Researching Tablet
Computers and
their Distinctive
Pedagogies

Dr. Kevin Burden:
The University of Hull
5th Century BC
acetylsalicylic acid

1860s
John Robert Vane
s:
er
ut r ?
p e
om ang
t C ch
le e
ab m
T
ga
a
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ifl/ipadresearchinschools.aspx
• personal deployment of
devices = high impact

• students use technology
more frequently and
naturalistically

• classroo...
• ‘buy in’ and adoption from

teachers is straightforward

• students and teachers learn

to use tablets experientially

•...
• parents are more engaged
in their children’s school
work

• students believe they learn
more with the device

• students...
• students are more

productive and creative

• learning is more
personalised

• formal and informal

contexts for learnin...
Rogers Technology Adoption Model

Adoption Rate

The
chasm

Early
adopters
Innovators
visionaries
enthusiasts
Want to
use ...
?
ta
Da
sh
ng
ari

Co
nv
er
sat
ion

Collaboration

A pedagogical framework
for mobile learning

nte
Co
se
al i
x tu

Ag
en
...
LOW

MEDIUM

Negotiated outcomes

External control

Personalization

‘One size fits all’:
‘just in case’

HIGH

Agency

Ta...
LOW

MEDIUM

Negotiated outcomes

External control

Personalization

‘One size fits all’:
‘just in case’

HIGH

Agency

Ta...
32
33
34
35
Educational Research Design
• to co-design, develop and evaluate specific
pedagogies associated with mobile and tablet
dev...
http://www.educationcommunities.org/c/162117/h

41
On-line learning scenarios survey
http://www.survey.hull.ac.uk/mobilelearningscenario

42
MESH Knowledge Maps
Dr. Kevin Burden
The Centre for
Educational Studies
The Faculty of Education
The University of Hull
k.j.burden@hull.ac.uk
...
e-learning foundation keynote (June 2013): Distinctive Pedagogies of iPads
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

e-learning foundation keynote (June 2013): Distinctive Pedagogies of iPads

295
-1

Published on

Dr. Kevin Burden outlines how the use of mobile technologies (tablets and phones) can be enhanced by the use of carefully designed and researched mobile pedagogies

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
295
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Could be called: Three Models and a Challenge - Distinctive Pedagogies for Tablet Computers
  • As long back as ancient times physicians and doctors like Hippocrates knew that the bark of this tree (the willow) when ground down (powder) produced a compound with great analgesic powers to reliev a wide variety of minor aliment and pains including inflammation and headaches.
    It continued to be used as a remedy for hundreds of years until in the 1860s it was identified as acetylsalicylic acid’
    In 1899 Bayer (the US pharmaceutical company) patented this chemical as Aspirin but it was not until 1971 that John Robert Vane actually discovered the mechanism behind this drug.
    Since John Vane made his discovery numerous other applications have been developed moving far beyond the original purpose which was simple pain relief - it is now used extensively to prevent heart attacks and strokes
  • The use of technology in general, and mobile computers and tablets devices like the ipad, in particular follows a similar pattern to that I have just described.
    Given the recency of these devices (2008 for mobiles and 2010 for iPads) we have already collected considerable amounts of evidence about what works and does not work.
    For example, even from the relatively small number of genuine studies which have been undertaken in the use of mobile devices and tablet devices in particular we know the following activities or pedagogical patterns appear to work very well:
  • The followers
  • The patron saint
  • Apple as a religion: a faith = the followers believe it will make the World a better place, even though there may be little direct prof available at the moment.
  • Apple experts as the evangelists or disciples of the cult
  • The confessional booths;desks
  • Stage 1 - Technology Triggers (touch screen)
    * characterised by proof of concept and media stories (Need image from papers here)
    * seldom a usable product exists - therefore viability is unproven
    Stage 2: Peak - early publicity fuels triggers of success stories - some companies take action (most do not)
    Stage 3: Trough - interest wanes as implementations and experiments fail
    * producers fail or move on
    *investment limited to those providers who improve their offering in the light of what early adopter wants
    Stage 4: slope of enlightenment
    * more successful examples begin to emerge to show real benefits
    * 2nd and 3rd generation products emerge
    * more funding for pilots
    *conservative enterprises remain cautious (is this where we are now?)
    Stage 5: Plauteau:
    *mainstream adoption begins
    * criteria for assessing and measuring viability and effectiveness are well established
    *broad market applicability paying off
  • The juxtaposing of both models suggest different groups and individuals will be further along the Hype cycle than others
    1. innovators have alrerady scaled the Peak experienced the trough - through the first wave of tablet PCs (i.e. pen driven)
    2. they have now moved on with the next generation of devices to the slope (2nd and 3rd wave generations - e.g. iPods and iPads) and the plateu, followed now by the early adopters who are the trend setters:
    3. approaching the plateau - seeking ways top meausure their success (more of this later)
    This phase is characteristed by
    BUT important to remember the early majority (34%) are now following them - some points to make about their adoption patterns
    1. Do they need to follow the same route - i.e. false expectations dahsed: probably not (can learn from others - in school this may be through champions and sharing - e.g. TeachMeets)
    2. Note this group will follow but are not natural innovators - they will do so when they see it how it fits in with their current lives and ways of working (in practice this may mean becoming familiar with the technology at home - comon in many studies now -
    3. BUT - they are unlikely to want to use this technology to change the current way things are done (i.e. to be transfromational) - this needs to be driven elesewhere
  • By the time innovators and early adopters reach Roger’s plateau they are well versed in the technology itself and are looking to establish tools and criteria to measure or evaluate the value of these initiatives. This is where we are approaching with some individuals and schools now. How do they do this?
  • One way - SAMR
    good to measure where you or your school are in relation to technolgy use generally
    Little value as a formmative tool, however, to help you or your organisation progress
  • But despite all of this evidence to indicate what works and what works less well, we are still unclear about why or how these particular technologies achieve these outcomes. We do not yet undertsand the DNA code which would enable us to extend and generalise what works to new settings and indeed into new, as yet unexplored, pedagogical patterns. Partly because our research tends to be descriptive rather than explanatory or even prescriptive (as in medicine). We need to adopt a new research paradigm to achieve this. What some researchers as calling, working in Pasteur’s Quadrant. Doing this using a research approach called Educational Design Research
  • To support this form of research we are using a largely theoretical framework for mobile learning developed between myself and colleagues at the University of Technology, Sydney. It identifies three broad
    areas to investigate and within this six strands or designs
  • Low = exchange of content
    High = creation and sharing of contexts
  • Low = exchange of content
    High = creation and sharing of contexts
  • 1.Teachers are generally very capable and fluent in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) – i.e. they understand how different pedagogical patterns will be more/or less effective in helping students to understand particular bodies of subject knowledge. The difficulties lies in understanding how, when and under what circumstances technology is part of this equation (TPCK- Mishra and Koeller) – the personal ownership of a device like the iPad brings this equation into play in a big way and teachers have probably not been equipped or prepared for this in their training
  • e-learning foundation keynote (June 2013): Distinctive Pedagogies of iPads

    1. 1. Researching Tablet Computers and their Distinctive Pedagogies Dr. Kevin Burden: The University of Hull
    2. 2. 5th Century BC
    3. 3. acetylsalicylic acid 1860s
    4. 4. John Robert Vane
    5. 5. s: er ut r ? p e om ang t C ch le e ab m T ga a
    6. 6. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ifl/ipadresearchinschools.aspx
    7. 7. • personal deployment of devices = high impact • students use technology more frequently and naturalistically • classroom dynamics and learning activities change • alternative forms of assessment become feasible
    8. 8. • ‘buy in’ and adoption from teachers is straightforward • students and teachers learn to use tablets experientially • collaborative activities (e.g. peer coaching) increase • homework morphs into extension work
    9. 9. • parents are more engaged in their children’s school work • students believe they learn more with the device • students assume greater responsibility for their own learning • robust and extended wi-fi connectivity is essential
    10. 10. • students are more productive and creative • learning is more personalised • formal and informal contexts for learning are ‘bridged’ more easily
    11. 11. Rogers Technology Adoption Model Adoption Rate The chasm Early adopters Innovators visionaries enthusiasts Want to use technology Early majority pragmatists Late majority conservatives Laggards skeptics Want technology to provide solutions and convenience Time Source: Rogers
    12. 12. ?
    13. 13. ta Da sh ng ari Co nv er sat ion Collaboration A pedagogical framework for mobile learning nte Co se al i x tu Ag en cy Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012) Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective, Research in Learning Technology Vol. 20, 2012 d Customisation Personalisation Situated Authenticity
    14. 14. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Networked: rich Solitary: disconnected Collaboration Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    15. 15. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Solitary: disconnected Collaboration QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture. Networked: rich Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    16. 16. 32
    17. 17. 33
    18. 18. 34
    19. 19. 35
    20. 20. Educational Research Design • to co-design, develop and evaluate specific pedagogies associated with mobile and tablet devices • iterative prototyping with interested teachers • both practical and theory building • website and community: 40
    21. 21. http://www.educationcommunities.org/c/162117/h 41
    22. 22. On-line learning scenarios survey http://www.survey.hull.ac.uk/mobilelearningscenario 42
    23. 23. MESH Knowledge Maps
    24. 24. Dr. Kevin Burden The Centre for Educational Studies The Faculty of Education The University of Hull k.j.burden@hull.ac.uk 07815184477 45
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×