91
Three Examples Using Tablet Technology in an Active Learning Classroom: Strategies for Active Learning Course Design Using Tablet Technology Joseph G. Gerard PhD, and Melissa J. Knott PhD, Assistant Professors, Management, Western New England University; Reena E. Lederman, M.Ed, , Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), Instructional Designer, Worcester, MA Author Note Joseph G. Gerard, School of Business, State University of New York, Institute of Technology Joseph G. Gerard is now at School of Management, Western New England University Melissa J. Knot, School of Management, Western New England University Reena E. Lederman, Information and Learning Resources, State University of New York, Institute of Technology Reena E. Lederman is now at MCPHS Online, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph G. Gerard Western New England University, College of Business, 1215 Wilbraham Rd., Springfield, MA 01119. Contact
[email protected]. We would like to acknowledge support from SUNYIT’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, as well as a number of program participants and reviewers. Abstract We explore the instructional utility of tablet technology in active learning using Meyers and Jones’ (1993) framework. We demonstrate how tablet technologies as a teaching resource can support and enhance active learning strategies. Specifically, we provide examples of the laptop/tablet hybrid commonly referred to as the tablet PC, in the context of course discussions, simulations, and small group collaboration to identify activities that tablet technologies enhance in and out of the classroom. We conclude by applying Auster and Wylie’s (2006) four course design elements – context setting, preparation, delivery, and continuous improvement – related to our observations of tablet technology’s overall impact on active learning course support. Keywords: tablet technology, education innovation, digital ink, discussion, simulation, coordination, active learning, tablet affordances, tablet PC, mobile learning. Three Examples Using Tablet Technology in an Active Learning Classroom: Strategies for Active Learning Course Design Using Tablet Technology
92
Active learning, based on David A. Kolb’s seminal work (1984), is defined as “instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 1), centers on questions about what students do during class to engage in their own learning. In this paper, we explore how the active learning instructor is able to leverage tablet technology to support student construction of knowledge, which is “an active process of articulation and reflection with a context” (Jonassen, 1995, p. 13) Despite evidence that “…the process of experiential learning (active learning) is related to the process of brain functioning” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p.: 194), and that our brain structures seem wired to learn through activity (Zull, 2002, p. 23), lecture accompanied by static slide presentations remains surprisingly ubiquitous as observed on our campus, whether delivered via overhead projector, slide projector, or computer. In part, instructors appear motivated by a personal comfort level with what is a very constrained, linear delivery of course content. Other factors also contribute to the authority-lecture delivery model’s prevalence, including complementary slide presentations developed by textbook publishers, teaching evaluations that provide little space for either the more active student or the greater facilitating role of the instructor, and conservative student expectations themselves. This approach no longer suits various accreditation requirements (c.f., Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business or AACSB) including learning assurance goals (Serva & Fuller, 2004) aimed at improving student learning and the delivery of instruction. Additionally, business and management practices require that learning quickly advances beyond rote memorization to place special emphasis on the active application of knowledge through analysis, problem solving, and decision-making. Many business programs emphasize the case study approach, a popular active learning method, because instruction is designed around talking and listening, writing, reading, and reflecting activities (Meyers & Jones, 1993). Active learning typically “provides more cognitively challenging and personally flexible learning via student clarification, questioning, consolidation, and appropriation of new knowledge” (Meyers & Jones, 1993, p. 21), with a focus on higher levels of cognition, such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956; Bonwell & Eison, 1991). We begin with a short introduction to three tablet technology affordances, or design characteristics, that we will highlight: digital ink, portability, and, unobtrusiveness. This discussion will not focus tablet adoption or even a review of the multiple tablet technologies (e.g., smart phone, e-reader, iPad). Instead, we focus on how tablet technology affordances support active learning behaviors while providing the instructor with important space-changing and task-transforming elasticity. We then turn our attention to active learning, and discuss how tablet technology-related characteristics, called affordances, permit instructors the flexibility to promote active learning and to mitigate typical space and technology constraints. We will frame the discussion around Meyers and Jones (1993) elements for active learning: talking and listening, writing, reading, and reflection activity. We will explore how the tablet characteristics were able to enhance these
93
elements in three learning strategies: discussion teaching, simulation and, small group collaboration. We conclude with a discussion of course design and tablet technologies. We use the Auster and Wylie (2006) framework for active learning course design: context identification, class preparation, class delivery, and continuous improvement. We will describe how any tablet technology’s characteristics can enhance an instructor’s design efforts at each stage of the active learning framework. In the experience described here, two of the authors used convertible tablet PCs in the classroom. Classroom space and configuration is often assigned based upon headcount rather than the instructor’s preferred teaching style or student need for active learning experiences. The tablet PC tablet technology was used to adapt to the space configurations in traditional classroom configurations not meant for or even unfriendly to active teaching and learning. Tablet Technology Tablet technologies such as e-readers and smart phones have become increasingly popular as advances in touch screen, handwriting identification, and flexible computer applications allow manufacturers greater ability to meet consumers’ needs. Engineers and technology companies design tablet technologies beginning with key base-line affordances and others driven by consumer demand as well as other affordances introduced by manufacturers that combine and deploy the latest innovation. These include new technology like digital paper, artificial intelligence agents, and applications that are specific to individual tablet technologies. We discuss three overarching affordances, though, that are almost universal to tablet technologies including digital ink, portability, and unobtrusiveness. Digital Ink. The digital ink affordance allows users to handwrite notes, draw pictures, and add diagrams directly to the screen. Advances in handwriting recognition permits freehand text searches, the manipulation of writing space and backgrounds, and annotation of electronic documents such as email, rich text, and Adobe pdfs. Students and instructors are able to use multiple colors, erase, undo, create blank space, and move items around throughout the active learning process (Cicchino & Mirliss, 2004, p. 544). This affordance alone, incidentally, has been found to significantly increase faculty and student satisfaction with their learning environments (Cicchino & Mirliss, 2004, pp. 546-547). Portability This affordance allows its users to move technology wherever it is needed versus traditional lectern-based computers that are rooted to the front of the classroom. Portability allows instructors and students to extend learning space beyond its traditional classroom boundaries to other locations that make greater sense. Instructors are able to move from behind the podium
94
without losing the capability of adding content to the screen (Callaghan, Harkin, McGinnity, & Woods 2006, p. 107; Walker, Stremler, Johnston, Bruff & Brophy, 2008, p. 2). In situations where students are working individually and in groups, the instructor can pull up material directly related the student’s question. Instructors capture material used and created in the classroom so that it can be used and augmented during office hours or other meeting times (Callaghan, et al.,2006, p. 12). The device’s intellectual content, which results from instructor/student dialog, can also be created wherever and whenever it makes the most sense, allowing for a type of “conceptual portability” which adds flexibility to any materials generated in these newly portable active learning experiences. For example, related topics from one discussion can easily move between discussions, lectures, or even courses for use as reference and comparison. If you likened the tablet to a more physically rooted “cousin” (e.g., blackboard, white board, overhead projector) the tablet’s portability easily facilitates movement of all generated content and allows any discussions surrounding that content where it makes physical and intellectual sense. Unobtrusiveness The unobtrusiveness affordance facilitates the use of more functions (e.g. digital ink) without drawing negative or unnecessary attention from instruction and learning - or otherwise distract from the technology’s productive use. The physical design of tablet technology devices minimizes unnecessary attention drawn to the device and generates greater focus on the act of instruction and learning. The direct student benefits are illustrated by student survey results that describe an increased sense of connection with the professor and “suggest that the lecture was more engaging, which is essentially a form of active learning that promotes comprehension and retention” (Walker, et al.,2008, p. 7). Even tablet PCs, some of the largest tablet technologies, become less obtrusive when they convert from the keyboard to the tablet form, often through a rapid swivel of the computer screen. At this stage of tablet technology’s evolution, it would be difficult to envision any individual tablet technology that fails to employ some incarnation of these three basic but powerful affordances. Digital ink, of course, easily permits the generation and capture of information that would be difficult to record on the typically diminutive book- or smaller-sized tablet device. A pen-like stylus or finger-sensitive touch screen are enough to make this possible. Add to digital ink the portability affordance, or capacity to carry tablet technology easily from place to place and use it nearly anywhere and anytime. There are, of course, limitations. However, the portability affordance provides a degree of spacial or locational flexibility that lends tablet technologies with a great deal of their value as tools. Finally, tablet technologies are generally unobtrusive which means that they allow its users to employ them effectively without focusing so much attention on the device itself. That is, tablet technologies better achieve their intended purpose when that functionality is built in to their design in a way that does not distract from that purpose. The tablet technology we used possesses each of these essential and
95
technology-defining affordances and we used these to deliver active learning that would, we expected, benefit from more flexible information exchange, locational access to technology, and features that would not distract from instruction and learning (Callaghan, et al.,. 2006, p. 12). Active Learning and Tablet PC Experience We use Meyers and Jones’ (1993) active learning framework because it emphasizes student activity that is organized and structured by instructors who ideally encourage students “to clarify, question, consolidate, and appropriate new knowledge” (p.21). This focus on an instructor-designed and facilitated learning environment and the resultant active learning outcomes are evident in the examples we describe and, while we examine the convertible tablet PC, these outcomes appear generalizable to tablet technologies affordances overall. We therefore strongly emphasize the important role that instructors play in developing an environment conducive to student learning centered upon Meyers and Jones’s (1993) four specific active learning elements: talking and listening, writing, reading, and reflecting. These elements facilitate expansive cognitive processing and knowledge construction (Kolb, 1984, p. 205; Meyers & Jones, 1993) through structured learning strategies such as small group collaboration, cooperative work, simulations, and discussion. While instructors select a methodology along with other learning design elements, they also mediate learning to provide valuable and varied opportunities for student learning with the widely accepted understanding that “if students grapple with subjects through a variety of strategies, they will be more likely to incorporate what they are learning in personally meaningful ways” (Meyers& Jones, 1993, p. 32). Thus, Meyers and Jones’ (1993) argue that the four elements of active learning are the building blocks to learning strategies. In addition, they suggest that teaching resources such as the use of technology influence learning strategies. Meyers and Jones’ (1993) structure of active learning that highlights the strategies and teaching resources discussed in this paper is presented in Figure 1. Meyers and Jones (1993) identify the importance of talking and listening as a way to clarify what students have heard, observed, read, or experienced. Kolb and Kolb (2005, p. 199) emphasize that learning is a “transaction between the person and the social environment” (p. 199) which supports the importance of active learning. It helps to clarify student thinking, similar to the writing element. Reading helps students understand what others think. The fourth element, reflection, provides time needed by the brain for discrete sensory signals to “merge into bigger patterns” and become meaningful words or images (Zull, 2002, p. 16) that are integrated in abstract ideas (Zull, 2002, p. 21). Meyers and Jones (1993) presents these four elements, used in combination or singly, as the building blocks of active learning strategies. The active learning strategies (e.g. discussion teaching) are the opportunity for students to learn and apply content. Teaching resources (e.g., tablet technologies, technological instructional) enrich learning strategies.
96
Instructors often organize physical learning space (e.g. desks, chairs, lighting) to integrate available technologies (e.g. projector, whiteboard, computer), ostensibly to better provide a more meaningful and active learning environment. Instructors use new technology as well as older substitutes – even blackboard and chalk technology – to introduce frameworks, diagrams, lists, definitions, or other visual cues that inform or support learning. The visual, or graphic, materials “…provide opportunities for students to process and ponder information when we allow [students] time to draw their own conclusions before we offer ours” (Myers & Jones, 1993, p. 145) and can greatly enhance even a lecture’s word stream. Our goal was to examine how tablet technology characteristics supported by the tablet PC can be incorporated in the learning space to support active learning strategies: discussion teaching, simulation and small group collaboration. Tablet PC Support of Discussion Teaching Strategies Most of us understand intrinsically what Myers and Jones (1993) mean when they say, talking and listening are cornerstones to understanding, since “…we often do not know what we think until we try to say it” (1993, p. 22). As a key active learning element, talking and listening facilitate student collaboration, clarifies evolving understanding, student idea sharing, and social knowledge construction. However, conversations, even those rich in content, can be fast moving and transient. There is a common expectation that students will not only find a way to capture these discussions in their notes, but that they will also recognize the salient issues. Instructors trying support their students often find themselves scribbling across a whiteboard, trying to track the ideas and connections, only to run out of room and erase what they wrote so that they can add more notes. Utilizing the digital ink affordance of the tablet PC we were able to capture these notes in a dynamic way thus substantially changing how we supported the talking and listening element of active learning in contrast to whiteboard note taking. Typically, we did not copy and keep the whiteboard notes from one class to the next, unless it was a simple seed word or phrase for future discussions. We were rarely able to start each class where we previously left off. However, capturing comments and ideas by writing directly on the tablet PC screen, concurrently projected overhead, enabled us to digitally ink diagrams as well as capture class comments, response, and discussion points in a much more expansive digital whiteboard that allowed us to save all the information. Student talking and listening was no longer transitory. We provided students with visual representations of in-class thinking and creation of knowledge while preserving not just the result, but also the development of any class discussion. Students became active participants and “felt more engaged when their comments and ideas were written” (Cicchino & Mirliss, 2004, p. 547) rather than passive observers of a presentation. The ephemeral became tangible to the point that instructors easily deferred topics when student interest waned and returned to the same content when interest revived. As the discussion spanned more than one day and topics were repeatedly discussed, students had time for active learning’s important reflection.
97
Figure 2 illustrates knowledge construction using content typical to discussions in a course on business strategy. The drawings initially provided key learning objective cues for discussion and evolved into a concept mapping exercise that extended over several weeks. This discussion began when students submitted short narratives linking strategy with a current event (viz., lower-right corner) and progressed to the creation of illustrations (viz. lower-left corner). These unique concept illustrations originally covered about 25% of tablet blank space set aside for just that purpose. To provide space for each of the groups and make side-by-side comparisons of the illustrated concepts we shrunk (i.e. re-sized) and repositioned each image as students added new concepts. When blank space no longer existed, we discussed the relationships between concepts, dragging the student diagrams simply by enlarging and rearranging them using the digital pen “lasso” and relying on student input to determine placement. While some may argue that Post-Its achieve the same goal, the manipulation of visual media permitted more than just the important capture of socially created knowledge. Digital ink, erasure, easy text capture and rearrangement features allowed us to track a discussion’s genesis, changes in focus, identification of tangents, and important extensions that could be difficult to follow and recall (Cicchino & Mirliss 2004, p. 544) In this way, the digital ink affordance strongly supported active learning by permitting easy amendment, erasure, and reorganization of on-screen ideas. Class discussion became less linear and class participation increased as student-developed discussion points were reused and elaborated, as concept links were developed, and as relationship building took place within the larger body of content knowledge. In this example we also used, visual cues in linguistic, illustrative, and concept mapping terms allowed the comprehensive treatment of concept sets such as the definition of strategy or competitive analysis, making them more physically and conceptually portable. Physical portability involved gathering and using course content anywhere and anytime it made sense. Conceptual portability, on the other hand involved arrangement and rearrangement, addition and deletion, and any manipulation of course content in any manner that made intellectual sense. Conceptual portability allows the easy preservation of older conversations with fidelity to past notes, for example, while later copying those same notes precisely, making changes, and comparing past and recently produced copies of both note sets. Using the tablet PC’s tools, we digitally minimized the size of the various supporting concepts, whether symbols or text, and dragged them to the side of the projected screen. This redirected students’ attention to the central concepts while maintaining the visual representation of the supporting concepts’ value. In practice, these became iconic or symbolic versions that provided flexibility during student mapping exercises. Other icons, such as the dumbbell located in the upper right corner of Figure 2, served as an ongoing reminder of strategic management logic—that strategy was about knowing where you are at, where you wanted to be, and how to get there—employed throughout the course, thus contextualizing the discussion and learning environment. The ability to digitally move discussion content and context with ease, allowed instructors to bring course material into
98
different settings for facile sharing across groups, class meetings, course sections, or exercises. As a whole, discussion-based learning shifted from a discrete, in-class event to a broader knowledge-building continuum, expanding perceived learning space beyond the classroom walls as talking and listening moved to include one-on-one meetings, more intimate group meetings around the classroom, and communication with students from other course sections. In discussion, we used the tablet PC to support active learning in discrete ways to take advantage of the unobtrusive characteristic of the tablet that allows instructors to use it for active learning without the technology distracting from the learning experience. For example, blank space techniques—leaving large blank spaces between and around notes—allowed and encouraged the capture and inclusion of students’ comments during talking and listening activities. The space itself, though, supported learning without bringing undue attention to that space. Additionally, behind-the-scenes application characteristics facilitated student manipulation of discussion materials, encouraging active listening and reflection without distraction. We also took advantage of tablet programming to integrate student writing or discussion content by “loading” student contributions on past discussion notes requiring active reading, integration, and discussion connected directly to past classroom work. Therefore, student reading and writing were direct inputs and outputs of class discussion, exercises, and activities. Finally, we emphasized reflection in the reuse of discussion materials. For example, we used discussion materials, in a manner just described, across weeks, months, and semesters to compare different student groups and integrate modular but related course concepts, among other things. Such integration was seamless because the tablet’s unobtrusiveness allowed easy sharing, manipulation, and integration of archived materials. This affordance changed our discussion environments that increasingly encompassed all course content, making that content more globally relevant. The tablet PC became virtually invisible to students, or unobtrusive, because not only did it fail to impede student discussion and listening, it encouraged and changed discussions through a non-linear manipulation and integration of all course discussions with little attention paid to the technology enabling it. Tablet PC Support of Simulations Simulations, which Bonwell and Eison (1991) list in their active learning strategies, are more than just fun and games. Meyers and Jones (1999) describe simulations as tool that facilitate reading, talking, and problem solving, reflecting, and applying active learning within a reasonably realistic context. In our simulation learning strategy, groups of three to four students comprised the top management teams of autonomous companies competing with every other “company” in class. Each company analyzed multiple information sources to make strategic decisions that would provide them with an advantage, at least theoretically, over other companies. Each group would engage in strategic decision-making discussions that were content- and process-intensive with the instructor moving between groups to gather that information. Around mid-semester, though, student decision-making and strategic
99
implementation would become so complex that a private instructor-led audit would be appropriate and necessary. This audit required privacy and non-classroom space, necessitating tablet or other mobile technologies. As we will discuss in the small group discussion section following our simulation learning strategy section, the tablet PC’s affordances were critical. The digital ink affordance facilitated the collection and configuration of information unique to each instructor/group interaction, requiring flexibility and customization on the instructor’s part. Portability made moving between groups possible. Unobtrusiveness allowed both instructor and student groups to focus on the complex issues involved in strategy creation, implementation, and evaluation. Specific to the simulation audit, which is our current focus, information gathered formed the basis for private instructor-student communication. With the tablet PC, we overcame classroom and simulation limitations by taking student groups out of the assigned classroom and constraining simulation figures, charts, and other static information. That is, the traditional classroom provided neither space nor privacy while the simulation failed to permit information manipulation beyond its interface configuration. The tablet PC redefined and extended both classroom space and simulation interface to design a more targeted active learning experience. The audits, and the tablet PC’s affordances, enriched student-instructor interaction and permitted a sharing of information inconsistent with but complementary to the simulation. The collection of rectangles in Figure 3 represented overall group performance, investor expectations, balance sheet information, income statement numbers, and a comparison of key performance indicators that could be compared in relation to each other. In the simulation, this configuration required a number of mouse clicks to access each rectangle’s information and comparisons between them relied on student ability to memorize that information. Additionally, tablet PC’s affordances transformed the simulation learning strategy audits in the following ways: The digital ink affordance made the capture and customization of audit inputs, both student and instructor, possible. It allowed instructor movement between groups to keep discussion notes, gather questions, annotate captured simulation information screens, and keep track of all audit assessment observations. The affordance customized the audit experience for each student group, highlighting certain things, drawing attention to others, signaling items of concern, and writing out questions, just to name a few. Finally, audit materials were easily distributed to all members of each audit group. Portability, specific to the simulation strategy, made creation of an impromptu classroom possible such that student and instructor actors could freely meet, take advantage of unused class or conference rooms, and interact where and when each group required it. These meetings leveraged key active learning moments that engaged students in deeper reading, discussion, and reflection during the simulation learning strategy. Tablet unobtrusiveness supported digital ink as well as physical and temporal portability affordances. Unobtrusiveness factored highly in to the successful use of alternative campus
100
spaces because it allowed the seamless movement of digital technology where and when it was needed while taking no notice of that technology. This took place because the tablet PC was so familiar and avoided what is often a distracting and time-consuming switch in technology, which occurs from room to room, space to space. The unobtrusive affordance effectively maintained the organic atmosphere desired by the instructor in support of spacial and informational changes and needs while directing student attention solely to the audit. Figure 3 shows how instructors used an easy-to-use screen capture program to cut-and-paste information to a summary audit page that standardized some of the information and experience while allowing for customization of each according to unique student/instructor needs. While it is difficult to disentangle the effects of the simulation technology from the contributions of the tablet PC, it was clear that the tablet PC’s affordances enabled active learning in ways not possible with just the simulation alone. Furthermore, it became clear that the tablet PC’s affordances, when properly employed, permitted greater flexibility in overall course or instructional design, offsetting spacial and technological limitations and providing complementary support for both. Tablet PC Support of Small Group Collaboration Clearly, those same tablet PC affordances that impact student learning in both discussion and simulation strategies above will also affect small group collaboration in many of the same ways. Instead of discussing similarities, however, we will focus on those differences that leverage affordances specific to small in-class group collaboration. Collaboration exercises are active, almost by definition, as they require communication between group members, reading and discussing any written materials, writing group-produced documents, reflecting on the knowledge generation process, and reporting to the broader class group. This collaboration exercise requires each student group to read, discuss, plan, role-play, listen, and comment and question. For this small group collaboration strategy, individuals within each group read the article “One Tough Day for Two-Timers” (Keates, 2006), even though countless other articles would also work. This article describes the spy gadget and private investigation businesses as they relate to Valentine’s Day and the issues in that article pertain to a great number of different business types including travel, retail flower, dating site, and others. Each business type permits the simultaneous analysis of business strategy and influential factors unique to that businesses viewpoint. Student groups decide which perspective they wish to adopt after reading the article, and then evaluate business strategy and influential factors based upon that perspective (a roleplay exercise). They engage in strategy and industry analysis according to the vertical and horizontal axes of Figure 4’s matrix – just one of the five rectangles represented by the figure. They brainstorm strategic responses by selecting an intersecting matrix cell that combines strategy type with industry condition. That is, each collaborative group makes active recommendations based upon axes conditions. Any group wishing to share their
101
recommendations to the class selects a group member to fill in matrix cells while other group members describe the reasoning for that recommendation. Depending up wireless capabilities, this can be achieved at the lectern in front of the room or from the group’s location in class. During or immediately following the presentation, the collaborative group engages in a question and answer session with the rest of the class. The collaborative exercise requires individual student reading which leads to withingroup communication, analytical discussion and brainstorming, the generation of written materials, review and adjustment of those materials, the construction of group-produced documents, reflecting on the knowledge generation process, reporting to the broader class group, and responding to questions. Aside from the first individual read, this process requires collaborative group engagement in all four elements of active learning. Students read the material, discuss its content, analyze perspective based upon standard analysis, reflect on that analysis, then report and reflect some more. In our case, this was accomplished with the use of a single tablet PC. However, student use of multiple PCs would involve the same active learning tasks with the potential added bonus of more rapid display. Prior to using the tablet PC’s digital ink affordance, students filled out a photocopied form and were able to project this on an overhead projector or they could replicate a copy of their matrix on a whiteboard. Neither method fostered easy sharing across groups, class sessions, semesters, or even student reuse of their own materials. Additionally, neither of these more traditional methods allowed for easy revision or note taking during the presentation or wrap-up question and answer period. The digital ink affordance did not suffer these constraints. In fact, during this activity’s culminating discussion, each collaborative group’s matrix became a knowledge base upon which intense class discussion and reflection took place. Once all the groups had presented their strategic analysis matrices, it was easy to save and then drag and drop all of them into a single document (which is why five matrices appear in Figure 4). The tablet PC’s digital ink, in particular, enabled the culminating activity with its unique flexibility and manipulation tools. Important details were recorded, as were more articulate or topicexpanding insights and newly observable cross-group dynamics to identify trends (e.g., common misconceptions, class competencies), and influence ongoing instruction and learning. All other digital ink capabilities still apply. Portability includes the capacity transport the tablet technology not just across space, but across time as well. While digital ink permits nearly unrestricted arrangement and recombination of content, portability facilitates the sharing of perspectives across groups and even across course sections and semesters. In addition to benefits associated with greater movement within the classroom, materials generated within small groups can be transported between members in the same group as well as moved from the small collaborative group space and easily shared with another group or a much larger audience. Content and information movement within and between groups intensifies and individuals, small groups, and larger populations interact to
102
create and expand to create new knowledge. Individuals and groups gain greater control of, or engagement in, that process. The instructor does not have to monopolize the tablet PC. Even if it is the only tablet technology in the room, its portability affordances bring its potential to anybody holding it. In this exercise, unobtrusiveness was not absolute but it was considerable. Many students were distracted by the digital pen, which required some adjustment. However, while students created their analyses, shared them with each other and the class, and discussed, questioned, and reflected, students still focused on explaining the more complicated analysis and did not appear self-conscious about or distracted by tablet technology use. Furthermore, they rapidly adjusted to the technology’s more obtrusive interface. Additionally, the computer screen on a regular lectern-based table or even a non-convertible laptop computer acts as both a physical and perceptual barrier. This separates presenters from their audience and adds formality to what is really an informal exercise and group/class sharing and creation of knowledge. However, the tablet PC’s physical unobtrusiveness in the converted, or flippeddown, mode helped reduce or eliminate this barrier. One final note to this exercise that relies upon all tablet PC affordances is that knowledge generated in small group collaborative environments were easily shared (thus, the multiple side-by-side group comparisons in Figure 4) and patterns within each small group’s matrix were reviewed and compared with each other. This resulted in not just sharing small group collaborative thinking with the greater classroom population but to treat these small collaborative groups as a collection of such individual groups. This helped to maintain benefits and characteristics of that small collaborative group structure while engaging in class-wide macro-level questioning and reflection. For example, students asked questions such as, why do the entrepreneurial firm recommendations (upper left-hand square) cluster in the middle of the matrix? What drives the focus on cost-leadership in the cheater group’s analysis (upper righthand square)? Would any environmental conditions favor an organization’s use of alliance strategies? This seemed uniquely complementary to active learning where students revisit content at different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes and from different perspectives (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). In our case, small group perspectives dominated even class level discussions. Each matrix is a screen capture of each team’s analysis. Students easily see and analyze patterns in strategy when the matrices are pasted into a single document that can be highlighted and annotated using the digital ink. Planning for Active Learning, Course Design and Learning Mediation with Tablet Technology Because we are most concerned with how instructors can bring about active learning by using tablet technology affordances, such as the tablet PC we used, we pair those activity-enhancing characteristics with an active learning model that supports instructor planning and course design.
103
We employ the Auster and Wylie (2006) model for active learning because it describes specific core tasks for instructors wishing to design an active learning environment (see figure 4). They describe a systematic approach comprised of four course design activities; these include context setting, class preparation, class delivery, and continuous improvement (2006). We focus only upon those activities and actions within the instructor’s control and their potential impact upon active learning outcomes. Using these activities as our lens, we examine the tablet technology affordances below. Context Setting Auster and Wylie’s (2006) describes context setting as “establishing a receptive, candid atmosphere for learning that facilitates student interaction and engagement” (p.336). It is the basis for the other three dimensions: class preparation, class delivery, and continuous improvement. It is strongly associated with understanding the students and the knowledge they bring to the classroom (Meyers & Jones, 1993) which is vital to creating an active-learning environment. Tablet technology affordances aid the instructor’s learner analysis by supporting immediacy and flexibility in problem identification, learner involvement, and access to their thinking, collection of learner insights, and ongoing tracking. For example, the lower left quadrant in Figure 3 began as blank space for student responses. As students diagrammed their chosen strategic concept, they explained what the concept was and why it was important, providing a means for the instructor to analyze students’ initial conceptual understanding and application. Each student’s diagram filled the blank space, but was later resized and moved aside to allow space for additional student diagrams. By displaying student responses, the faculty demonstrates their receptivity to student input. By openly joining of student and instructor comments, diagrams and other materials further facilitates a candid atmosphere. Specifically context setting can be enhanced by each tablet technology affordance. For the optimal use of digital ink, instructors may: • Use colored ink and annotation for problem identification, tracking, and learner analysis. • Use open-ended questions and white space for learner response and better understanding. • Use handwriting, text selection, resizing, and drag-and-drop for flexible learner-driven content management. • Use immediacy in feedback and interactivity to enable greater collection of learner insight – leading perhaps to a student portfolio. For the optimal use of tablet technology portability, instructors may: • Physically carry, hold, and use in many more settings at the front of room, around the class, in the hall, and in the office with flexible information use and gathering more likely. • Increases access to learner thought, problem identification, learner communication, and subsequent analysis through physical and temporal portability. • Take greater advantage of space and time traditionally unavailable for learning.
104
For the optimal use of tablet technology unobtrusiveness, instructors may: • Make student notes without interfering with communication during meetings, class time, and conferences through the flip-down screen. • Take advantage of an apparent Hawthorne effect on participation, communication, and sharing with student generation of material more likely. • Make student access to the learning process increasingly transparent and systematic. Class Preparation Classroom preparation is the “thought, planning, and creativity on both content and process that is essential for successful class delivery” (Auster & Wylie, 2006, p. 336). And while managing the teaching and learning space for each class meeting can be difficult, it is an important feature of active learning (Meyers & Jones, 1993) that can be aided by tablet technology’s pen and ink affordance in conjunction with any digital ink-enabled program. Instructors created a template for each class meeting that included a standardized heading across the top, a list of questions or notes to guide each class meeting, a group of icons for class definitions or logic and, most importantly, blank or white space. These template features functioned as an agenda and a process map, both recommended by Auster & Wylie’s (2006) discussion of teaching for active learning dimensions. The projected template provided both class structure and a focused learning space facilitating both formal and informal movement through class discussions. The digital pen and ink allowed the instructor to easily recycle, amend, integrate, and personalize course content when preparing notes pre-class, making changes during class, and creating transitions to the next discussion or class meetings once a class discussion has taken place. For example, in Figure 2 the lesson material contains headers, sub-headers, and core questions in standard fonts that appear on every slide throughout the semester and serve as objectives for the course and the specific lesson. Mixing the template content in typed format with handwritten materials in different colored ink signaled to students the purpose of the content and provided temporal tracking of different concepts across multiple class sessions. The handwritten materials were generally more flexible and they signaled a level of flexibility to students. These also included additional handwritten content to draw students’ attention to concepts that need reinforcement, would benefit from additional discussion, or compliment and highlight exemplary student work. A mix of tablet technology affordances contained in the tablet PC allowed a very distinctive and substantive shift in the ease and manner with which the instructor could collect and interpret learner information/notes from previous class meetings—an essential step to lesson preparation. Nevertheless, how the course notes/template evolved week after week depended upon student group and course progression, which is why class preparation is so closely linked with class delivery. For the optimal use of digital ink, instructors may:
105
• Ease the recycling, amendment, integration, and personalization of content non-linear media. • Encourage more seamless learning task integration and reorganization of planning notes before, during, and after discussion, note-taking, and other activities. • Covertly blend formal and informal planning with last minute or just-in-time changes to content, delivery, presentation, or placement of course or assignment objectives by writing right on the screen just-in-time. • Reinforce learning objective, course, and activity design with minimal standardization or content structure. • Provide improved transitioning using previous notes, useful structure, and student generated materials. Clear progression from content introduction to higher-order thinking. • Easily generate and compare pre-class and post-class notes. • Easily distinguish new versus older notes using formatting and digital ink. For the optimal use of tablet technology portability, instructors may: • Permit inclusion or dismissal of content gathered through conversation, email, group meetings, and past class discussion. • Make preparation portable as well, to occur where and when it is most relevant. • Allow easier use of information because of rearrangement and temporal portability. • Allows easier connection between individual classes, like courses, similar discussions, and comparison and contrasts via content planning using physical and temporal portability. • Automate inclusion of learning objectives during planning via temporal portability. For the optimal use of tablet technology unobtrusiveness, instructors may: • Allow preparation through instantaneous collection of information during class discussions, student conversations, elaboration of to-do lists, reminders, etc. without causing undue attention to the process through perceptual unobtrusiveness. • Increases planning activities as familiarity with handwritten planning increases through social unobtrusiveness. • Open up planning to others. It is easier to share the process without drawing attention to it through perceptual unobtrusiveness. Class Delivery Delivery in an active learning-focused classroom is the facilitation of the class meeting (Auster & Wylie, 2006), and often requires faculty to shift pedagogically from an instructivist to a constructivist perspective (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). When faculty stand in the front of a classroom and lecture there is no need to manage the activities, but add a discussion, a small group activity, a learning exercise, or an experiment and the need for instructor facilitation is readily apparent. All of these active learning strategies require structure and support to organize and record students’ ideas, tasks, goals, solutions, or answers for example.
106
The pen and ink affordances were uniquely suited to class delivery in that the class preparation previously described was integrated seamlessly with class delivery. The developed course materials were easily annotated during class. Prepared materials were no longer stagnant, standalone slides or handouts, but an integral part of the students’ work. This increased the range of discussion options available to the instructor by taking advantage of past preparation (minimizing repeat efforts) without increasing dependency upon preparation materials (which would decrease active nature of student-led learning). Figure 3 illustrates the formalized planning in the captured and organized screenshots from the students’ simulation program versus the learning emergence during delivery in the instructor’s notes taken during a small group meeting. When the class discussion becomes stagnant, the instructor can stop the discussion and draw material from another class’s discussion to reenergize the discussion. In addition to the pen and ink affordance, this example demonstrates how the physical and temporal portability increased the instructor’s adaptability within in the physical learning space. In particular, the temporal affordance allowed the instructor to readily provide real examples rather than “getting back to the students” with something or inventing an example. Carrying the tablet PC from the front of the classroom to individual and small group learning spaces altered the instructor/student relationship as student and instructors annotated diagrams together and clarified concept understanding. The exchange of knowledge was less formal, more likely to occur, and increasingly transparent when compared to teacher-led, front-of-the-room, discussion management. For the optimal use of digital ink, instructors may: • Permit easy inclusion, structuring, and ongoing use of course objectives through nonlinear illustration and annotation. • More easily integrate instructional content and sequencing frameworks. • Allow elasticity in delivery through shared course content, embedding of students inputs, instructor’s sense-making, and flexible content management. • Increase facile material utilization through team comment tracking, content emphasis, and reorganization through color, erasure, selection, & drag and drop. • Encourage greater participation motivated by blank space, student and team content generation and inclusion, input recognition, and use reward. For the optimal use of tablet technology portability, instructors may: • Support delivery of course objectives, malleability in instructional sequence, content delivery, materials use, and participation as machine can be untethered from instructor, lectern, and classroom for individual, small group, and non-classroom inputs • Expand definition of class space through both physical and temporal portability. • Encourage greater transparency as learning activities rather than physical lectern, teacher, or classroom space/meeting time dominance diminishes.
107
• Increase opportunities for student participation as access to content delivery (access to the tablet medium) increases. For the optimal use of tablet PC unobtrusiveness, instructors may: • Allow instantaneous production and delivery of student-based inputs or more formalized instructor inputs through physical unobtrusiveness. Tablet technology convertibility removes yet another barrier between instructor and student as well as between student and learning. • Increases unobtrusiveness in class discussion, evolution of the instructional sequence, and reminders through social unobtrusiveness. Attention to learning increases as attention to the process diminishes. • Emphasize greater student learning inclusion through perceptual unobtrusiveness. As time goes on, the students pay less attention to the technology and feel more comfortable participating. Continuous Improvement The last dimension of Auster and Wylie’s (2006) model is continuous improvement. Instructors easily take advantage of tablet technology affordances to integrate continuous improvement in to active learning design and delivery. In particular, digital pen and ink, portability, and unobtrusiveness affordances permit flexibility, immediacy, tracking, and relevance for revision in much the same way these enabled ease in context evaluation, course planning, and course delivery already discussed. These permit the integration of revision and continuous improvement directly in to instructional activities that support other core active learning tasks. For example, the Simulation Integration Figure 3, simple as it is, illustrates Auster and Wylie’s (2006) teaching process dimensions. Core questions cue student context analysis as do highlighting and open-ended questions related to simulation screen captures. Class preparation requires that the teacher capture information available to all simulation groups and to individual corporate teams as necessary for planning. Such captures eliminate time spent toggling between screens and reliance upon multiple sources of information. Class delivery for the simulation audit pulls upon both standardized (whole class) elements, information specific and private to corporate simulation teams, and emergent instructor-group discussion. For the optimal use of digital ink, instructors may: • Annotate directly on content, rearrange space, or add reminders and other evaluations with digital ink, erasure, and drag and drop features. • Make loss of notes less likely with searchable handwritten notes; eliminates dissimilarity in format. • Place notes where they are most applicable in all documents. • Easily permit class access to and recall of past content for active student evaluation and revision. For the optimal use of tablet technology portability, instructors may:
108
• Afford locational, social, and professional malleability targeting evaluation to appropriate context with physical portability. • Provide more timely, insightful evaluation linked to the act of revision through temporal portability. • Allow revisions directly to important content in a timelier manner. Immediacy and relevance strengthened, driven by student learning within context through physical and temporal portability. For the optimal use of tablet technology unobtrusiveness, instructors may: • Allow ubiquitous evaluation in a range of contexts that differentially influence evaluation through physical unobtrusiveness. • More closely link and reward student evaluation to revision in learning and instruction through social unobtrusiveness. That is, instructors provide students with direct evaluations of their work written on tablet technology screens often with less social anxiety or criticism attached. • Increase familiarity with tablet technology gathering of feedback for revision and increase acceptance as social obtrusiveness decreases. • Encourage student/instructor evaluation & revision, but may signal a lack of attention in other areas through perceptual obtrusiveness. Conclusions and Recommendations The examples presented in this paper demonstrate how different learning strategies can be enhanced through the teaching resource of tablet technology in an active learning classroom. The use of tablet technologies supported active learning in spite of the potential limitations traditional classroom space and structure can pose to active learning. Tablet technologies therefore become a teaching technology that is beneficial to instructors. Instructors who use the strategies presented for tablet technologies in an active learning classroom can leverage the technology to support learning strategies. Our recommendations for practice and future research focus upon better understanding the technology’s appeal and utility, especially with regard to active learning and instruction. We also believe that the specific affordances – portability, digital ink, and unobtrusiveness – should be examined in greater detail using both qualitative and quantitative analysis. References Auster, E.R., & Wylie, K.K. (2006). Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic approach. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 333–353. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co. Inc.
109
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC Digest, ED340272, Sep 91. Callaghan, M.J., Harkin, J., McGinnity, T.M., Woods, D.N., (2006). Technology supported pedagogy in a flexible, mobile, learning environment. Proceedings of Association of Pacific Rim Universities Conference on Online Distance Learning and Internet 2006 (pp. 10-14). Tokyo, Japan. Cicchino, R. & Mirliss, D. (2004). Tablet PCs: A powerful teaching tool. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 543-548). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education. American journal of distance education, 9(2), 7-26. Keates, N. (2006, February 10). One tough day for two-timers: As cheaters juggle valentines, private eyes work overtime. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. W.1. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212. Meyers, C., & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Microsoft. (2002). Empowering information workers: The financial benefits of Windows XP Tablet PC edition. Microsoft Business Value Portfolio No. 41. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Retrieved from http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/7/3/1736d464-4b60-4297-bc3ae2115c15690e/BusinessValue.doc Serva, M.A., & Fuller, M.A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28(1), 19–38. Walker, D.G., Stremler, M.A., Johnston, J., Bruff, D., & Brophy, S.P. (2008). Case study on the perception of learning when tablet PCs are used as a Presentation Medium in Engineering Classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education 24(3), 606. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub Llc.
110
Elements Talking and listening Writing Reading Reflection
Learning Strategies small group collaboration
simulations
discussion teaching
Teaching Resources teaching technology Figure 1: Structure of Active Learning (Adapted, Meyers & Jones, 1993)
111
Figure 2. Annotated screen capture from tablet PC illustrates example of student knowledge construction, capture, and manipulation.
112
Figure 3. Screen capture illustrates how instructors cut-and-pasted information to a summary audit page standardizing the complex information and experience while allowing for customization of each according to the unique student
113
Figure 4. Each matrix is a screen capture of each team’s analysis. Students easily see and analyze patterns in strategy when the matrices are pasted into a single document that can be highlighted and annotated using the digital ink.
114
Context Setting Class Preparation Class Delivery Continuous Improvement
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four dimensions of the teaching process (Auster & Wylie, 2006).
Copyright of Global Education Journal is the property of Franklin Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
