Post on 19-Dec-2015
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 1
Carina Markett, Inmaculada Arnedillo
Sánchez, Stefan Weber, & Brendan Tangney
Center for Research in IT in Education
tangney@tcd.ie
www.cs.tcd.ie/crite/mobile/
pls txt ur thoughts: using short message service to lower the bar
to interactivity in the classroom
The University of DublinTrinity College
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 2
Background
Classrooms are currently awash with under-utilised technology; a challenge for educators is to harness this available technology while building a pedagogically sound learning environment.
Key concerns in ICT implementation in education: technology is in the foreground, pedagogy is neglected, costs remain high student-to-computer ratios remain low.
Over 90% of Irish 15-to 24-year-olds own a mobile phone and use SMS extensively.
(Hegarty, 2004).
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 3
Interactivity & ICT
In student-instructor interaction the concepts are set in context, allowing students’ development of cognitive structures (Moore, 1989; Liu et al., 2002)
Allows students to build their learning environment and influence the learning process, leading to more active learning while providing instructors with ongoing feedback (Anderson, 2002; Muirhead and Juwah, 2003)
The student’s interest and motivation can be stimulated and maintained (Prammanee, 2003)
In distance-learning interactivity has been shown to reduce student isolation, positively effecting performance and enrolment (Hirumi, 2002)
ICT can play a significant role in supporting interactivity in class and after class via email, chat, bulletin boards, classroom Response Systems, among others.
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 4
Defining Interactivity
By the participants of the interaction: learner-content (central), learner-instructor, and
learner-learner (Moore, 1989) learner-interface, instructor-interface, instructor-
content, instructor-instructor and content-content (Muirhead and Juwah, 2003)
By the medium of communication: face-to-face interaction (traditional classroom-based
interaction) Computer-mediated interaction (in any physical space
or time) Human-computer interaction (a program providing
individual, customised instruction) Simultaneous group interaction (the use of personal
devices to support i.e. student communication mediated by the lecturer and technology) (Liu et al., 2002)
By the structure in relation to: Loops Coherance Originator ( Yacci 2000)
A Completed Message Loop Between Two Entities
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 5
Student-centred Interactivity
Learners transforming information and constructing knowledge (Dewey, 1916)
Interactivity is complete message loop originating from the student and returning to the student. The reciprocating participant can be instructor or fellow student/s. This loop occurs irrespective of the technology or medium of communication.
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 6
Pls Turn Ur Mobiles Off Allowing the use of primarily social technology such as instant messaging or
mobile phones can distract student attention away from the classroom (Roschelle, 2003)
They can act as an ‘intruders’ removing the teacher’s centrality in communication (Mifsud, 2002)
If the school provides handhelds, policies regarding proper use (game downloading pornography) and care (theft/accidental damage) are essential for a safe and lasting implementation (Roschelle, 2003; Savill-Smith and Kent, 2003)
If the school relies on students’ personal devices, issues and tensions can arise if not all students are similarly equipped and able to access the full communication systems (Iles, Glaser, Kam and Canny, 2002)
Mobile phones are banned in many schools, leading to some implementation with simulated mobile phones on PDAs (Bollen, Eimler and Hoppe, 2004)
A recent study found most implementations of handhelds do not involve connectivity outside the classroom or the ability for students to pass notes via a back-channel (Roschelle, 2003).
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 7
The Txting Technology
1 2 3 4
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 8
Txting: In-class & after-class
In-class, using a modem interfacing with customised software to produce text and spreadsheet files of SMS, the lecturer can view the messages and develop the interaction further.
After-class the SMS are available in a website to allow the development of the interaction by lecturer & students via online threaded comments.
A B CIn-class After-class After-class
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 9
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 10
“Tsting” Bed: Implementation
Undergraduate (Computers and Society course) & Postgraduate Classes (MSc in Ubiquitous Computing)
Undergraduate couse at the end of the academic year – the class dynamic was already set; i.e. students had determined their role in class (i.e. participatory or not)
Postgraduate class: In general, more enthusiastic response from post-graduates 20 students Data from 3 sessions. Students presenting work to their peers.
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 11
Sample LogsMasters Class – Ubiquetous Computing
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 12
Postgrad Sessions 1-2“Tsting” findings
Before Project 70% of students were already frequent texters Interaction in class was, for most students, occasional;
with greatest satisfaction stemming from lecturer contactDuring Project 70% participation 1 – 4 texts sent per student 90% use of website, 80% felt it helped understanding of
concepts 35% of messages on website had additions to threads
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 13
Txt in the Classroom: Limitations
Texting can be slow and divert students’ attention Texting can be awkward Anonymity could encourage ‘flaming’ Provides link to outside
Students read other messages received during class (although limited number sent other messages)
Outsiders can send in texts (not closed to classroom)
CAL05 – Txting +353-87-4185466 14
References
1. Anderson, T. (2002). An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved 25 April, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm
2.Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2003). Interactivity in Computer-Mediated College and University Education A Recent Review of the Literature. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society. Retrieved 7 December, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_november2003.html
3. Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding Participation in Online Courses: A Case Study of Perceptions of Online Interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved 29 Feb 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper68/paper68.html
4. Muhlhauser, M., & Trompler, C. (2002). Learning in the Digital Age: Paving a Smooth Path with Digital Lecture Halls. Paper presented at the IEEE 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
5. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books. 6. Mitchell, A., & Doherty, M. (2003). M-Learning Support for Disadvantaged Youth: A Mid-Stage
Review. Anglia: Ultralab. 7. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-6. 8. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity Demystified: A structural definition for distance education and
intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16. 9. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest Editorial: Wireless and Mobile
Technologies in Education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255-259. 10. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A Walk on the WILD Side: How Wireless Handhelds May Change
CSCL. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, Colorado.