The Future of Hands-on Learning Technologies: Motivation and Learning in Context Susanna Martin Department of Psychology, University of Bath Danaë Stanton Fraser, Mike Fraser, Dawn Woodgate and David Crellin.
Presentation Overview Background Key Concepts Investigation One: Malmesbury Investigation Two: Gower Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Knowledge Transfer Project: Plug Back into Science Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection Summary
Background Recent years have seen a move towards hands-on learning in pedagogy. Increased availability of mobile data loggers which allow children to explore field sites, collect and evaluate data to gain a sense of the real-world process of scientific research. [Cobcroft 2006]. The Ambient Wood project [Rogers 2004] demonstrated the value of mobile and embedded technologies for students collecting data ‘in the wild’. The Participate project identified qualitative relationships between contextual media and learning [Woodgate 2005]. Ownership of data Motivation Our interest is in researching the relationships in a more quantitative manner.
Key Concepts Data Loggers Record measurements and store data Combined with GPS Additional Sensors Seams Instances of disruption to the process. Seamful = disjointed process Seamless = fluid transition Context ‘Context of Doing’ Information gained from the experience ‘Contextual Media’ Additional information provided through media
Aim: Understand the role of hands-on technology within the current curriculum. Method: 7 GCSE Students completing their Environmental Science coursework. Observed in the field and in the class room. Findings: The teachers enjoyed the potential of the data loggers but were restricted by availability and time. Students were positive, especially after they were familiar with the equipment. Students shared their data and collaborated closely. Some students were unclear about what their data was. Investigation One: Malmesbury
Investigation Two: Gower Aim: Understand the role of hands-on technology with comparison to older types of technology. Method: AS Level Students completing their Environmental Science coursework. Observed in the field. Findings: The students were quick to learn. The students were motivated to explore the loggers and their functions. Students appreciated the GPS connection. Students appreciated the instant feedback of the loggers.
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Aims To understand the importance of students remaining connected to their work in terms of motivation and learning. Hypotheses Motivation will improve for data acquired in context (self-collected) Understanding will improve for data acquired in context (self-collected) Ability to answer questions on graphs will improve at post-test when students have generated graphs themselves (regardless of whether they use software or create graphs by hand, rather than having been given pre-produced graphs). Pre-generated graphs will be better understood if students acquired the data themselves.
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Methodology 46 students (14 girls and 24 boys). Students experienced different levels of data interaction during the collection and presentation of the data. Pre and Posts tests to assess learning and motivation changes.
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Collection Intervention Self students visited : Pond Field Construction Area Peer students Learnt about sound inside the classroom
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Presentation Intervention: Pre-Produced
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Presentation Intervention: Manual
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Presentation Intervention: Software
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Learning Results: Four tests, two had significant results. Ability to read from a graph: A significant difference within the peer group.
Students who used the pre-produced graphs had better post test scores than those who manually produced graphs.
Ability to draw a graph: All students showed decrease in scores.
The self group showed a significant decrease.
The manually produced group got significantly worse.
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Motivation Results: 5 Statements linked to motivation. Likert Scale I enjoy using computers to draw graphs –Non Significant I think collecting data is a waste of time- Significant I like working with data I have collected- Significant Three Choice Answer Which set of data did you feel more comfortable working with?-Significant Which set of data do you feel you can explain better?-Significant
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams I think collecting data is a waste of time
Students who used pre-produced graphs, changed their view in a positive direction (percentages)
I like working with data I have collected
Students who self collected showed a positive change in opinion.
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams Which set of data did you feel more comfortable with? 68% of the self students preferred location A (their own data). 62% of the peer students felt no difference between locations A and B. Which set of data did you feel you could explain better? 60% of the self students felt they had better understanding of location A (the location which they visited). Only 18% of the peer students preferred Location A.
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Aim To investigate Hands-on vs. Hands-on technology within a class room environment. Hypotheses That motivation would be more positively affected by the technology intervention than the traditional. Student learning will be more positively affected by the technology intervention than the traditional. Student confidence in their learning will improve following intervention regardless of whether their learning scores change.
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Method
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Results - Learning and confidence in learning. Two questions showed significant responses and one question had a ceiling effect. When considering if a described experiment was a fair test there was a significant difference overall. However closer inspection showed that students changed their mind in both directions. When reporting the resting heart rate, all students improved in their confidence with regard to their response
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Results - Motivation in learning. Two questions showed significant responses. Responses showed that students in the manual group became more positive towards the statement “I like working with data I have collected” All students showed a decline in agreement towards “I think data collected using special equipment is more accurate.”
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology Initial Conclusions There was no clear difference between the two hands on experiences. The data loggers confused the students as they challenged their current perceptions. Any form of hands on experience had a positive learning, and motivation effect with students becoming more confident in their answers. Future Analysis Consider the relationship between a students accuracy and their confidence. Repeat the procedure using a different logger.
Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection Aim To establish the potential effect of changing the level of interaction with resources, upon a student in terms of their reflection and engagement with the subject. Research Questions Does generating Context Inclusive (CI) data affect a student’s motivation, engagement and reflection towards a topic? Do topics with a greater use of data logging technologies affect the levels of engagement reported by the students? Do students do better in end of module tests when they have shown greater levels of reflection and engagement during the module?
Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection Design 6 Modules, Two Taught normally. Two taught with cameras added to allow the students to generate their own contextual media. Two taught with an increased number of data loggers, to provide ‘context of doing’, students are also provided with cameras in these lessons. Measurement Comparison is made across module (teacher uses a standardised test). Comparison with a parallel class. Comparison with results from previous 6 modules. Students complete a motivation questionnaire. Potential to investigate type of photos taken by the students. Interview with the teacher.
Summary Five different investigations with a common theme. Results indicate qualitatively that there is a benefit to hands on learning technologies. However, experience shows quantitative data can be hard to collect. Our mixed method approach is the first step towards providing quantitative understanding of the impact of hands-on technology. Any Questions?
Knowledge Transfer Project: Plug Back into Science This project was developed with three key aims; To engage with teachers To share ideas and experiences To influence policy Workshops Collaborate with teachers Learn from others
References Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J. & Bruns, A. (2006). Mobile Learning in Review: Opportunities and Challenges for Learners, Teachers and Institutions. In Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 21-30). Rogers, Y., Price, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Fleck, R., Harris, E., Smith, H., et al. (2004). Ambient Wood : Designing New Forms of Digital Augmentation for Learning Outdoors. Third International Conference for Interaction Design and Children, 3-10. ACM. Woodgate, D. & Fraser, D. (2005). eScience and Education 2005: A Review. JISC Report. jisc.org.uk. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_eresearch/escience_in_education_review.aspx.