zdeslav hrepic university of alabama national study of education in undergraduate science nseus 2011...
TRANSCRIPT
Zdeslav Hrepic
University of Alabama
National Study of Education in Undergraduate ScienceNSEUS 2011
Columbus State University
… identified 17 students in one of her classes who were using laptops most frequently and found that they did 11 percent worse, on average, than their peers on the first test.http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/students-stop-surfing-after-being-shown-how-in-class-laptop-use-lowers-test-scores/4576
Higher Ed. Classroom Wireless Computer Usage… At Crossroads?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042402830.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
Higher Ed. Classroom Wireless Computer Usage… At Crossroads?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042402830.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
“Tablets such as the iPad will only make it harder for students to pay attention in class and for schools to ban devices. Because the iPad can
be used to read textbooks, professors might be unsure
which students are goofing off and which are studying.” (?)
Other Research
Fried (Fried, 2008): students who use wireless laptops in classes are indeed frequently distracted from the
task at hand, which negatively reflects on their performance.
Barak at al (2006): in large classrooms directed use of laptops supported students’ active learning and
problem-solving activities. facilitated meaningful student-to-student and student-to-instructor interactions. However a fraction of students (12% in the study) used their laptops for non-directed
(non-learning) purposes, such as Web surfing and e-mail messaging. Similarly 15% of students in the study indicated that the wireless laptops distracted their attention in class. Barak at al (Barak et al., 2006) conclude that wireless laptops should be employed in class only when the instructor requires the students to do so.
Sisson (2009; 2010) - allocated one of the three weekly class periods in introductory physics course to problem solving and deployed Tablet PCs combined with interactive software (DyKnow):
saw considerable test score increase as measured by final exam scores (11% improvement in calculus based course and 7% in algebra based course).
student retention rate significantly increased in both courses compared to the historical 5-year average. The increase was greater than one-standard deviation (to 67% student success) in the first semester calculus based course and greater than two-standard deviations (to nearly 80%) in the first semester algebra-based physics (Sisson, 2009).
Other ResearchTablet PCs and DyKnow Software
Sisson (2009; 2010) - allocated one of the three weekly class periods in introductory physics course to problem solving and deployed Tablet PCs combined with interactive software (DyKnow):
Sisson, C. J. (2009). Tablet-based recitations in Physics: Less lecture, more success. In D. A. Berque, L. M. Konkle & R. H. Reed (Eds.), The impact of Tablet PCs and pen-based technology on education: new horizons (pp. 133-139). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Goal and Deployed Solution
Aim to: maximize productive use (student active participation in
lecture and productive note taking) of available personal mobile computers (laptops and tablet PCs) in order to improve student learning in a lecture setting
minimize or eliminate the harmful effect of distracting features associated with wireless computers in classrooms.
Spring 2010: utilized DyKnow - software facilitating classroom interaction - in an algebra-based introductory physics course.
To begin: What does the program let you do?
Feature set 1: New dynamics of the note takingContent Annotations
Feature set 1: New dynamics of the note takingProblem Solving
New dynamics of the note takingProblem Solving - Record
Status: Are you with me?
Chat: Embarrassed to ask?
Pooling: Embedded Clickers
Slide submission: Open-ended questions and numerical problems
Feature set 2: Multiple channels of real-time feedback
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2e_QL-QHpw
Multiple channels of real-time feedback Pooling
Multiple channels of real-time feedback Student Slide Submissions - Laptop
Multiple channels of real-time feedback Student Slide Submissions – Tablet PC
Feature Set 3: All in control: Students in charge of the teaching/learning game
Some “Ideal” Usage Patterns
Slides collaboratively annotated by whole class, with each group writing to their respective spaces
All in control: Students in charge of the teaching/learning game+ Technology Combo
Exp #1
STEP 1: Single quick push STEP 3: Forward push while moving
STEP 4: Gentle backward tap while moving STEP 5: Tap to return to start
All in control: Students in charge of the teaching/learning game+ Technology Combo
CSU DeploymentSetting 1: Spring 2010 – Algebra-Based Physics Course
Students are not required to have either laptops or tablet PCs could only rely on students’ voluntary participation for bringing wireless ready
computers to classes. a variety of unknown factors to determine optimal pedagogical approach
Issues with taking notes on a computer in STEM classrooms … not a problem with tablet PCs when laptops are used with DyKnow – need to incorporate some paper and
pencil annotations. The seating arrangement in the lecture room consisted of single row chair desks
with tablet arms that were as wide as the seating - the space was not sufficient for comfortable placement of laptop and paper note pads.
Internet distractors: Monitoring features of DyKnow software – limit allowed programs. Could not use as attendance tool Possible that some students may opt not to log on if they wanted to do any other,
un-related activity on their computer.
Research QuestionsGiven the Pros and Cons…
Will it be beneficial for students to bring computers to classes?
Will tablet PC users, if any, perform differently than students using laptops?
How will students perceive advantages and disadvantages of using this technology?
Will students consider the inability to take handwritten notes with laptops a disadvantage?
Data Collection Methods
A classroom observation (videotaped) by an external evaluator
A comprehensive, end-of-semester online survey. This data was compared with student performance
measures.
Focus group session run by the same external evaluator.
Initial conditions
Out of 51 students present on the first day of classes, 46 owned a wireless ready laptop.
Crucial to organize computer-facilitated activities that will make it worthwhile for them to bring computers.
With consistent DyKnow usage, the number of students who had their laptop in class soon stabilized around 60% of the attendees (with attendance number typically in lower to mid 40-ies).
less than optimal, but sufficient to enable the majority of students to capitalize on interactive features of the software
and was also sufficient for the instructor to gauge understanding of most of the present students by utilizing interactive feedback tools.
Formative assessment tools (such as pooling, status of understanding and slide submission) were used regularly during the semester.
Students were very responsive when giving feedback through "status of understanding" feature or while answering multiple-choice questions.
Students were very actively submitting slides in response to open-ended questions and problems.
Because not all of the students used computers to provide feedback, it was also necessary to resort to traditional, verbal methods of eliciting questions to ensure that everybody is keeping up.
Focus Group findings (N=34/53)
Advantages More interaction for the whole classEasy to go back and review materialHelps students organize notesAllows you to focus on content, not note-takingCan check status button without embarrassment Can telecommute to class
Disadvantages If you have no computer, you are at a disadvantageTechnical issues can eat up class time.Temptation to check email during classCouldn’t take notes by hand if using laptop in class
Survey Results and Analysis
Out of 53 students enrolled in class 14 days into the semester, 37 took the survey (69.8%).
Only one student dropped the course (after the second test) and two more stopped attending (one after the
first test and the other one after the second test – the latter of those took the survey).
All respondents indicated they personally owned a computer: a desktop (17) a laptop (with no pen input) (29), a Tablet PC (3),
More than one of these types (like a desktop and a laptop 11) A desktop only (6).
Table 2: Comparison of Frequency of Students’ Computer Usage with Success Level
So how did they use computers?Table 4: Student DyKnow Activity in Lecture
Always Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Never
When / I did bring the laptop to the class, I logged on to DyKnow session:
26 2 1 0 0
When I logged on to DyKnow session, I used DyKnow to follow and participate in / lecture and activities
22 7 0 0 0
Table 5: Comparison of Students’ Computer & DyKnow Activity with Success Level
Re-categorization using the lowest of 3 combined answers :frequency of bringing laptop to classes (Table 2), Frequency of logging onFrequency of active participation.
Students who never brought computers are classified into their own category (if students indicated they never bring computer to classes, the other two questions were skipped for them). Students who did bring computers were classified according to lowest frequency they selected in any of the three questions above. In this way, category "Always" represents students who always bring computers, always log on to DyKnow and always actively participate. The category "rarely" may represent a student who rarely brings computer but when s/he does s/he always logs on and always participates.
Table 5: Comparison of Students’ Computer & DyKnow Activity with Success Level
Figure 1: Student scores measured against Cumulative Computer Presence DyKnow Activity
Table 6: Comparison of Students’ Computer & DyKnow Activity with Success Level
What about student background?
DyKnow ExperienceN=32 / 37 (5 did not use DyKnow)
Did they like DyKnow?Table 8. Students’ Attitudes about DyKnow
Tablet PC advantage? - Comparison of the Tablet PC owners other students: All students included
In addition to three tablet PC owners who took the survey, one more student in class owned a Tablet PC (and was using it consistently). Comparing those four to the rest of the class:
Tablet PC advantage? - Comparison of Tablet PC and laptop users with maximum level of computer and DyKnow usage
To gauge possible advantages of tablet PCs compared to laptop computers, we compared only those students who stated that they always brought computers to
classes, always logged on to DyKnow and always actively participated. Among those, there are two tablet PC users and 12 laptop users.
Tablet PC vs. Paper HandwritingComparison of tablet PC users with students who did not bring computers to classes
A possible explanation for strong outperformance of tablet PC users: the advantage of taking consistent handwritten notes.
But this would be possible not only on tablet PCs but also on paper.
Conclusions and Implications
In our study consistency of computer usage significantly correlated with stronger student performance.
Sporadic usage seems to result in distraction from learning tasks. Students who never used computers at all were better off than inconsistent users. But consistent computer users performed better than both of the other groups, both on exam scores and on end-of-course grades.
Consistent computer/DyKnow usage may help beat odds of previous math prep and HS performance in students’ favor
For productive implementation in a lecture setting it is necessary that:
Most if not all students have computers (highly preferably Tablet PSc) Lecture is intermixed with engaging, interactive and collaborative
activities and with feedback opportunities. Classroom facilities are conducive to computer use.
Evaluating benefits of Tablet PCs vs. benefit of pedagogy? Tablet PCs vs. iPads?
References
Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3), 245-263.
Fischman, J. (2009, March 16, 2009). Students stop surfing after being shown how in-class laptop use lowers test scores. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Fort Hays State University. (2010). DyKnow video contest. from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2e_QL-QHpw
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914.
Hrepic, Z., Rebello, N. S., & Zollman, D. A. (2009). Remedying shortcomings of lecture-based physics instruction through pen-based, wireless computing and DyKnow software. In N. H. Salas & D. D. Peyton (Eds.), Reading: Assessment, comprehension and teaching (pp. 97-129): Nova Science Publishers; reprinted in Journal of Education Research, 3(1/2), 161-190 (2009).
Mortkowitz, L. (2010). More colleges, professors shutting down laptops and other digital distractions. The Washington Post.
SideWalkSurfer9. (2010). Professor destroys laptop. Retrieved May, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5w-7IpI0fI
Sisson, C. J. (2009). Tablet-based recitations in physics: Less lecture, more success. In D. A. Berque, L. M. Konkle & R. H. Reed (Eds.), The impact of tablet PCs and pen-based technology on education: New horizons (pp. 133-139). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Sisson, C. J. (2010). Trading lecture for learning (online video). Retrieved May, 2010, from http://coehp.tv/on_demand.php
Questions
