Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Khalid and Peture E-Learn 2016 2 Washington DC


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Khalid and Peture E-Learn 2016 2 Washington DC

  2. 2. Motivation • Explore & emphasize on the technological functionalities, pedagogical design, and barriers to the integration of iPads in Lessons. • Facilitate reluctant teachers, school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders • Research Question: What are the technological and pedagogical potentials and problems of integrating iPad in schools?
  3. 3. Why iPad? Differences: Operating systems, app market, programming languages, application programming interfaces (APIs), and other factors.
  4. 4. Methodology • Method: PRISMA checklist for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Liberati et al., 2009) • Databases: EBSCOhost (21 databases, including ERIC & Academic Search Premier), Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library • Keywords: iPad, education, and school • Timeline: January 2010 and September 2014 • Note: Using “K-12” instead of “school” returns duplicates. • Full-papers for screening: 59 • Included: 17 peer-reviewed articles • Exclusion: ADHD and autism; contexts of higher educational institutions; and pre-schools or kindergartens
  5. 5. Analysis and Synthesis Five broad categories: 1. Functionality and convenience of use 2. iPads scaffold the learning process and support creative problem-solving skills 3. Mobile and multi-contextual device for learning 4. Digital content creation and consumption: 21st- century skills 5. Barriers to the integration and adoption of iPads
  6. 6. iPads scaffold the learning process and support creative problem-solving skills Ubiquitous and child-centered Learning process: creative, relaxed, and informal Scaffold the learning process Metacognition and creative problem-solving Enable becoming cooperative and collaborative — learning by doing Productive learning (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014) (Culen and Gasparini , 2012; Falloon, 2013) (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014; Falloon, 2013) (Fisher, Lucas, and Galstyan,2013) (Herrington, Mantei, Herrington, Olney, & Ferry, 2008) (Mei-Ju, 2014)
  7. 7. Functionality and convenience of use Usability Personalized and engaging Designs for learning Content creation Access and share information or learning content Communication and collaboration Research Assessment and feedback Gamification and game-based learning Combining the formal and informal learning contexts Learning resource and notebook
  8. 8. Mobile and multi-contextual device for learning Links professional and personal social contexts Public “workspace”: users’ real and virtual worlds intertwine Global knowledge-sharing Scheduled and flexible, synchronous and asynchronous Learning at anytime, anywhere and at own pace Social technology (device and social aspects) Device usability (device and learner aspects) Mix environment and everyday life in School projects
  9. 9. Barriers to iPad integration and adoption • Operation and maintenance • Access • Attitude • Distraction • Advertisements • Motivation for learning • Omnipresence • Apps • Security • Miscellaneous: human contact, ergonomics, bandwidth requirements, startup cost, recurring costs, cheating during exams, and class disruption
  10. 10. Scope of Further Research (Authors): Method of Analysis • Categorize iPad use in classroom by applying ICT-TPCK framework, i.e.: • Technology (functionality, Usability and UX), • Pedagogy, • Content, • Learners and Context (Anglei, C. & Valanides, N, 2009). • Pedagogy: as Activity System (Engeström et al., 1999) References • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  11. 11. Scope of Further Research: From reviewed articles • Kearney et al.’s (2015): Mobile technologies in informal spaces outside school. • Mei-Ju (2014): Children’s development in the kindergarten. • Falloon & Khoo (2014): Hypothesized, conscious and permanent compositions by children could improve learning. • to identify, to devise and to compare different frameworks for digital didactical designs • Mangen, Robinet, Olivier, and Velay (2014): Readers have more difficulty remembering details and sequence of stories when they read on the tablet instead of on paper. Valid and reliable? If yes, is it desirable?
  12. 12. Scope of Further Research (Authors) • iPad-integrated pedagogical design of subject-specific lessons. • How can a combination of specific iPad apps and analog resources be integrated into lessons in different subjects? • What are individual students’ cognitive and social challenges when engaging in collaborative or cooperative learning with iPads? • How can teachers differentiate teaching activities with iPads? • How can formative and summative evaluation be made convenient for students and teachers? • Identify or devise and apply frameworks for digital didactic designs.
  13. 13. Scope of Further Research (Authors, Cont.) • UX factors: Text editing, copy-pasting, the lack of arrow keys, multitasking, file copying. • Empirical studies and reviews on • the digital didactic designs, • appropriated apps for different subjects, • signature pedagogies, • assessment or feedback, and • evaluation of the application of different digital didactic designs. • For improved replicability, iPad-integrated case studies should be subject- specific, student-focused and app-appropriated. Research findings from such iPad-integrated pedagogy-focused action research would contribute significantly to the fields of education and educational technology.
  14. 14. Question and Answer Md. Saifuddin Khalid