a study undertaken by Schriever (2011) child-centred approaches to using digital technology were evidenced by the children recording, sharing and reflecting on their own learning using mobile devices such as a digital camera and flip movie camera. Couse & Chen (2010) reported that young children were able to quickly learn how to use the tablet computer as a medium for representing their ideas and learning. They also discovered that as the children gained familiarity with the tablet computer, they became more independent, which resulted in the children asking for less instruction and assistance from the adults (Couse & Chen, 2010). The integration of tablet technology into the kindergarten presents an additional digital medium for children to represent their thinking, ideas and learning, alongside traditional mediums such as paper, pencils and paint, therefore catering for the diversity of individual children’s needs. Banister (2010) writes that engaging with applications on mobile devices is well aligned to the spirit of early childhood education and technology use, as children are encouraged to play and discover as they engage with the applications. Whether playing with various applications on an iPod, representing their thinking and understanding using a tablet computer, or taking a photograph of the giant sandcastle that was built, mobile devices and smart gadgets can offer many and varied opportunities for young children to play, learn, engage and reflect within their kindergarten learning program. Figure 2 shows a kindergarten child engaging independently with a digital device. Figure 2. A kindergarten child independently using a digital device

61

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

With the rapid development of mobile devices and smart gadgets occurring within society and being used within educational settings, there are endless opportunities for early childhood teachers to engage with and use a variety of digital devices in a multitude of diverse ways to facilitate and undertake their role as an early childhood teacher. A key role of the early childhood teacher is to capture and record children’s learning and development and digital technologies can significantly assist the documentation process. Parnell & Bartlett (2012) write that technological documentation is a powerful tool, as early childhood teachers can plan and reflect in the moment on the curriculum. A single digital device such as smart phone or iPad can enable an early childhood teacher to complete a number of tasks which are undertaken on a daily basis to document and reflect upon children’s learning. For example, an early childhood teacher can use a smartphone each day to take photographs, record video and audio and make notes. These can then be integrated into daily blogs and online portfolios that parents can access (Parnell & Bartlett, 2012). The use of mobile devices enables documentation to occur instantaneously and with ease from either inside or outside the kindergarten classroom as the day unfolds, thus saving valuable planning time (Parnell & Bartlett, 2012). By engaging in digital documentation, it provides a current record of children’s learning, play and engagement to emerge and develop. This digital documentation can then be used as a learning tool for reflection, either independently by the child, or collaboratively by the child and early childhood teacher, or between the child and parents. A digital record of learning, play and engagement provides a valuable avenue for talking, sharing, thinking back and forward planning for children, early childhood teachers and families. The ways in which mobile devices and smart gadgets can be used in both teacher-focused and childcentred ways within the kindergarten are truly endless. From digital documentation of children’s play, learning and engagement, to instantaneous access to limitless knowledge and as tool for self-expression, digital technologies offer plenty of possibilities for maximising and enhancing children’s learning, along with supporting the role of the early childhood teacher. Using digital technologies in diverse ways offers opportunities for all children to find an experience which caters for them and supports their play, learning and engagement.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION WITHIN KINDERGARTEN Early childhood teachers can be confronted by a number of challenges which can potentially inhibit their willingness and ability to successfully and effectively introduce and integrate mobile devices and smart gadgets into their kindergarten learning environment. These challenges can be in the form of external challenges such as understanding and responding to the curriculum requirements and expectations to use digital technologies with young children, along with meeting and mediating differing parental expectations. Early childhood teachers can also face internal challenges, such as being aware of and seeing the true potential of mobile devices and smart gadgets. An early childhood teacher’s confidence and selfefficacy to use different digital devices can also present as a significant challenge. The beliefs an early childhood teacher holds regarding the place and value of digital technology, along with their views regarding both pedagogical and technological practices, can also arise as challenges for early childhood teachers to address and overcome in order to harness the possibilities and potential of digital technology for both the early childhood teacher and the children. Just as early childhood teachers 62

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

may encounter many challenges, there are also many avenues available to the early childhood teacher to overcome these challenges, in order to reach their potential and maximise children’s learning, play and engagement with digital technologies. The challenges faced by early childhood teachers and the ways in which these challenges can be overcome will be presented in detail below.

Meeting Curriculum Expectations Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia, places children at the core and is designed to guide early childhood teachers in developing quality early childhood programs. It describes the pedagogy, principles, practices and learning outcomes required to support and enhance children’s learning from birth to five years of age, including their transition to school. There are five learning outcomes designed to encapsulate the complex and inter-related development of all children from birth to five years of age (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009). The use of digital technologies within the early learning setting by both young children and early childhood teachers is clearly articulated within the learning outcomes of the EYLF. This curriculum document is significantly important as it sets the expectation for early childhood teachers to provide access to technologies and to faciliate children’s play, learning and engagement with a variety of digital technologies when they are particiapting in the early learning setting. Table 1 states EYLF Learning Outcome 4, which articulates the expectation that digital technologies will be effectively utilised by both children and early childhood teachers to support and facilitate active learning, in order to achieve identified learning outcomes (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009). The ways in which early childhood teachers support children of various ages to engage with a range of mobile devices and smart gadgets and to subsequently achieve the EYLF learning outcomes will be diverse. When examining the expectations for Learning Outcome 4, it is clearly evident that the effective use of mobile devices and smart gadgets can make a contribution towards achieving the learning outcome, as children can access information using a device such as an iPad to investigate a topic of curiosity, or to research a solution to a real-life problem encountered within the kindergarten. There is also an expectation detailed within the learning outcome for early childhood teachers to develop their Table 1. EYLF Outcome 4: Children are confident and involved learners Outcome 4: Children are Confident and Involved Learners Children resource their own learning through connecting with people, places, technologies and natural and processed materials. This is evident, for example, when children:

Educators promote this learning, for example, when they

• Explore the purpose and function of a range of tools, media, sounds and graphics • Manipulate resources to investigate, take apart, assemble, invent and construct • Experiment with different technologies • Use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to investigate and problem solve

• Introduce appropriate tools, technologies and media and provide the skills, knowledge and techniques to enhance children’s learning • Develop their own confidence with technologies available to children in the setting • Provide opportunities for the children to both construct and take apart materials as a strategy for learning • Provide resources that encourage children to represent their thinking

(Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009)

63

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

own confidence to use the range of digital devices which are available to the children. This is important because as early childhood teachers develop their own confidence with a specific mobile device or smart gadget they will be in a better position to appropriately and effectively use the digital technology in both teacher-focused and child-centred ways. Table 2 states Learning Outcome 5, which specifically focuses upon and describes children’s learning and engagement with digital technologies and the early childhood teachers’ responsibilities to support children to become effective communicators using digital technologies. This specific learning outcome is located within the broader sphere of communication and sits alongside literacy and numeracy learning outcomes. This is reflective of the importance of holistically developing children’s ability to communicate and develop digital literacy knowledge, skills and understandings, alongside traditional print-based literacy. The role of the early childhood teacher is clearly defined within the EYLF as one in which they are an active user and facilitator of digital technologies. Yurt & Cevher-Kalburan (2011) write that there is both an expectation and necessity for early childhood teachers to use digital technologies in their daily lives and working experiences and this view is evident within the EYLF, as early childhood teachers are expected to provide the skills, knowledge and techniques required to enhance children’s learning and to explore new information and represent ideas. Early childhood teachers are also expected to be active learners of digital technology and to develop their own confidence in relation to the technologies that are provided within the early learning environment (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009). When examining the EYLF it is clearly evident that the use of digital technologies by both early childhood teachers and young children is viewed as being significantly important to support all children to develop holistically as confident, capable and active learners. It is therefore of the upmost importance for early childhood teachers to clearly understand the stated expectations of the EYLF and its learning outcomes and to develop a vision for children’s learning and engagement incorporating digital technologies. In addition, early childhood teachers also need to formulate a plan for self-discovery and self-development focusing on using digital technologies to enable them to successfully undertake their role as a leader with digital technologies within their early childhood program. Table 2. EYLF Outcome 5: Children are effective communicators Outcome 5: Children are Effective Communicators Children use information communication technologies to access information, investigate ideas and represent their thinking. This is evident, for example, when children:

Educators promote this learning, for example, when they:

• Identify the uses for technologies in everyday life and use real or imaginary technologies as props in their play • Use information and communication technologies to access images and information, explore diverse perspectives and make sense of their world • Use information and communication technologies as tools for designing, drawing, editing, reflecting and composing • Engage with technology for fun and to make meaning

• Provide children with access to a range of technologies • Integrate technologies into children’s play experiences and projects • Teach skills and techniques and encourage children to use technologies to explore new information and represent their ideas • Encourage collaborative learning about and through technologies between children, and children and educators

(Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009)

64

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

Mediating Parental Expectations An external challenge early childhood teachers may face when endeavouring to integrate mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten, is mediating and addressing differing parental expectations. Within early childhood education the connection between the kindergarten and the child’s family is critically important to support children’s successful learning and engagement. The views and beliefs which parents hold regarding the place of digital technology within kindergarten can have a significant impact upon the practices occurring within the kindergarten and as such it can be a challenge for early childhood teachers to not only teach the children about the value and role of digital technologies but to also teach the families. Educating parents about the many and varied ways digital technologies are being used to support and enhance children’s play, learning and engagement is critically important, as it works towards ensuring parents become partners working alongside early childhood teachers to foster children’s active play, learning and engagement with digital technologies. Within many home environments, young children and their parents are embracing the use of mobile technologies, including internet connected tablets and smart phones (Danby et al., 2013). As a result, some parents hold positive views regarding digital technologies and have an expectation that digital technologies will be utilised within the kindergarten. The narrative surrounding the positive aspects of digital technology use by young children from parents is predominately concerned with children’s learning and development and being futures focused, as digital technologies are seen as necessary for a successful future (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2010). In a study undertaken by Aubrey & Dahl (2014) it was found that 38 out of 39 parents interviewed believed that technology contributed to a child’s learning and development and digital technology was thought to be required for life in today’s society. In contrast to positive parental expectations to use digital technologies within kindergarten, there is also a negative narrative from some parents surrounding young children’s use of digital technologies. Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen & Rose (2011) write the many parents speak about technology through a lens of ‘damage’ and ‘risk’ before seeing the educational benefits. While a study undertaken by Plowman, McPake & Stephen (2010) found that parents were more aware of the arguments about the dangers of technology than in its creative potential, with concerns centred on sociocultural, cognitive and wellbeing factors. Concerns included but were not limited to: • • • • •

Children’s social development is at risk. Technology provides a second-hand rather than real experience. The development of children’s imagination is inhibited. Children’s linguistic development is inhibited. Technology is addictive (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2010).

Early childhood teachers need to mediate the expectations of parents who desire for their children to use digital technologies, along with acknowledging and respecting the wishes of parents who seek to limit their child’s engagement with digital technologies. This can present a significant challenge for early childhood teachers to overcome. Two key strategies early childhood teachers can implement to reconcile differing parental expectations are education and evidence-based practice. Early childhood teachers need to be proactive and show initiative in terms of educating parents about the ways in which a range of mobile devices and smart gadgets are used in engaging, authentic and meaningful ways within the kindergarten. Negative viewpoints may prevail if parents are not fully aware of the ways in which 65

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

digital technologies are being used to facilitate active learning and as a means of extending and enriching children’s play, learning and engagement. Therefore, educating parents about the value, place and role of digital technology within the kindergarten is crucial. A second key strategy is to share with parents evidence-based practice, which demonstrates the benefits and opportunities which digital technologies afford both the children and the early childhood teachers. Sharing digital documentation of children’s learning, play and engagement, incorporating audio recordings and videos, along with using photographic evidence provides a platform to showcase the ways in which digital technologies are being utilised within the early learning setting, along with highlighting the benefits of digital technology integration. By being an advocate, educating not only children, but also parents and developing a strong evidence-base of best practice early childhood teachers can work towards effectively mediating parental expectations.

Seeing the Potential of Mobile Devices and Smart Gadgets In order to realise the potential of mobile devices and smart gadgets within a kindergarten learning environment, early childhood teachers must first be aware of the multitude of digital devices which are available. The findings of a number of studies in previous years (O’Hara, 2008; Ingleby, 2015; Plowman & Stephen, 2003; Plowman, Stephen & McPake, 2010) reveal that digital technologies have been primarily seen as little more than computers. This can result in early childhood teachers relying on reactive supervision of computer use, rather than utilising effective pedagogy to guide children’s interactions with digital technology (O’Hara, 2008). In contrast, the findings of Aubrey & Dahl (2014) state that early childhood teachers identified a variety of digital technologies, with the most commonly identified devices including computers, educational software and Internet, electronic and programmable toys and the interactive whiteboard. Once teachers have gained knowledge of the mobile devices and smart gadgets which are available to them, it is imperative for them to develop an understanding of how the mobile device or smart gadget can be effectively used in meaningful ways with young children and as a teaching tool to support them in undertaking their role as an early childhood teacher. O’Hara (2008) found that through the introduction of digital technologies such as robots, walkie-talkies and computers, children’s play was supported, expanded and enhanced. It is therefore critically important for early childhood teachers to look beyond the desktop computer and to begin exploring the range of mobile devices and smart gadgets which are available. It is only then that the early childhood teacher can begin to see the true potential and possibilities for using and integrating mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten.

Early Childhood Teacher’s Confidence and Self-Efficacy A potential internal challenge faced by early childhood teachers who are seeking to implement using mobile devices and smart gadgets in their kindergarten, is their own lack of confidence and self-efficacy. This is because early childhood teachers can consider themselves to be insufficiently competent and lacking in confidence regarding their own abilities to use digital technologies with children (Ingleby, 2015; Radetic-Paic & Ruzic-Baf, 2012). As a result, when speaking about digital technologies, early childhood teachers often focus on their own lack of confidence and privilege and emphasise children’s perceived lack of fear and innate technological abilities (Roberts-Holmes, 2014). This notion of being fearful of digital technology was evident in a study by Aubrey & Dahl (2014), with some early childhood 66

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

teachers self-reporting that they knew very little about digital technology and indicated they actually had a fear of technology. The high level of digital competence shown by today’s children can also trigger early childhood teacher’s fears of making a mistake (Baydas & Goktas, 2016). Early childhood teachers can feel that the children know more than they do, and as a result they can feel threatened and see their authority being challenged (Collins & Halverson, 2009). In addition, Dong & Newman (2016) reported that although early childhood teachers were aware of the sociocultural contexts for the use of digital technologies in the family and community, their own vision of the potential of digital technologies for themselves and children was limited. The impact of confidence and self-efficacy with digital technologies is significant. An early childhood teacher’s beliefs and confidence can influence not only their decision-making about digital technologies, but also their attitude towards digital technologies, along with their efforts to integrate digital technologies into their kindergarten. It has been found that the higher the early childhood teachers’ computer self-efficacy and confidence, the more positive their views about digital technologies as a mode of learning (Blackwell, Lauricella & Wartella, 2014; New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 2004; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015). It is both experience with digital technology and attitudes towards technology in the classroom which are important variables which predict differences between teachers who successfully integrate digital technology from those who do not (Muellar, Wood, Willoughby, Ross & Specht, 2008). Early childhood teachers must move beyond a fear-based perspective of digital technologies and instead embrace the opportunities for play, learning and engagement that mobile devices and smart gadgets present. The traditional notion that the early childhood teacher is the expert and the young child is the novice, does not necessarily apply to using digital technologies. This expert teacher, novice child concept, must be placed aside and instead a framework of shared learning and co-construction of knowledge, skills and understandings with digital technologies must prevail. Early childhood teachers need to have the confidence to cast aside their own insecurities about their ability to use digital technologies in order to foster a shared partnership with children, whereby both young children and early childhood teachers are supporting, sharing and learning together with digital technology.

Fears Regarding a Loss of Childhood and Protecting Play An additional potential barrier to early childhood teachers using digital technologies within kindergarten is a result of the tensions that exist surrounding the value and place of digital technologies within a learning environment which is traditionally focused on learning through play. Early childhood teachers may question the value and place of digital technologies and ask questions such as: • • • • •

How do digital devices such as smart phones and iPads ‘fit’ within a kindergarten environment? How do we define and determine the appropriate use of digital devices for kindergarten aged children? How can digital technologies be effectively incorporated into children’s play, learning and engagement during the kindergarten program? Are some digital devices only for use by the early childhood teacher or can the children also use each of the mobile devices and smart gadgets which are available within the kindergarten? Can digital technologies be used to promote and support children’s active play, learning and engagement? 67

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

While it is widely recognised that digital technologies are prevalent within society, there is still evidence of a prevailing sentiment within early childhood education that traditional values and practices need to be sustained and this can lead to resistance towards integrating digital technologies. Digital technologies are at times heralded as a negative influence on young children and as not having a place, or at least not a substantial place within early childhood education. Lindahl & Folkesson (2012a) write that the perceived role of the early childhood teacher is one whereby they are “protecting preschool practice from changes in society”, which includes ‘protecting’ children from digital technologies and their influence. This viewpoint has arisen as there is still scepticism regarding the role of digital technologies in playbased pedagogy for children from birth to six years (Aldhafeeri, Palaiologou & Folorunsho, 2016). As a result, early childhood teachers can develop the belief that they need to protect play by excluding or significantly limiting children’s access to and use of digital technologies. Play is seen as a physical and embodied activity, rather than a digital one and digital technology is often viewed not as play, but rather as having an explicitly educational value (Plowman & Stephen, 2003). As such, many early childhood teachers do not view digital technologies as associated with play, rather as a threat to traditional free play (Edwards, Henderson, Gronn, Scott & Mirkhil, 2016; Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012b). Furthermore, as well as a fear that digital technology will herald the loss of play, there are also fears of children losing their childhood, sitting at computers, being passive and not engaging in outdoor activities and this can lead to early childhood teachers keeping digital technologies away from children and reinforcing traditional practices including play, reading and hands-on activities (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012b). These fears and feelings of insecurity create a general problem impeding development of practice (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012b). The conceptualisation of play as something exclusive of technology is an emerging idea in early childhood education (Edwards, Henderson, Gronn, Scott & Mirkhil, 2016). Figure 3 presents two young children engaging with a digital device as a form of play. Digital technology and traditional play do not need to sit in binary opposition. Instead, early childhood teachers are in a position whereby they can continue to value and promote play within the kindergarten, while also providing access to and opportunities for the creative use of mobile devices and smart gadgets. In essence, it need not be one or the other, digital technology in conflict with play. Through the Figure 3. Two children engaging with a digital device

68

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

innovative use of mobile devices and smart gadgets a plethora of opportunities for extending, enhancing and enriching children’s learning, play and engagement can occur. A digital device such as an iPad can be used by a child to video record their friends presenting a dance and then together the children can watch and revisit the dance on the iPad, talking, sharing, laughing and reflecting. When an interesting insect is found in the sandpit, the smart phone can be used to take a photo of the insect and a quick search of the internet can reveal what type of insect has been discovered and facts about the insect can be co-discovered with the children. Mobile devices used in this manner can provide access to immediate information which in turn extends children’s learning. Early childhood teachers can move beyond being for or against digital technology and instead begin to see the opportunities present for incorporating mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten’s learning program.

Balancing Pedagogy and Technology Finding the balance between technologically-focused practices and pedagogically-focused practices can arise as a challenge for early childhood teachers and this is aligned to the previously discussed challenge of seeing the value and potential of digital technologies within a play-based learning environment. Rosen & Jaruszewicz (2009) state that many early childhood teachers continue to be challenged by the task of imagining digital possibilities that align with young children’s unique natures, interests and emerging capabilities while at the same time protecting their vulnerabilities and privacy. It is therefore critically important for early childhood teachers to begin to see the potential of digital technologies, understand how they can be used within a play-based environment and to then align their pedagogical approaches to be inclusive of appropriate technological practices. It is essential for this to occur because despite an ongoing focus and emphasis on increasing connectivity within learning environments, the answer is not as simple as increasing the number of digital technologies in the classroom (Smith, 2013). Instead, early childhood teachers need to focus on implementing developmentally appropriate technology use with children which includes having equipment, communications and interactive software that encourages collaborative problem-solving and play-based inquiry (Rosen & Jaruszewicz, 2009). For early childhood teachers, there cannot be a discussion surrounding technological practices without there also being a conversation about pedagogical practices because even though new digital technologies are becoming increasingly more intuitive and user-friendly, discussing how these digital devices can be integrated into classrooms in a pedagogical fashion is crucial (Davidson & Vanderlinde, 2016). Technology and pedagogy need to work collaboratively, hand in hand, in order to successfully integrate digital technology into the pedagogical practices of a kindergarten in meaningful ways for young children. A key aspect of successfully merging pedagogical and technological practices is to use digital technologies just like other mediums and learning tools, whereby the most appropriate and beneficial use of digital technology encompasses the interactive engagement between a child and caring adult (Sharkins, Newton, Albaiz & Ernest, 2015). It is through these guided interactions with digital technologies that children are able to extend their knowledge of the world, acquire operational skills and support developing dispositions for learning (Plowman, Stephen & McPake, 2010). When early childhood teachers use mass media, digital media, and popular culture to address social, political and cultural issues, children develop their capacity to make sense of and critically analyse the world around them (Hobbs, 2011). Early childhood teachers therefore need to work alongside young children as they interact with digital technologies to truly maximise the learning opportunities.

69

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Just as there are a multitude of potential challenges for early childhood teachers to face and overcome in relation to successfully and effectively using and integrating digital technology in their kindergarten, there are also a wealth of solutions available which early childhood teachers can implement to overcome the challenges and maximise learning, play and engagement for young children. In order to address their own levels of confidence and competence early childhood teachers can enact the following plan.

Developing Competence and Confidence With Digital Technologies: A Plan of Action 1. Early childhood teachers first need to become cognisant of their own personal attitudes and dispositions towards digital technologies. 2. Early childhood teachers then need to self-reflect and self-assess to determine their current level of confidence and self-efficacy in relation to using a range of mobile devices and smart gadgets. This can includes asking oneself: a. What are my strengths and weaknesses in relation to using digital technologies? b. Which digital technologies am I confident using? c. Which digital technologies do I need to develop confidence and competence with in order to use effectively? 3. It is important for early childhood teachers to identify their personal and professional goals surrounding using mobile devices and smart gadgets. This can include considering the following: a. Which specific digital devices would they like to gain confidence and competence in using? b. What would they like to be able to do and achieve using this digital device? c. How would they like to support children to use this form of digital technology? 4. Early childhood teachers, after self-reflecting and identifying their aims and goals, then need to show initiative and proactively seek opportunities to develop their own confidence, knowledge and skills in relation to using a range of mobile devices and smart gadgets. This can be achieved by engaging in the following practices: a. Undertaking professional development. b. Collaborating with colleagues. c. Engaging in self-directed learning. By undertaking each of these steps, early childhood teachers are then in a position to consider, develop and implement a Plan of Action; focusing on how they can take the steps necessary to progress the effective integration of mobile devices and smart gadgets within their kindergarten. When considering how to effectively plan for and implement the use of mobile devices and smart gadgets within a kindergarten early childhood teachers need to recognise a number of important elements. These include:

70

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

• • • • •

Trusting young children to be capable, competent and confident users and creators with digital technologies; Casting aside the need to be the ‘expert’ and instead embracing the opportunity to learn alongside the children how to use a new mobile device or smart gadget; Risk taking to implement new mobile devices and smart gadgets into the kindergarten; Recognising the place and value of digital play, learning and engagement within the broader sphere of play; and Seeing the potential of mobile devices and smart gadgets to extend, enrich and enhance children’s learning, play and engagement and to take children’s learning with digital technology beyond the four walls of the kindergarten classroom and out into the sandpit, digging patch or vegetable garden.

When early childhood teachers set themselves the goal of developing their own confidence and competence with digital technologies, accept themselves as a learner and co-constructor with children and truly begin to value the role and place of digital technologies within kindergarten, the opportunities for enhancing, extending and enriching not only children’s play, learning and engagement, but also the role of the early childhood teacher are endless.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Future research focusing on digital technology within kindergarten needs to move beyond simply stating a position of being for or against digital technologies and instead needs to identify and examine the ways in which early childhood teachers and young children are actually engaging with mobile devices and smart gadgets. Research opportunities exist to further examine the challenges early childhood teachers and young children encounter and to identify the strategies which are implemented to overcome such challenges. Future research prospects also exist to further investigate and determine the opportunities and benefits that arise for both young children and early childhood teachers as a result of utilising mobile devices and smart gadgets within the kindergarten learning environment.

CONCLUSION The expectations of policy documents and curriculum to utilise digital technologies with young children aged from birth to five years of age provide a multitude of possible challenges and opportunities for both children and their early childhood teachers. This chapter has investigated the literature surrounding digital technologies in kindergarten to identify and describe the ways in which early childhood teachers and young children are using a range of mobile devices and smart gadgets and to examine the challenges and opportunities that digital technologies present. By engaging with the literature surrounding digital technologies, early childhood teachers and young children, a greater understanding of the complexities and possibilities for digital technology integration in kindergarten can be achieved.

71

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

REFERENCES Aldhafeeri, F., Palaiologou, I., & Folorunsho, A. (2016). Integration of digital technologies into play-based pedagogy in Kuwaiti early childhood education: Teachers’ views, attitudes and aptitudes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 342-360. Retrieved November, 15, 2016 from http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669760.2016.1172477?scroll=top&needAccess=true Aubrey, C., & Dahl, S. (2014). The confidence and competence in information communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 34(1), 94-108. Retrieved November 6, 2016 from http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/09575146.2013.792789?scroll=top&needAccess=true Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod Touch in K-12 education: Visions and vices. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121–131. Retrieved November 14 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1080/07380561003801590 doi:10.1080/07380561003801590 Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Influential factors on pre-service teachers’ intentions to use ICT in future lessons. Computers in Human Behaviour, (56), 170-178. Retrieved on November 6, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215302454 Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82–90. Retrieved on November 8 2016 from http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514000980 doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.013 Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–96. Retrieved on November 6 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562?ne edAccess=true doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562 Danby, S., Davidson, C., Theobald, M., Scriven, B., Cobb-Moore, C., Houen, S., & Thorpe, K. et al. (2013). Talk in activity during young children’s use of digital technologies at home. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2), 1–19. Retrieved on November 8, 2016 from http://austjourcomm.org/index. php/ajc/article/view/4/122 Davidson, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). ‘You should collaborate, children’: A study of teachers’ design and facilitation of children’s collaboration around touchscreens. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 1–21. Retrieved November 9, 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/147593 9X.2015.1127855 Dong, C., & Newman, L. (2016). Ready, steady…pause: Integrating ICT into Shanghai preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(2), 224–237. Retrieved on November 6 2016 fromhttp:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669760.2016.1144048 doi:10.1080/09669760.2016.1144048 72

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

Edwards, S., Henderson, M., Gronn, D., Scott, A., & Mirkhil, M. (2016). Digital disconnect or digital difference? A socio-ecological perspective on young children’s technology use in the home and the early childhood centre. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 1–17. Retrieved November 7, 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1152291 Hobbs, R. (2011). Digital and media literacy: Connecting culture and classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents perspectives on technology and childrens learning in the home: Social class and the role of habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 347–360. Retrieved on November 7 2016 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00431.x/full doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x Ingleby, E. (2015). The impact of changing policies about technology on the professional development needs of early years educators in England. Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 144-157. Retrieved on November 9, 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19415257.2014.894482 Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy, learning: A multimodal approach. Abingdon, OX: Routledge. Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of intructional technology in schools: Lessons to be learned. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press. Lentz, C., Seo, K., & Gruner, B. (2014). Revisiting the early use of technology: A critical shift from “How young is too young?” to “How much is ‘just right’?” Dimensions of Early Childhood, 42(1), 1523. Retrieved on November 9, 2016 from http://southernearlychildhood.org/upload/pdf/EarlyTechnology_D42_1.pdf Lia, X., Toki, E. I., & Pange, J. (2014). The use of ICT in preschool education in Greece and China: A comparative study. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 112, 1167-1176. Retrieved November 8, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814012981 Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. M. (2012a). ICT in preschool: Friend or foe? The significance of norms in a changing practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4), 422–436. Retrieved November 6 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669760.2012.743876?scroll=top &needAccess=true doi:10.1080/09669760.2012.743876 Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. M. (2012b). Can we let computers change practice? Educators’ interpretations of preschool tradition. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28(5), 1728-1737. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212001161 Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S., & Wright, K. (2005). Digital beginnings: Young children’s use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Report on the ‘Young Children’s Use of Popular Culture, Media and New Technologies’ Study, funded by BBC Worldwide and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield. Retrieved November 7, 2016 from http://www.digitalbeginnings.shef.ac.uk/DigitalBeginningsReport.pdf Ministerial Council on Education. Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from http://www.curriculum. edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

73

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

Muellar, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537. Retrieved November 10 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0360131508000390 doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003 New Zealand Council for Educational Research. (2004). The role and potential of ICT in early childhood education: A review of New Zealand and international literature. Ministry of Education. Wellington, NZ. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/ictinecefinal.pdf Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2015). ICT and play in preschool: Early childhood teachers beliefs and confidence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(4), 409–425. Retrieved November 11 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09669760.2015.1078727 doi:10.1080/096 69760.2015.1078727 OHara, M. (2008). Young children, learning and ICT: A case study in the UK maintained sector. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 29–40. Retrieved November 6 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/14759390701847443?scroll=top&needAccess=true doi:10.1080/14759390701847443 Parnell, W., & Bartlett, J. (2012). iDocument: How smartphones and tablets are changing documentation in preschool and primary classrooms. Young Children, 67(3), 50–59. Retrieved November 14, 2016 from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=edu_fac Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2010). The technologisation of childhood? Young children and technology in the home. Children & Society, 21(1), 63–74. Retrieved November 10 2016 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00180.x/full doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00180.x Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A benign addiction? Research on ICT and pre-school children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 149–164. Retrieved November 10 2016 from http://users. clas.ufl.edu/msscha/ReadingScience/review_ict_preschool.pdf doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00016.x Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Supporting young childrens learning with technology at home and in preschool. Research Papers in Education, 25(1), 93–113. Retrieved November 10 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02671520802584061?scroll=top&needAccess=true doi:10.1080/02671520802584061 Radetic-Paic, M., & Ruzic-Baf, M. (2012). Use of ICT and inappropriate effects of computer use – future perspectives of preschool and primary school teachers. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(1), 29-38. Retrieved November 6, 2016 from https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/plc.2012.16. issue-1/v10057-012-0003-y/v10057-012-0003-y.xml Roberts-Holmes, G. (2014). Playful and creative ICT pedagogical framing: A nursery school case study. Early Child Development and Care, 184(1), 1–14. Retrieved November 6 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2013.772991?scroll=top&needAccess=true doi:10.1080/0300 4430.2013.772991 PMID:25544794 Rosen, D. B., & Jaruszewicz, C. (2009). Developmentally appropriate technology use and early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 162-171. Retrieved November 8 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10901020902886511?scroll=top&needAccess=true

74

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

Schriever, V. (2011). Research and practice: Influences and barriers to ICT use in primary classrooms. Primary and Middle Years Educator, 9(3), 3–10. Retrieved November 9, 2016 from http://connection. ebscohost.com/c/articles/70468261/research-practice-influences-barriers-ict-use-primary-classroom Schriever, V. (2013). Planning and assessment in the early years. In K. Readman & B. Allen (Eds.), Practical planning and assessment (pp. 211–229). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Sharkins, K. A., Newton, A. B., Albaiz, N. E. A., & Ernest, J. M. (2015). Preschool childrens exposure to media, technology and screen time: Perspectives of caregivers from three early childcare settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(5), 437–444. Retrieved November 6 2016 from http://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s10643-015-0732-3 doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0732-3 Smith, T. (2013). Digital renegades in America. Changing metaphors to realise the potential of technology in education. Critical Questions in Education, 4(1), 30-41. Retrieved November 7, 2016 from http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1046792.pdf Spink, A. H., Danby, S. J., Mallan, K. M., & Butler, C. (2010). Exploring young children’s web searching and technoliteracy. The Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 191–206. Retrieved November 14 2016 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/00220411011023616 doi:10.1108/00220411011023616 Williams, J., & Easingwood, N. (2007). Primary ICT and the foundation subjects. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing. Willoughby, T., & Wood, E. (Eds.). (2008). Children’s learning in a digital world. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Yurt, O., & Cevher-Kalburan, N. (2011). Early childhood teachers’ thoughts and practices about the use of computers in early childhood education. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1562-1570. Retrieved November 6, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050911000512

ADDITIONAL READING Palaiologou, I. (2016). Teachers’ dispositions towards the role of digital devices in play-based pedagogy in early childhood education. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 36(3), 305-321. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09575146.2016.1174816 Thorpe, K., Hansen, J., Danby, S., Zaki, F. M., Grant, S., Houen, S., & Given, L. et al. (2015). Digital access to knowledge in the preschool classroom: Reports for Australia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32(3), 174–182. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200615000393 doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.001

75

 Digital Technology in Kindergarten

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Child Centred: The ways in which digital technologies are used by children or as a collaborative practice between the early childhood teacher and the child or group of children. Digital Competence: Possessing the knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively utilise digital technologies. Early Childhood Education: The education and care of children aged from birth to eight years of age. Early childhood education occurs in prior-to-school settings, through the transition to school and in the initial years of primary schooling. Early Childhood Teacher: A teacher who educates and cares for young children. Early Learning Settings: A location where early childhood education occurs such as a long day care centre, family day care or kindergarten. Information Communication Technologies (ICTs): The collective term given to a broad range of digital technologies which enable access to and sharing of information and provide a means of communication. For example; smart phone, iPad, interactive whiteboard and computer. Kindergarten: Children attend kindergarten aged from 3.5 to 4.5 years of age. Learning Outcomes: The identified aims and goals, as defined within the EYLF, which children aged from birth to five years old engage with and achieve. Teacher Focused: The ways in which digital technologies can be used solely by the early childhood teacher. The children are not involved in the use of the digital technology. Pedagogy: The teaching strategies and approaches used by early childhood teachers. Young Children: Children aged from birth to five years of age.

76

77

Chapter 6

Principles of Learning in the TechnologyEnhanced Classroom Kevin S. Krahenbuhl Middle Tennessee State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter presents a contextual overview of common misconceptions, challenges, and conceptual frames of importance with respect to learning with technology. Having explored these foundational elements, it adapts principles of learning and multimedia informed by empirical research in cognitive science for the technology-enhanced classroom. The chapter concludes with areas for future research expanding on this synthesis of research and a discussion of its implications and applications for educators in these technologically rich learning environments.

INTRODUCTION It is almost impossible to imagine it in today’s world, but merely three decades ago only a small fragment of people had access to the Internet. In our present day-in-age, this has radically shifted. In contemporary society, people frequently speak of their desire to literally “unplug” as a reference to how difficult it is to get away from their inundation of information in this technology-dominated society. Indeed, the smart phones held in the pockets of millions and millions of people in the contemporary world are so superior to the desktop computers of just a few decades ago it is difficult to put into words. Our society has experienced a transformational shift in the past several decades from a society that is characterized by a scarcity of information to one that is better characterized as one of information overload. Accordingly, this has led to increasing pressure in schools to integrate technology in the learning environment. With these changes, educators have struggled with how to do so in an appropriate manner for improving the school environment for learning. It is against this backdrop of an altered environment with regards to access to information that the classroom is facing a major transition. Unfortunately, with the relatively rapid transition of society to an DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch006

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

information and technology-laden society, the integration of technology in the classroom has faced some challenges. Throughout this chapter, I will present an account of important misconceptions regarding technology and learning, outline essential principles for learning and learning with multimedia, and reflect on their implications for educators in a technology-enhanced learning environment. The primary purpose of this chapter is to equip educators in such environments with a series of principles to consider when designing, adjusting, and imagining the future of their classrooms.

TECHNOLOGY AND LEARNING The classroom has often been characterized as slow to change and out of date. While many of these charges are appropriate and worthy of consideration, others are not warranted. Technology has the real potential to make positive impacts on learning – especially with regards to utilizing it for formative assessments – but it is not a solution to learning in of itself. Before diving into an exploration of key principles of cognition and multimedia learning let us place some context into the landscape of learning with technology. First, we will explore some common misconceptions regarding learning with technology and then we will explore the conceptual framework of technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Having those foundations laid we will be ready to move into a discussion of these crucial principles for learning.

Learning Misconceptions and Technology In part due to the nature of our societal immersion in technology, much has been proclaimed about technology in education. Much of what has been claimed are little more than mere assertions by those within the fire and in many cases, are unjustified by empirical evidence. As such, it is important to identify a few of the more common misconceptions held with regards to learning and technology. In recognizing them as myths we may avoid the pitfalls they bring with them and come to a better application of the principles of learning that should guide our instruction. Within this narrative, we will discuss briefly just three of the common misconceptions that are widespread in education with regards to learning with technology. The three that will be explored as the assertion that today’s youth are ‘digital natives’ and uniquely strong at using technology for learning; the second is that these digital generations require different technology-infused learning environments; the third is that with the expansion of technology, knowledge is not necessary, only skills. The first of these misconception is that today’s generation of youth are entirely different from former generations in that they have been raised on technology and thus often referred to as ‘digital natives’. This term has its origins back in 2001 when it was first issued by Marc Presnky and has been widely adopted. However, as noted by Kirschner and van Merrienboer (2013), this term – and its various applications – is grounded solely on Presnky’s anecdotal observation of youth always being on their devices and is not grounded on any support from research. Furthermore, such a view holds as unstated and unexamined assumptions, that these students (a) understand what they are doing, (b) that they are using them effectively and efficiently, and that (c) it is good to integrate them into the classroom to enhance learning. Unfortunately, all of these are assumptions and not grounded in empirical evidence. Indeed, as Rowlands et al. (2008) comment, “the ubiquitous presence of technology in their lives has not resulted in improved information retrieval, information seeking or evaluation skills” (p. 308).

78

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

The second misconception we shall briefly discuss is another assumption that has been made – and grounded in an erroneous belief in the first. This myth is that the younger generation learns best and requires integration of technology in their learning. Again, this claim is unsubstantiated and the evidence on technological integration being a panacea for all things learning produces, at best, mixed results. The final misconception to briefly discuss here deals with our present situation in which we find ourselves in a transition from a society of information scarcity to that of information overload. Specifically, this erroneous belief asserts that thanks to the radical expansion of technology in society, and the easy access it brings to content, knowledge is no longer necessary for mastering but instead only development of skill. E.D. Hirsch presents a concise and effective critique of this in his contribution to American Educator (2000) entitled, “You Can Always Look It Up… Or Can you?” As you can see, this belief has been widespread amongst educationalists for over a decade now and yet, it remains widely believed. A major challenge for those who believe that since information is easily accessible, learning factual knowledge is no longer important is that when learners are ‘set free’ to ‘learn’ something on the Internet a butterfly effect manifests itself. This effect is explained by Kirschner and van Merrienboer (2013) where learners, using technology, flutter “across the information (i.e., hyperlinks), quickly fluttering to a next piece of information, unconscious to its value and without a plan” (p. 171). Because many view knowledge as insignificant and skill as the only important goal in learning many students are left to blindly “research” something on the Internet while facing this problem, which is exacerbated by their lack of background knowledge. And as Hirsch (2000) explains: “The Internet has placed a wealth of information at our fingertips. But to be able to use that information – to absorb it, to add to our knowledge – we must already possess a storehouse of knowledge. That is the paradox disclosed by cognitive research” (p. 3). These erroneous beliefs about technology and learning can have a negative impact on how they inform educational practice. So, let us now keep these in the back of our minds to help avoid misguided applications for the integration of technology and move into an exploration of some information we do know about technology-enhanced learning.

TPACK Technological pedagogical content knowledge is derived from the work of Lee Shulman (1987) and his formulation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK is understood to be a unique feature that distinguishes a professional teacher from a knowledgeable person – that unique fusion of competence in a particular domain along with the skill to tailor instruction in that domain in such a way that it leads to learning. Koehler and Mishra (2005) are most often credited with introducing the concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge although it has been refined by Thompson and Mishra (2007) as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK). A graphic display of TPACK is found in figure 1 distinguishing between the different aspects of it. Teaching with technology is not something that occurs in isolation, however, it is situated (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). In varied contexts, the appropriate integration or exclusion of technology into the learning setting is thus an important question to consider for the TPACK-informed educator. So, Niess (2011) explained that technology can support students in learning conceptual and procedural knowledge of particular subject domains and this is an important aspect of a teacher who displays high competence in TPACK.

79

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

Figure 1. TPACK

In this section, we explored how there are a variety of erroneous beliefs widely held by educators with regards to technology and learning. However, we also saw the development of a conceptual framework for technology-enhanced instruction through the construct of TPACK. Having surveyed the challenges and misconceptions of technology along with a framework increasingly acknowledged as crucial for effective instruction with technology we will next move into an explication of general principles for learning and their implications for instruction.

PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING Over the past century, a great deal of research has explored the process of learning and we are seeing a growing body of research that is clarifying how we learn and what it means for teaching. Although we have experienced what psychologists refer to as the ’cognitive revolution’, there is limited evidence that most of what has occurred in this revolution has made radical changes to the classroom. Now, this is to be expected as there is a natural delay from lab experiments to application in the classrooms of practice. However, we have a great deal of empirical support for a series of principles of learning that we can apply to all forms of instruction.

80

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

Cognitive Principles of the Mind Cognitive science has expanded its understanding of the mind significantly over the past several decades. And with extended experimental findings, we can discuss a range of principles of the mind that have important implications for learning. The eminent cognitive scientist, Daniel T. Willingham (2009) outlines a series of these principles with direct implications for learning, several of which will be expanded upon herein. Table 1 provides a summary of these principles of learning condensed and focused for the purposes of this contribution. Each of these principles has such a strong base of empirical support that they are unlikely to be altered with further expansions to our increasing comprehension of the human mind. Additionally, each of the principles has readily apparent applications to the classroom. As a result, these eight principles are especially important to attend to when discussing optimal conditions for learning in all settings. Let us briefly explore each of these principles with respect to the implications it has for learning in the technology-enhanced classroom. The first principle is that although people are naturally curious, we are not naturally good thinkers unless conditions are right for cognition. With regards to this principle of cognition, the technology-enhanced classroom instructor should deliberately integrate problems to solve into the learning environment is likely to produce gains in learning. However, those problems must be appropriately situated in context and both within their reach but yet challenging. The second principle is that content knowledge precedes skill in any domain. Considering this in conjunction with the first principle, the technology-enhanced classroom should be sure that learners are equipped with appropriate background knowledge before moving into problem solving. This is especially important in a technology-enhanced classroom because providing students with technology tools also requires development of knowledge about how various tools are used for learning. The educator must pay careful attention to equipping students with content knowledge for the discipline in which they are teaching (e.g., history or physics) and also the knowledge needed for use of any technology tools for learning before engaging in problem solving tasks. The third principle is that memory is the direct result of thought. In a technology-infused environment distraction is ever present and we are unable to see what any individual is thinking about at any given time. Correspondingly, an educator in such an environment must pay careful attention to what the Table 1. Principles of learning Principle Although people are naturally curious, we are not naturally good thinkers unless conditions are right for cognition Content knowledge precedes skill in any domain Memory is the direct-result of thought What we understand, we understand in the context of things we already know Extended deliberate practice is necessary for proficiency Experts do not learn in the same way novices do and students are not experts In terms of learning styles, students are far more alike than dissimilar Intelligence can be changed by sustained, hard work (adapted from Willingham, 2009)

81

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

learner will be thinking at any given moment. The learning should be chunked such and guided such that learners are intentionally brought to think about the goals of the lesson throughout. An important point here is that regaining student attention helps shift focus back to your targets so teachers might consider how to design lessons using such technology so that formative assessments help gauge both their progress and their attention to the purposes of the lesson. The fourth principle of learning explains that what we understand, we understand in the context of things we already know. This provides further support for the practices noted with regards to principle two from above but also gives grounds for the importance of designing instruction so that learners are scaffolded towards deep learning. While they may not achieve deep understanding in a lesson or unit, deep understanding ought to be a target. And the learners should be properly equipped first before diving into any deep learning activity. The fifth principle is that extended deliberate practice is necessary for proficiency. A technology-enhanced learning environment should be sure to integrate opportunities for extended practice by learners along with feedback from more knowledgeable persons to guide learners towards expertise. Extended practice without intentional effort to improve and without guidance and feedback from a coach of some sort is not deliberate practice. Thus, in the technology-enhanced classroom the teacher must pay careful attention to requiring practice in ways that offer cognitive and descriptive feedback to help learners improve. The sixth principle explains that experts do not learn in the same way that novices do and that students are not experts. A crucial application of this for educators is to be sure to make a primary goal of instruction, the comprehension of knowledge rather than creation of it. If knowledge creation is a goal, the primary focus should be on developing disciplinary-specific goals rather than adding to the body of human knowledge. In other words, don’t treat the students like experts because they are not and it is not the most efficient way for them to learn. When we treat students – who are, by definition novices – as experts we are asking them to learn in ways that are inefficient and not in line with how experts learned themselves when they were novices. The seventh principle is that in terms of learning styles, students are far more alike than dissimilar. This has implications for educators in a technology-enhanced environment because differentiation is a powerful tool at one’s disposal. However, an educator seeking to maximize learning in such an environment will make differentiation more influenced by content matter and context than perceived student differences in learning. The final of the eight principles adapted from Willingham’s summary of cognitive research is that intelligence can be changed by sustained, hard work. This is perhaps the single most important of these principles – you are not defined by where you are but indeed, your diligence in moving forward can make significant strides. As such, educators in a technology-enhanced environment must be sure to encourage and push learners to strive towards continued growth and praise efforts rather than abilities. This principle also offers an important caution for educators – do not fall into the trap of finding easy ways out for learners. Sustained, hard work, is necessary to make these improvements. A perfect illustration of a common error to avoid in this regard would be that educators should not mislead students into believing that they do not need to know basic factual information since they can “find” it on the Internet. Such a view will hinder their efforts to master knowledge that is so crucial to developing the skills they seek to apply. Now, having outlined fundamental principles of cognition we will turn our attention directly to research with regards to learning with technology.

82

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

Learning With Technology Arguably the single most important concept for educators to be aware of is that of cognitive load theory. One of the major strengths of this theory and its implications for learning is that the guidelines it provides are grounded in an extensive baseline of well-designed randomized controlled experiments (Leppink, et. al., 2015). This theory explains that it is crucial for educators to direct the limited cognitive resources of learners towards activities that are relevant rather than towards other components of learning. It has been postulated and extended by John Sweller (1988) and is especially important in dealing with learning in heavy information-processing environments. Cognitive load theory suggests that working memory can be impacted by either extraneous or intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller, 2010). Intrinsic cognitive load is an inherent component of the content being explored. In other words there is an inherent degree of difficulty in any task with some being simpler and some being more complex. Extrinsic cognitive load, however, is generated outside of the content and is primarily influenced by the instructional format and learning environment. Because learning requires thinking about the content explored it is important for those designing a learning environment in a technology-infused setting to hone in on whether the extraneous features are necessary for learning or are merely add-ons. If they are not necessary, such extraneous load elements should be mitigated or eliminated. In a classroom infused with technology, there is an increased potentiality for negative effects of extraneous cognitive load, which has real potential of shifting a learner’s locus of attention towards information that is not directly relevant to the cognitive purpose of the activity. As such, in a technology-enhanced classroom where students are inundated with access to information, educators must pay careful attention to evidence-informed practices that maximize the potential for learning. The best articulation of fundamental principles of learning with technology comes from the work of Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer (2003). In similar fashion to earlier with respect to cognitive principles of the mind, Table 2 provides concise synopses of these crucial principles for effective learning in technological environments. However, in the table specific considerations for the technology-enhanced classroom are included directly in the table as opposed to expanded upon in further narrative. These six principles of multimedia learning are directly applicable to any educator working in a technology-enhanced classroom. As such, a careful consideration of these principles in conjunction with the principles outlined earlier in Table 1 will equip instructors to maximize their effectiveness at Table 2. Principles of learning with technology Principle

Description of Considerations for the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

The Multimedia Principle

Crucial here is the building of a mental connection between the written words and graphic representations

The Modality Principle

Use audio rather than text when possible and keep narration short

The Contiguity Principle

Keep any text close to its corresponding graphic(s)

The Redundancy Principle

Eliminate redundant information

The Coherence Principle

Do not include any type of information not related to content and context

The Personalization Principle

Utilize conversational style when possible over formal style

(adapted from Clark & Mayer, 2002)

83

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

aiding students in the learning process. Now, we have explored the most salient principles of learning for the educator in a technology rich environment and we now turn to future avenues for research and a final discussion.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS With the field of technology there is a constant appeal for exploring particular tools, applications, and electronic resources. Although this is a meritorious line of research it is only useful so long as the exploration of these tools is done in a manner grounded in empirically supported knowledge of how learning works. As such, let me outline a few important areas that need specific attention in future research endeavors. First, extension of the TPACK framework within the specific subject domains is needed. As it has been found in other areas of learning, much of what we know and are able to do in a domain are determined by domain-specific aspects related to learning and not general critical thinking skills (Tricot & Sweller, 2014). Correspondingly, an increased exploration of domain-specific applications of TPACK will be important for future research to clarify. A second area for future research will be with regards to explicating the specific characteristics of TPACK that should be inculcated so that educators are effective in integrating technological tools beyond just those they already use. As technological tools come and go, and the rate at which they lose favor seems to be ever increasing. So, a question of increasing importance is: what are these characteristics within those who display a high competence in TPACK such that they are able to adapt their use of tools in a consistent manner to leverage them for enhanced learning? One final area for future research is the specific consideration of the principles of learning as they apply to uniquely technological learning environments – such as full online settings. As online learning becomes increasingly prominent in educational environments, ensuring that practices are informed by general principles of learning and refined given the contextual nature of their circumstances will be an important area for extended research.

CONCLUSION Technology has great potential to enhance the learning environment for students. However, it comes with great challenges, unwarranted assertions regarding its promise, and misconceptions that can negatively impact learning. This chapter has sought to trace through a few of the most relevant challenges, misconceptions, and relevant principles of learning that will inform appropriate integration and leveraging of technology in the classroom. Awareness of the challenges and misconceptions will equip educators to avoid myths regarding technology in the classroom and applying the principles outlined herein will equip educators to maximize learning in their classroom.

REFERENCES Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2002). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Edition: San Francisco, CA.

84

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

Hirsch, E. D. (2000). You can always look it up… or can you? American Educator, (Spring), 1–5. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.804395 Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. doi:10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Routledge: New York, NY. Leppink, J., van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory: Researching and planning teaching to maximise learning. In J. Cleland & S. J. Durning (Eds.), Researching medical education (1st ed.). New York, NY: Wiley Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781118838983.ch18 Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317. doi:10.2190/EC.44.3.c Presnky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., & Tenopir, C. et al. (2008). The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 60(4), 290–310. doi:10.1108/00012530810887953 Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004 Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 Thompson, A.D. & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-39. Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 265–283. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9243-1

ADDITIONAL READING Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. doi:10.1002/9781119239086 Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369

85

 Principles of Learning in the Technology-Enhanced Classroom

Schwartz, D. L., Tsang, J. M., & Blair, K. P. (2016). The ABCs of how we learn: 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them. New York, NY: Norton. Sweller, J., Clark, R., & Nguyen, F. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Butterfly Effect: The tendency of learners to move from hyperlink to hyperlink in their search for information in a haphazard manner not conducive to learning. Cognitive Load Theory: A theory of learning that explains that the best conditions for learning are those in which the learner’s working memory (site of awareness) is focused on relevant aspects for the learning objective to foster schema formation in long-term memory. Coherence Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should not include any type of information that is not related to content and context of a presentation. Contiguity Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should keep any text close to its corresponding graphic(s). Deliberate Practice: The intentional application of a skill someone is already proficient at with guidance and feedback from a more knowledgeable person to guide growth. Digital Natives: A term applied to younger generations who have grown up exposed to digital technology and ostensibly proficient at, and perhaps requiring, use of technology for learning (is erroneous and not supported by research). Formative Assessment: A measure of student learning during a learning sequence that is leveraged so that it informs both the learner (progress and where to go next) and the instructor (in where to go from here). Modality Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should use audio rather than text when possible and should keep any narration concise. Multimedia Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should build mental connections between the written words and graphic representations within any presentation. Personalization Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should utilize a conversational style over formal style when possible. Redundancy Principle: A principle of best practice in creation of multimedia presentations in which creators should eliminate redundant information. TPACK: (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) – the unique capacity of the professional teacher to leverage technology effectively for learning.

86

87

Chapter 7

Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Tablet PC Acceptance Ramazan Yilmaz Bartin University, Turkey Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz Bartin University, Turkey Cigdem Cavus Ezin Ministry of National Education, Turkey

ABSTRACT In this study, it has been attempted to examine the role of self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation in students’ status of tablet PC acceptance at a high school where each student’s processes of classroom and out of class learning are tried to be supported upon delivery of tablets to each student. The participants of the research have been consisted of 310 high school students. The data of the research has been obtained with use of questionnaire questions developed by the researchers, the tablet PC acceptance scale, self-directed learning with technology scale and the academic motivation scale. The structural equation modelling has been made use of data analysis. Research findings have shown that self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation were in turn effective in students’ tablet PC acceptance. Some suggestions have been made for students, teachers and administrators in the light of findings of the research.

INTRODUCTION Mobile and wireless technologies have begun to have a key role in today’s processes of education and training. Developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) and their reflection in education has come up with concepts of learning every time and everywhere and in addition to this, limits of education in classroom has started to widen. Learners have started to have access to learning DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2706-0.ch007

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

materials, their teachers and their peers at any time and place desired especially upon dissemination of personal mobile devices. As a result of this, the interactions student to student, student to teacher, student to learning content in classroom have been sustained even out of classroom (Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2017; Sharples, Arnedillo-Sánchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009). The significance of mobile learning has increased more day after day since it widens and enriches the scope of learning activities. Not only does the use of mobile tools in educational context contribute the access to learning contents and materials from out of class, but it also contributes to supporting classroom learning activities. Students have been able to keep in touch with one another, have access to information sources, share information and carry out cooperative learning activities with help of mobile devices and wireless technologies that they’ve owned. Hence the social configuration of the information is also realized (Yilmaz, 2016; Karaoglan Yilmaz, & Kilic Cakmak, 2017). The fact that mobile devices are portable and they’re able to present possibility of access to information when desired, gives the learner the freedom to be wherever he wants, and also learn in accordance with his own speed and needs of learning. In this way, mobile devices has affected learning in socio-cultural and cognitive terms (Pachler, 2009). Nowadays, one of the mobile devices which have been started to be preferred on occasions of education are tablets. A tablet taken as a laptop computer that enables the user to enter directly input into screen by using a tablet pen, also gives opportunity to mouse and keyboard input. As well as its capacity of making up a perfect platform so as to draw and write, tablet may also be used for teaching (Horzum, Ozturk, Bektas, Gungoren, & Cakir, 2014). In contrast to other mediums, it is easier to write and erase in a tablet and students can easily save all of the content in the tablet when they want to have a sample of the content (Gill, 2007, Cited by Horzum, Ozturk, Bektas, Gungoren, & Cakir, 2014). Although tablets have been supplied with numerous benefits in terms of learning processes and applications, it is very crucial that learners should have skills of self-directed learning with technology in taking advantage of these devices. Pintrich’s (2000) defined the self-directed learning as an effective and constructivist process that learners go into in which they deal with observing, managing and controlling their cognitions, motives and behaviours upon having formed their aims and also in which they are guided by their own aims and learning medium they’re in. As for self-directed learning with technology, it can be taken as a process in which learners use technology as an instrument in the course of self-directed learning and they support this process by using technology (Demir & Yurdugul, 2013; Teo, Tan, Lee, Chai, & Koh, 2010). With the increase of mobile learning tendency in K12 education, the effects of self-directed learning with technology on child students have started to attract more attention and it has been an obligatory skill for students asking for personal development (Demir, Yasar, Sert, & Yurdugul, 2014; Song & Hill, 2007; Yurdugul & Sarikaya, 2013; Yurdugul & Demir, in press). Mobile learning requires, in terms of learners, more effort, orientation, motivation and self-motivated control. Thus, it has been stated in the study that learners with self-motivated learning skills are able to manage their processes of learning batter in accordance with their needs and speed of learning, and they have a better skill of control on their own learning process, making them spend their learning course more efficiently (Lin & Hsieh, 2001). On the other hand; it has been stated that learners with undeveloped self-motivated learning skills fail in these kinds of learning mediums and leave them on account of the fact that they don’t know about the necessities required by online learning mediums and aren’t able to manage this learning process well (Oladoke, 2006). Therefore, students who want to be included in the processes of mobile learning need to have skills of self-directed learning with technology so as to succeed in these mediums (Demir, Yasar, Sert, & Yurdugul, 2014; Yurdugul & Sarikaya, 88

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

2013; Yurdugul & Demir, in press). Considering the advantages of tablets and mobile learning, countries have been involved in some projects as regards to different levels of education. In this sense, so-called Fatih Project (Project of Increasing Opportunities, Improving Technology), has been put into practice in Turkey. Within the scope of Fatih Project, each student has been supplied with tablets at primary and secondary education levels. Even though this project supplies some advantages supporting conventional classroom learning with mobile technologies, it has been faced with some survey results and applications in which students cannot use tablets efficiently and the use of tablets is fruitless (Cetinkaya & Keser, 2014; Ciftci, Taskaya, & Alemdar, 2013; Dogan, Cinar, & Seferoglu, 2014, 2016; Kurt, Kuzu, Dursun, Gullupinar, & Gultekin, 2013). It has been supposed that the problems students face at schools on subject may derive from the fact that they don’t have skills of self-directed learning with technology. In the context of mobile learning, when the structure of process of self-directed learning with technology is studied, it requires that students should accept and adopt tablets and they should also possess skills of use in accordance with their academic needs (Demir & Yurdugul, 2013; Teo, Tan, Lee, Chai, & Koh, 2010). Therefore, studying the correlation between students’ status of tablet acceptance and skills of self-directed learning with technology has been crucial in the sense of developing perspective as solutions to these problems. Furthermore, it is assumed that students’ academic motivation plays a crucial role in the fact that they accept and adopt tablets and also use them efficiently in the context of learning activities and processes. In this study carried out in this context, structural relations between students’ status of tablet acceptance, skills of self-directed learning with technology and levels of academic motivation have been analysed. It has been observed that the number and variety of research on students’ status of tablet acceptance have started to increase in recent years once the literature was studied. It’s mostly observed in these studies that there have been attempts to define factors which may affect learners’ status of tablet acceptance and use. At the same time, it is also seen that concepts of self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation has come into question. However, there has been need for researches which study effect of self-directed learning with technology academic motivation variants upon learners’ status of tablet acceptance and it has also been wondered how these variants affect learners’ status of tablet acceptance. Thanks to this study carried out, it has been attempted to contribute on the literature by studying structural correlations between high school students’ status of tablet acceptance, skills of self-directed learning with technology and their status of academic motivation. Furthermore, it has been anticipated that results of the study will guide teachers with applications of tablet-assisted education and will enlarge the flow and depth of research on the issue.

BACKGROUND Mobile Learning When the literature is examined, it is seen that there are various definitions related to mobile learning. Trifonova and Ronchetti (2003) describe mobile learning as e-learning through mobile devices that we can have with us in everyday life. Georgieva, Smrikarov and Georgiev (2005) describe mobile learning as the use of mobile devices to provide, learning materials, and to provide interactions between teachers and students everywhere, all the time. However, according to Winters (2006), it is expressed that there is no compromised, globally accepted definition of mobile learning. Although there are many differ89

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

ent definitions of mobile learning, the common emphasis of definitions is that mobile devices are used independently of educational time and space. It is possible to say that mobile learning has its own set of characteristics. According to Crop (2008); convenient and flexible, localized and personalized are the main characteristics of mobile learning. In this context, mobile learning can be regarded as a learning that allows individual learners to learn independently from time and space in the context of their own learning speed and needs in creating personalized learning environments. According to researchers, there are many advantages that mobile learning provides for teaching-learning applications. More portability at a lower cost, increased learner motivation and engagement, increased collaboration are among the major advantages that mobile learning provides (Croop, 2008). Learners can easily access information sources through mobile devices at any time and place, and provide social structuring of information by providing cooperation and interaction among learners (Yilmaz, Karaoglan Yilmaz, & Kilic Cakmak, 2017). Today, digital books, m-blogging, Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, and many other digital tools and environments are also contributing to the adoption and use of mobile learning (Looney & Sheehan, 2001; Kimber, Pillay, & Richards, 2002). In addition to the above-mentioned advantages of mobile learning, the existence of various limitations can also be mentioned. These limitations can be looked at from a technical and pedagogical point of view. Major technical limitations include some properties such as perception of the availability of technological tools, speed and storage capacity (Croop, 2008). Among the main pedagogical limitations, it can be said that instructional design of content and materials used in mobile learning, acceptance and use of mobile devices by learners, and availability of learners to self-learning by technology (Yurdugul & Sirakaya, 2013).

Self-Directed Learning With Technology Self-directed learning can be defined as a process by which individuals can choose appropriate strategies and methods to achieve their learning goals (Hollis, 1991). Self-directed learning by Knowles (1975) is defined as a process of the ability to take an initiative for learning, the ability to identify their own learning needs with or without the help of others, the ability to create learning objectives, the ability to identify the source (person, book etc.) for learning, the ability to select and apply the right learning strategy for the knowledge to learn and the ability to evaluate the learning outcomes. According to Mocker and Spear (1982), an individual’s readiness to self-directed learning can be identified by eight important factors; • • • • • • • •

Openness to the learning opportunities The concept of self as an effective learner Learning initiative and independence Accepting informed responsibility Learning love Creativity Future orientation Ability to use basic working and problem solving skills.

Technology, which is one of the basic elements of information age, facilitates information access and increased communication possibilities. This also significantly affects self-directed learning components 90

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

(Tercan, Horzum, & Uysal, 2014). According to Rothwell and Sendenig (1999), the development of the web in particular has significant effects on self-directed learning. With the web, individuals can access the information and communication facilities on the web wherever they are in the world. Particularly with the use of mobile devices in education, learners can continue their self-directed learning process where and when they want, and they can receive support from their teachers and peers on the web. In parallel with the self-directed learning constructivist approach, it gives to students by taking learning’s responsibility from teacher, in this way it alleviates teacher’s some of burden as well as allowing students to get know themselves better and take initiative. However, it is worthwhile to note that self-directed learning is not entirely self-directed, and that the learners may be able to get help from others after they have made the necessary effort (Demir, 2015). It is expressed that the concept of self-managed learning in mobile learning, which is used to maintain learning experiences especially in the classroom environment as a result of the integration of ICT education, is even more important (Wills, 1998). This is because the learners themselves are the main responsibility of the learning activities that the learners perform in these settings. Learners are currently trying to reach information sources in the classroom environment using mobile devices they have and try to manage the self-learning process by communicating with their teachers and peers (Demir & Yurdugul, 2013; Teo, Tan, Lee, Chai, & Koh, 2010). In Turkey, the project named as Fatih Project has started to be implemented in order to support selfdirected learning processes of primary and secondary school students, to increase the access of students to desired places and time, and to provide communication and cooperation with teachers and peers. With the Fatih Project, every student is provided with tablet computers and learning contents, and the education and teaching processes of the students are being tried to be supported by mobile devices. However, it is thought that learners have a great deal of self-efficacy perceptions of self-directed learning with technology processes and acceptance and use of tablet computers, self-efficacy perceptions of using online technologies and academic motivation.

The Relationship Between Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Tablet Computer Acceptance Self-directed learning with technology seems to be influenced by two main factors: self-management and intentional learning (Demir & Yurdugul, 2013; Teo, Tan, Lee, Chai, & Koh, 2010). Accordingly, it is important that students use tablets to manage their own learning processes and to engage in intentional learning behaviors. However, in some researches, the results were concluded that students use tablet computers for entertainment purposes such as playing games, surfing the internet, rather than using tablet computers for teaching purposes (Cetinkaya & Keser, 2014; Lanir, 2012). This situation is thought to be due to the acceptance and use of technology related to tablet computers by students. According to Davis (1993) technology adoption model, he perceived benefit, the perceived ease of use, the attitude towards use, and the intent to use are influential in accepting a technology. In terms of these factors, students with a high educational acceptance of tablet computers will see the tablet computer as useful, easy to use, will have a positive hold on the use of the tablet, and will have a high intention to use for lessons. Therefore, it is considered that the high acceptance of students to the tablet computer will support the self-management and intentional learning dimensions of the self-learning process. From here the first hypothesis of the research can be established as follows:

91

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

•

H1: Students’ self-directed learning with technology competences affect the acceptance of tablet computers positively.

The Relationship Between Academic Motivation and Tablet Computer Acceptance Motivation is defined as an internal condition that arouses, directs and sustains behavior (Woolfolk, 1998). Academic motivation can be expressed as the production of energy required for academic affairs (Bozanoglu, 2004). In other words, academic motivation can also be defined as the discovery of the energy needed for academic work (Ray, 1992). According to Ryan and Deci (2000), being motivated means acting to do something. Considering the basic assumptions of the self-directed learning process and technology adoption models, it is thought that it is important that academic motivation is high on learners’ acceptance of tablet computers. According to Wormington, Corpus and Anderson (2012), students with low levels of academic motivation are not paying attention to completing their studies and continuing to study. Academic-motivated students have the goal of continuing the school and achieving success in school. Academically, the students with the low level of motivation may encounter problems such as reluctance to attend school, absenteeism problems, academic failure, school abandonment. When evaluated in terms of the model of tablet acceptance, academic motivation is thought to be effective on students’ acceptance of tablet computer by affecting perceived benefit, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use and intention factors for use. Another hypothesis of researching on these assumptions can be established as follows: •

H2: The level of academic motivation of the students affects the acceptance of tablet computers positively.

METHOD This study was designed as a correlational research that allows evaluating the relationships and influences between independent and dependent variables of the research.

Participants The survey was conducted on the students of a high school, in the fall semester of 2016-2017 academic year in Bartin city center, where each student was provided with tablet computer distribution. In this context, survey was carried out on 310 students and 57.1% (f = 177) of the students were female and 42.9% (f = 133) of the students were male students.

Instruments The data of this study was obtained from personal information form, tablet computer acceptance scale, self-directed learning with technology scale, and academic motivation scale.

92

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

Personal Information Form Within this form developed by the researchers, students were asked about demographic information such as gender, age.

Tablet Computer Acceptance Scale In the study, tablet computer acceptance scale developed by Gungoren, Bektas, Ozturk and Horzum (2014) was used to measure students’ acceptance of tablet computers. Tablet acceptance scale was developed by researchers based on Davis (1993) technology adoption model. There are four main dimensions in this model. These dimensions are the perceived benefits of the technology acceptance model, the perceived ease of use, the attitude towards use and the intention to use. As a result of the research, a five point likert-type scale consisting of 17 items and intention factors for perceived benefits, perceived ease of use, attitudes towards use and intention to use emerged as four dimensions of the technology acceptance model. A five point likert-type scoring was chosen for the level of participation in the scale and the grading was determined as “Totally agree, Agree, Indecisive, Disagree and Totally disagree”. The overall internal consistency coefficient calculated for this study was found to be .96. The internal consistency coefficient of the perceived benefit factor was found .85; perceived ease of use was .82, attitude toward use was .78, and intention to use was .90.

Self-Directed Learning With Technology Scale Self-directed learning with technology scale was used to determine students’ self-directed learning situations with technology. The scale was developed by Teo, Tan, Lee, Chai and Koh (2010) and adapted to Turkish by Demir and Yurdugul (2013). The scale consists of six items in total, consisting of two factors of two and four items. The names of these factors are self-management and intentional learning. A scale of five likert type was used and the grading was determined as “Absolutely agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Absolutely disagree”. The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient calculated for this study was calculated as .75 for the entire scale. Reliability coefficients of self-management and intentional learning factors were calculated as .72 and .74 respectively.

Academic Motivation Scale The academic motivation scale was developed by Bozanoglu (2004) to determine the individual differences in academic motivation levels of students. The scale consists of 20 items. Factor analysis results to determine the validity of the structure of the scale reveal that they consist of three sub-factors called as self-transcendence, use of knowledge and exploration. Each item in the measurement provides a likert type five grading in terms of whether the respondent is suitable for him or her. Five point likert-type rating was used for the scale and the grading was determined to be “Absolutely appropriate, Appropriate, Undecided, Not appropriate and Absolutely inappropriate”. The lowest score that can be taken from the scale is 20 and the highest score is 100. The high score obtained indicates the high level of academic motivation. For the group that formed the sample of the academic motivation scale of this research, selftranscendence subscale Cronbach alpha value .76, using knowledge subscale Cronbach alpha value .82,

93

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

exploration subscale Cronbach alpha value .84 were found. The Cronbach alpha value of the complete scale was found to be .92.

Process and Data Collection In the research, it was aimed to determine the effect of self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation on students’ tablet computer acceptance status. For this purpose, the students of a high school, who are studying in a state high school locating in Bartin city center, Turkey, where the courses are supported by tablet computer with the distribution of tablet computer to each student were included in the study. The distribution of tablet computers to students in question has exceeded the period of one year. For this reason, students’ acceptance of tablet computer is thought to have matured. After the students were identified in the school in question, personal information form, tablet computer acceptance scale, self-directed learning with technology and academic motivation scale which were used as data collection tool in research were applied to students in the form of printed on paper. Then the data obtained from the students were transferred to the electronic medium and data analysis was carried out.

Data Analysis First of all, suitability of the data for structural equation modelling (SEM) was examined based on the normality value, sample size, linearity and multiple linearity hypotheses. In order to examine whether the data indicated a normal distribution or not, Skewness and Kurtosis tests were run and the values emerged from the tests ranged between -1 and +1. As a result, it is concluded that, data were normally distributed. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett Sphericity tests were used to measure suitability of the sampling for data analysis. KMO coefficient values were identified as .77 for self-directed learning with technology, .95 for tablet computer acceptance and .93 for academic motivation. Since this value is greater than .60 and Bartlett test was significant (p< .05), it was concluded that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). In terms of measuring the reliability, value of .05 was taken into account. Multiple correlation analysis was run in order to examine the relationships between the structures which are stated in the research hypotheses. Subsequently, it was aimed to explore the structural relationships between the scales and principal components factor analysis was run. Also, further data analysis methods as descriptive analysis and SEM were conducted. In assessing the suitability of the model, chi-square (x2) goodness of fit test, RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI and AGFI values were measured.

FINDINGS Students’ Responses to Tablet Computer Acceptance, Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation Scales Table 1 shows results of the descriptive statistics which were obtained from students’ responses to tablet computer acceptance, self-directed learning with technology, and academic motivation. As it could be seen from Table 1, it is seen that the average scores of the participants was 22.87 (3.81 over 5) from self-directed learning with technology scale, 68.89 (4.05 over 5) from tablet computer

94

 Self-Directed Learning With Technology and Academic Motivation

Table 1. Descriptive statistics Number of items

Scales

Minimum score

Maximum score

X

sd

X /k

Tablet computer acceptance

17

33.00

85.00

68.89

13.94

4.05

Self-directed learning with technology

6

12.00

30.00

22.87

4.36

3.81

Academic motivation

20

41.00

100.00

74.78

13.18

3.74

acceptance scale and, 74.78 (3.74 over 5) from academic motivation scale. Drawing on this finding, it could be concluded that student scores from tablet computer acceptance, self-directed learning with technology, and academic motivation scales are high.

Relations Between Students’ Tablet Computer Acceptance, SelfDirected Learning With Technology, and Academic Motivation In order to examine the relationships between students’ self-directed learning with technology, tablet computer acceptance and academic motivation, the Pearson correlation coefficients have been calculated. As it could be seen from Table 2, the correlation between tablet computer acceptance and other scale scores is: self-directed learning with technology - tablet computer acceptance (r=.527, p