50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx

50 Young Children
Technology and Young Children
®
2, 3
How Smartphones and
Tablets Are Changing
Documentation in Preschool
and Primary Classrooms
iDocument
Zoe builds a tower in the block area,
taking care to leave a hole at the top.
Her teacher pulls a smartphone from her
pocket and snaps a picture. “What are
you building, Zoe?” she asks. “Rapun-
zel’s tower,” Zoe replies. The children
have been studying the story of Rapun-
zel for the last two weeks.
“This is Rapunzel,” says Aster, show-
ing the teacher a cutout drawing of a
person. A piece of ribbon is taped to
the head. “I see that she has very long
hair,” the teacher says, snapping another
picture. “Will Rapunzel’s hair reach the
ground from the window of the tower?”
The children see that the hair is too short
to reach the bottom of Zoe’s tower, and

they gather materials from the cut-and-
color table to fix it.
Will Parnell, EdD, is assistant professor in curriculum and
instruction and early childhood education at Portland State Uni-
versity (PSU). He is pedagogical director of PSU’s Helen
Gordon
Child Development Center and has authored publications about
children’s and teachers’ Reggio-inspired experiences in the cen-
By sliding her thumb across the screen of the smartphone, the
teacher is ready to record video as the preschoolers explore
measure-
ment and spatial relationships while building their fi ne motor
skills.
Two minutes later, she presses an arrow icon and uploads the
video
to her classroom’s password-protected video-sharing account.
After
school, she creates a blog entry about the latest math
exploration
to emerge from the Rapunzel study and adds photos to the text.
The
teacher does all of this in a few minutes, using a blog-writing
applica-
tion on her smartphone. This Reggio-inspired early childhood
teacher
has her fi nger on the pulse of the latest technology for “making
learn-
ing visible” (Project Zero & Reggio Children 2001)—that is,
document-
ing young children’s learning to better understand and shape it
(Rinaldi 2006).
At home, parents ask their children about their day at school
while
viewing the classroom blog. Because of the blog documentation,

par-
ents can ask specifi c questions about the activities. The
questions give
the children an opportunity to share their learning and to think
deeply
about their experiences. For example, after Zoe’s dad reviews
the
video of the children remaking Rapunzel’s hair, he asks her
questions
ter. Will coordinates the master’s specialization in early
childhood
education for the Graduate School of Education’s Curriculum
and
Instruction Department. [email protected]
Jackie Bartlett, MS, is the director of Portland Baby School.
She currently teaches kindergarten in Portland, Oregon. Her
education interests include the effects of mobile technology on
documentation practices.
Photos courtesy of the authors.
©
G
or
d
on
S
tu
d
er

Young Children 51
New Tools and Strategies for Teachers and Learners
such as, “How did you know when Rapunzel’s hair was long
enough to reach the ground?”
With the increased prevalence of smartphones, laptops,
tablet computers, and other digital technologies, knowledge
about and familiarity with the educational uses for these
devices is important for early childhood teachers document-
ing children’s learning. A single device can manage many
functions that previously required a number of steps for
inclusion on a website or blog. As teach-
ers’ technology skills increase, organiz-
ing and reproducing facets of children’s
learning experiences becomes easy.
Teachers can use smartphones every
day to take photos, record video and
audio, and make notes, then integrate
them into daily blogs and online port-
folios that parents can access. They
can do all of this as the events of the
day unfold, saving valuable planning
time and giving families a window into
their children’s learning at school. As
an integral part of teaching, this digital
documentation process—gathering
and reproducing trails and traces of
children’s learning experiences—is a
topic worthy of study. Technology can
be a powerful tool for strengthening
children’s home-school connection (NAEYC & Fred Rogers
Center 2012).
We two authors, Jackie Bartlett and Will Parnell, teacher
researchers at a Portland, Oregon, preschool and primary

school respectively, joined together to investigate the ques-
tion of what digital and technological documentation pro-
cesses look like in teachers’ everyday practices. We hope
our collaboration sheds light on the value of technology in
documenting children’s learning.
Why documentation matters
Documentation has many important defi ning characteris-
tics. It is the process of observing and recording children’s
development and learning. As part of the
process, teachers ask questions, collect
data on the children (work artifacts, quo-
tations, photos, audio recordings, and
such), interpret the data, and develop an
ongoing dialogue about the process with
colleagues, parents, and the children
themselves. This helps everyone under-
stand the children’s development and
learning and how to promote it.
Interpreting children’s learning
Although documentation is a record
of the events that occur in children’s
school experiences, making learning
visible is not objective. Rinaldi (2006)
illustrates this point in her description
of the act of photographing a child. She
suggests that when we take a photograph of a child, we
construct, rather than capture, reality: we do not photo-
graph the child, we photograph our idea of the child. Docu-
mentation, therefore, is not a standardized measurement

of a child’s achievement; it is the teacher’s subjective and
participatory assessment—her interpretation—of the child
or group of children’s work and thinking.
Teachers can use
smartphones and
tablets every day to
take photos, record
video and audio,
and make notes,
then integrate them
into daily blogs and
online portfolios that
parents can access.
52 Young Children
When we have a record of a child’s learning, we have a
tool for interpretation as well as a tool for reporting and
understanding learning—sometimes in surprising and new
ways. Malaguzzi identifi es interpretation as a critical part
of the documentation process (1998). He acknowledges the
power that interpretation has in shaping curriculum and
understanding the nature of learning: “To fi nd clarity and
dispel the fog [in the recorded texts of children] yields a
great deal of information about the thoughts of children.
Through careful interpretation, one learns that children
continually attempt to draw connections among things and
thereby grow and learn” (95). Malaguzzi’s clarity concept
lends itself to images of children as strong, competent, and
capable learners that challenge assumptions about what
children can achieve: “Those who have the image of the

child as fragile, incomplete, weak, made of glass, gain some-
thing from this belief only for themselves. We don’t need
that as an image of children” (Malaguzzi 1994). By believing
that children are competent, teachers promote their com-
petence. Through documentation, teachers glean informa-
tion that helps direct learning and bridge the gap between
what children have learned and what they learn next.
Shaping children’s self-perceptions
Documenting children’s learning affects their self-images
in positive ways. By committing time and energy to docu-
menting a child’s work, teachers affi rm that the child is a
valued member of the learning community. Rinaldi (2006)
states that the child exists when others recognize that what
he says is important. Documentation is an expression of this
recognition. Scheinfeld, Haigh, and Scheinfeld fi nd that there
is a substantial, affective benefi t of careful listening and
documentation: “The children experience that their expres-
sions of interests, motives, emotions, ideas, and capabili-
ties are noted and embraced by the teacher and are causes
of the teacher’s responses to them. Thus, the children expe-
rience themselves as fully existing, valid, worthwhile, and
cherished in the mind and heart of the teacher” (2008, 17).
Further, by presenting the children’s work and docu-
mentation to the children as part of the learning process,
teachers develop a metacognitive under-
standing—a framework for learning about
how and why learning occurs—in order to
deepen the meaning of what is studied. If
teachers and children understand the how
and why, then they can refl ect back on the
learning as well as think forward, awaken-
ing more questions. Scheinfeld, Haigh,

and Scheinfeld echo this idea: “Once the
teachers started to listen, observe, refl ect,
and respond, the children’s responses
became focused and energized” (2008, 29).
Early childhood education professionals
can listen, observe, refl ect, and respond
while using mobile devices to enhance and
streamline the documentation process.
Why technology matters
Technological documentation is a powerful tool for
teachers as they plan and refl ect in the moment on the
curriculum. Gathering the digital records—photos, quotes,
scanned work samples, commentary, and so forth—in a
repository such as a password-protected blog or electronic
journal helps teachers, families (including extended family
and friends), and children make sense of and build on their
own learning.
Digital Documentation Tips
Record the process (rather than product) of learning.
Include the children’s words.
Document with children present and engaged with you in
the documentation process.
Ask the children about their process either
while recording or when they’re viewing the
documentation later.
Use questions that start with what or how
(What were you thinking about when you
Have someone who can edit, get you to

think more, and challenge you in positive
ways review your documentation before you
post it.
Ask yourself what is most important—for
example, the children’s words, photographs
of the children, or an artifact of the project.
As you edit the presentation, check to see
that what you value most is clearly visible,
without distractions such as too many fonts, other visuals
dominating and overlapping, or too many words. Consider
leaving white space around the item.
Keep the focus of the display on the children’s ideas and
work. For instance, use solid, muted colors; avoid borders;
and use neutral colors for backgrounds. Children are natu-
ral designers; their work will provide the color and visual
interest in the display.
By committing
time and energy
to documenting
a child’s work,
teachers affirm
that the child is a
valued member
of the learning
community.
Young Children 53
Classroom stories of teachers

and technology
The following stories from our teacher research demon-
strate the power of using technology in everyday classroom
practices. We show how collaboration and group refl ec-
tion help teachers make sense of technologically captured
learning. We tell these stories in the fi rst person to preserve
their authenticity and keep our voices alive and coherent.
In a three-month study, I implemented new processes
for documenting learning in my classroom of 3- to 5-year-
olds. I introduced handheld video cameras and digital
audio recorders to my two co-teachers, who began using
the tools in their formal observations of the children. We
reviewed the recordings in staff meetings to fi nd patterns
in the children’s words and work—that is, recurring themes
in class discussions. We took our discoveries back to the
children to see how they responded to our ideas about
their thinking.
While the children met in small groups, we also read back
their words to them, played the videos, and showed them
photographs. We asked
the children to refl ect
on their learning experi-
ences and activities as
they looked through
work artifacts, watched
the videos, or listened
to the recordings or
transcriptions of their
conversations. By the
end of the study, we
noticed changes in the
way the children viewed
their work and school.

At the beginning of
the study, I asked the
children what they learn at school. Their answers varied
from “I don’t know” to short lists of school activities. By
the end of the study, the children’s answers refl ected their
thinking about the process of learning: they gave reasons
for why learning is necessary. Children identifi ed examples
of cognitive, social-emotional, and motor learning.
When I fi rst asked Alice what she learns in school, Alice
named sharing. At the end of the study, Alice gave not only
PROJECT-BASED LEARNING APPROACH. Apply graduate-
level knowledge
immediately into your early childhood education classroom or
center.
ACCESSIBLE EDUCATION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATORS.
Combining academic excellence with a low residency
requirement.
HIGHLY ENGAGING CURRICULUM.
Connect with your local early childhood education community
more deeply.
RESPECTED DEGREE.
Champlain College has been providing quality education since
1878.
with Champlain’s Online Master’s Program in Early Childhood
Education with Specializations in Teaching and Administration.

champlain.edu/medEXPERIENCE LEARNING.
To Request an Information Packet
CALL 1-866-282-7259
RETSAM
ERUTUF RUOY
Important General Tips
Obtain written permission
from the family before posting
photos of their child on a web-
site or in a blog.
Be sure to include all children
in videos and photos. Children
will feel valued and families will
know that their children are an
important part of the learning
community.
54 Young Children
a specifi c example of her learning, but
also a theory for how she learned it:
Alice: I can do different things. I didn’t
climb on [the bars] at the park and
a whole year went by when I didn’t
even try. I tried again, and I can do

it. I didn’t even practice, and then
the next year I just tried again, and I
could do it.
Jackie: How did that happen?
Alice: I think I just already knew how
and then forgot.
Another child identifi ed a social
rule as something that she learned in
school, and she explained why the rule
exists: “[I learn] how to be nice and do
things so the other people can treat
you that way.”
Bringing documentation of their
words and learning back to the chil-
dren seemed to add signifi cance
to them. As if looking in a mirror, the children watched
themselves in the process of learning and saw themselves
as powerful. What came through to the children as they
watched the videos was my belief that their work is impor-
tant. Because I value their work, the children themselves
value their work.
Cat faces: Using a smartphone to
In my role as a teacher researcher, I studied teachers’
uses of technology in documentation with K–3 children at
A Renaissance School of Arts and Sciences, where I am a
board member. The school uses design technology (Dunn &
Larson 1990) to engage children in active learning. In design
technology, teachers and children collaborate to engineer
and document projects that address a particular problem.
The projects draw on children’s creative, mathematical,

scientifi c, engineering, technological, and/or expressive
skills, knowledge, and ingenuity. Our problem centered on
a small armature for a catlike creature. The armature, or
basic structure, was made of rolled paper. It was covered
in papier-mâché and wrapped in faux fur. The cat needed a
face: eyes, nose, mouth, and whiskers.
I observed the children as they worked on pen-and-
ink drawings to design a face for the creature. Using my
smartphone, I snapped photographs of the children’s
drawings and sent them by e-mail to their teacher to talk
about with the children. The teacher and I wanted to fi nd
out what the children were learning about cats as they
drew the faces, and how they were researching the eyes,
nose, mouth, and so forth, to draw. Meeting with children
in small groups, the teacher talked with them about the
photos and the questions. One child, age 6, said, “I saw
that the creature needed a face, so I wanted to make sure
it had whiskers. It seemed so lonely looking down at us
without a face.”
Using a smartphone, the children began a small research
project on the facial features of cats. A 7-year-old shared his
experience of searching the Internet and seeing how lions
and domestic cats were similar and different: “Cats’ pupils
become vertical slits to fi lter light, while lions’ don’t; they
are round, like ours.” We (children and teachers together)
put up our digital images on the school’s blog and wrote
down the children’s stories on a tablet. We saved the digi-
tal stories as PDFs for easy uploading and future access.
Mobile Technology Tips
Keep your device with you and be ready to document.
Upload media directly to a video-sharing website
(such as You Tube or Vimeo) and your classroom blog.

Keep blogs and websites secure by requiring users to
enter a password.
Keep notes in the notebook function or use an appli-
cation like Evernote for mobile devices.
Organize photos using web albums or photo-organiz-
ing software.
If you have trouble operating your device, use a
search engine such as Google or ask.com to search
the Internet for help.
Young Children 55
Parents commented on the project via the blog. Some
parents shared how they too were learning about cats.
One reported feeling closer to her child’s learning through
“reading and talking about the drawings on the blog” with
her child.
The smartphone and tablet proved critical as research
and communication tools in this design technology experi-
ence. Without my phone handy, I might not have taken the
initial photos, and the learning journey might have been
lost to other events. The smartphone allowed the children
to research and access relevant project data. We wonder
if the children would have uncovered the richness in the
data without having the Internet at their fi ngertips. Most
important, the school blog allowed for family, teacher, and
child interactions, permitting closeness to develop around
the learning.

Limitations of handheld technology
Among the limitations we experienced in this teacher
research project are negative attitudes toward mobile
devices in the classroom, the time
commitment for learning about the
various technologies, staying pres-
ent while using a technology tool,
and keeping children focused on the
learning and not on the technology to
the exclusion of the learning.
In some settings, teachers are not
allowed to use smartphones in their
classrooms. This view of mobile
devices may change as administra-
tors see the potential uses for these
devices beyond personal commu-
nication, and how they benefi t the
whole learning community. For these
teachers, we recommend using touch-
screen MP3 players, which have many
of the same features as smartphones.
As for the learning curve with new
technology, we learn as we practice.
We search the web to watch basic
technical or how-to videos that aid in
our understanding and offer tips for
using a tool. Web searches for these
are becoming easier, and tips are
often available from multiple users,
from novices to experts, and in click-
to-watch video format. Then we begin
to learn in real time by using the
technology tool on the job. Finally, we
meet up with others to discuss what
we have learned about the technol-

The technology
is merely a tool,
and we learn
about it along-
side the children.
ogy and what the docu-
mentation teaches us
about children’s learning
and our teaching.
Operating a handheld
technology device at
fi rst tends to take con-
centration. However, the
more we are “behind
the lens,” the more the
lens becomes part of
our being present in the
moment. This may be a matter of learning the language
of technology, just as children learn the language of clay,
paint, and drawing in “the hundred languages of children”
(Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998).
The children’s attitudes toward technology tools follow
our attitudes. We engage the children naturally in our uses
of technology in the classroom. The technology is merely a
tool, and we learn about it alongside the children. The tech-
nology exists in the classroom for the sake of the learning,
capturing the learning to make it visible and valued.
PO BOX 7677 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85327 p: [email protected]
www.chimescompany.com
“makin music everywhere”
10 different interchangeable song panels allow everyone to play

with ease!Available on all of our model GE-200 chimes.
56 Young Children
App Website Description
BlogPress blogpressapp.com Allows you to type text and add
photos and video from your mobile device to blog posts.
Blogger blogger.com Allows you to type text and add photos
from your mobile device to a blog on Blogger.
Evernote evernote.com
use folders to maintain individual electronic portfolios for the
children.
SoundNote soundnote.com Lets you type notes while recording
audio. Later, selecting a word will play back
the audio from the point that you typed that word. Great for
documenting circle time
discussions.
Mobile Device Applications and Their Uses
Another limitation of using mobile devices is the quality
of the recordings. Though photography and display quality
is improving, it still is not comparable to the quality of most
cameras or monitors. However, in a fast-paced classroom,
the devices’ convenience and portability outweigh the
drawbacks.
Learning about

technology
As we look back at our
stories, we realize that
technology has infl uenced
our ability to retell learn-
ing experiences. We can
look at a photo, video,
blog, or website repeat-
edly to recall past events
and share more of the
details with families, chil-
dren, and colleagues. This
habit of looking back with children at their shared work and
learning brings joy to the learning and our everyday experi-
ences. Being open to the trends in technology and trying
out multiple ways of recounting learning have made the
documentation process integral to our work in understand-
ing children’s learning and development.
The refl ections in the mirror and cat face stories show
how teachers’ technology skills and their ideas for using
technology grow. Handheld devices help teachers maintain
learning blogs and make them readily available to families
and to members of the internal school community who
may be involved or want to learn more about the learning
process.
Further, since adding the web-accessible component,
many teachers no longer need to print out large volumes of
information around photos and text. They can now print a
few pictures that relate to current learning and store most
photos on the tablet. With the tablet’s larger screen, the
photos and videos are big enough to be seen by all children
at once. Limitations fall away as we continue to experiment.
Conclusion

Mobile devices and the documentation that they enable
have the potential to change the way we assess students
of all ages, expanding current testing practices into a more
open-ended, child-driven, and sophisticated method of
assessing and communicating learning. However, to achieve
this level of making learning visible, we need many more
studies to corroborate the evidence presented here and
elsewhere on the role of mobile technology in documenting
children’s learning.
As for our personal research, we plan to stay abreast of
technological trends because, as technology makes our
documentation work more effi cient, we become freer to
interact with young children, confi dent that we will have a
record stored in the clouds for us to refl ect on later.
References
Dunn, S., & R. Larson. 1990. Design Technology: Children’s
Engineering.
London: The Falmer Press.
Edwards, C., L. Gandini, & G. Forman, eds. 1998. The Hundred
Languages
of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach—Advanced Refl
ections. 2nd
ed. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Malaguzzi, L. 1994. “Your Image of the Child: Where Teaching
Begins.”
Child Care Information Exchange 96: 52–56.
www.reggioalliance.org/
downloads/malaguzzi:ccie:1994.pdf.
Mobile devices
and the docu-

mentation that
they enable have
the potential to
change the way
we assess stu-
dents of all ages.
Malaguzzi, L. 1998. “History, Ideas and Basic
Philosophy: An Interview with Lella Gan-
dini.” In Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 49–97.
NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learn-
ing and Children’s Media. 2012. “Technol-
ogy and Interactive Media as Tools in Early
Childhood Programs Serving Children from
Birth through Age 8.” Joint position state-
ment. Washington, DC: NAEYC; Latrobe, PA:
Fred Rogers Center at Saint Vincent College.
www.naeyc.org/fi les/naeyc/fi le/positions/
PS_technology_WEB2.pdf.
Project Zero & Reggio Children. 2001. Making
Learning Visible: Children as Individual and
Group Learners. Cambridge, MA: Project
Zero.
Rinaldi, C. 2006. In Dialogue with Reggio
Emilia: Listening, Researching, and Learning.
New York: Routledge.
Scheinfeld, D.R., K.M. Haigh, & S.J.P. Schein-
feld. 2008. We Are All Explorers: Learning

and Teaching with Reggio Principles in Urban
Settings. New York: Teachers College Press.
Copyright © 2012 by the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints
online at .
Like the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct itself, this book
seeks to
inform, not prescribe, answers to tough questions that educators
face as they work with children, families, and colleagues. In
this
second edition, Feeney, Freeman, and Pizzolongo provide new,
well-chosen examples that not only clarify key points about
ethical
discussion on critical issues confronting early childhood
educators.
New from NAEYC!
ISBN: 9781928896838 Item #368
$20 Member: $16 20% savings
®
Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator:
Using the NAEYC Code (2nd ed.)
Stephanie Feeney and Nancy K. Freeman, with Peter Pizzolongo
Order online at www.naeyc.org/store
or call 800-424-2460 option 5 (9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. EST,
Monday – Friday)

Teaching Young Children’s fi rst themed issue
The December 2012/January 2013 issue of Teaching Young
Children/Preschool (TYC)
will include a variety of articles on The Role of Planning in a
Preschool Program. The
TYC team selected this theme based on reader feedback. We are
seeking practical arti-
cles that share real-life classroom experiences while addressing
topics such as these:
Article proposals for this themed issue are due June 1, 2012.
Find our proposal
submission form and further information on writing for TYC at
www.naeyc.org/
publications/forauthors/writetyc.
Announcing . . .
58 Young Children
McPherson, S. 2009. “A Dance with the But-
terfl ies: A Metamorphosis of Teaching and
Learning through Technology.” Early Child-
hood Education Journal 37 (3): 229–36.
Nikolopoulou, K. 2007. “Early Childhood
Educational Software: Specifi c Features
and Issues of Localization.” Early Childhood
Education Journal 35 (2): 173–79.
Ntuli, E., & L. Kyei-Blankson. 2010. “Teachers’
Understanding and Use of Developmentally
Appropriate Computer Technology in Early
Childhood Education.” Journal of Technology

Integration in the Classroom 2 (3): 23–35.
Pickering, L.E., & E.J. Walsh. 2011. “Using
Videoconferencing Technology to Enhance
Classroom Observation Methodology for the
Instruction of Preservice Early Childhood
Professionals.” Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education 27 (3): 99–108.
Puerling, B. Forthcoming. Teaching in the
Digital Age: Smart Tools for Age 3 to Grade 3.
St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Rosen, D.B., & C. Jaruszewicz. 2009. “Develop-
mentally Appropriate Technology Use and
Early Childhood Teacher Education.” Journal
of Early Childhood Teacher Education 30 (2):
162–71.
Sadao, K.C., & N.B. Robinson. 2010. Assistive
Technology for Young Children: Creating
Inclusive Learning Environments. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Scheibe, C. & F. Rogow. 2012. The Teacher’s Guide
to Media Literacy: Critical Thinking in a Multi-
media World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Serow, P., & R. Callingham. 2011. “Levels of Use
of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the
Primary Mathematics Classroom.” Technol-
ogy, Pedagogy, and Education 20 (2): 161–73.
Sharp, V.F. 2009. Computer Education for Teach-
ers: Integrating Technology into Classroom

Teaching. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Simon, F., & C. Donohue. 2011. “Tools of Engage-
ment: Status Report on Technology in Early
Childhood Education.” Exchange 199: 16–21.
Skouge, J.R., K. Rao, & P.C. Boisvert. 2007. “Pro-
moting Early Literacy for Diverse Learners
Using Audio and Video Technology.” Early
Childhood Education Journal 35 (1): 5–11.
Snider, S., & S. Hirschy. 2009. “A Self-Refl ection
Framework for Technology Use by Classroom
Teachers of Young Learners.” He Kupu 2 (1):
30–44. www.hekupu.ac.nz/Journal%20fi les/
Issue1%20June%202009/A%20Self-Refl ection%
20Framework%20for%20Technology%
20Use%20by%20Classroom%20Teachers%
20of%20Young%20Learners.pdf.
Stephen, C., & L. Plowman. 2008. “Enhanc-
ing Learning with Information and Com-
munication Technologies in Preschool.”
Early Childhood Development and Care 178
(6): 637–54. www.mendeley.com/research/
enhancing-learning-information-preschool.
Torrence, D., & C. Donohue. 2007. EC E-Learning:
A National Review of Early Childhood Educa-
tion Distance Learning Programs. Washington,
DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.
www.aft.org/pdfs/ece/ecelearning0408.pdf.
US Department of Education. 2010. Transform-
ing American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology. National Education Technology

Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Author. www.
ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Vandewater, E.A., V.J. Rideout, E.A. Wartella,
X. Huang, J.H. Lee, & M. Shim. 2007. “Digital
Childhood: Electronic Media and Technol-
ogy Use among Infants, Toddlers and Pre-
schoolers.” Pediatrics 119 (5): e1006–e1015.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/
content/full/119/5/e1006.
Wang, F., M.B. Kinzie, P. McGuire, & E. Pan.
2010. “Applying Technology to Inquiry-Based
Learning in Early Childhood Education.” Early
Childhood Education Journal 37 (5): 381–89.
Young, S. 2009. “Towards Constructions of
Musical Childhoods: Diversity and Digital
Technologies.” Early Child Development and
Care 179 (6): 695–705.
Websites and online resources
Diigo Group—Blog, or follow others’ postings and links to
early childhood education tech-
nology articles. Join the group ECETECH, supported by
NAEYC’s Technology and Young
Children Interest Forum, to archive pages, organize tagged
items, and highlight sections of
linked web pages or articles. You can also access information
via an iPhone app (coming
soon). http://groups.diigo.com/group/ecetech
Education Week: Digital Directions—This site contains articles
on digital topics such as
reading apps for children, integrating tablets into assessment,

and educators weighing the
cost-effectiveness of adding technology to the classroom. The
site features a blog, ed-tech
videos, webinars and chats, and special reports. Browse
archived issues of Education Week.
Sign up to get free newsletters via e-mail.
www.edweek.org/dd/?intc=thed
Edutopia Elementary Tech Integration Blog—Elementary
computer teacher Mary Beth Hertz
writes this blog as part of the Edutopia website, offering her
experiences and refl ections
about technology in early education. Updated approximately
twice a month, recent posts
discuss celebrating women and technology, educational apps in
the classroom, and Internet
research for elementary school children.
www.edutopia.org/blog/meaning-tech-integration-elementary-
mary-beth-hertz
Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at
Saint Vincent College—
In keeping with Fred Rogers’ vision of using television and
other media to educate young
children, the center teamed up with advisors at Saint Vincent
College to build “bridges
between early learning and children’s media.” Available
resources include issue briefi ngs,
an online support community, and a resource database of links
to key organizations, pub-
lications, and media sources of early learning and children’s
media. The center also offers
information on accessing the Fred Rogers archive, which
includes Fred Rogers’ speeches,
his personal correspondence, and a digital audio and video
archive from his television pro-

grams; and curriculum toolkits that provide assignments, in-
class activities, syllabi, research
links, and videos. www.fredrogerscenter.org
The center is also launching a new website, the Fred Rogers
Center Early Learning
Environment, or Ele, which offers free access to digital early
learning resources, including
an online community and library of 100+ free, high-quality e-
books, mobile apps, and vid-
eos that support early learning and literacy.
www.ele.fredrogerscenter.org
Hatch—Find links to industry research, ideas for obtaining
grants, and free webinars on a
variety of topics concerning different aspects of technology in
early childhood education
under the Research tab located at the top of the home page.
www.hatchearlychildhood.com
NAEYC—Read about and view NAEYC’s recently updated
technology joint position statement
with the Fred Rogers Center. Find a brief summary of key
messages from the statement and
selected examples of effective classroom practice involving
technology and interactive
media. www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children
NAEYC Technology and Young Children Interest Forum—This
NAEYC Interest Forum web-
site is divided into sections: Technology with Children,
Technology Tools for Educators,
Technology at Home, and Research. Links include online
activities, Internet safety, devel-
opmentally appropriate practice guidelines, apps, and web-based
tools. The forum holds
online discussions and meets yearly at NAEYC’s Annual

Conference.
www.techandyoungchildren.org/children.html
The forum has also begun a wiki project where members can
discuss early childhood
education tech issues. http://ecetech.wikispaces.com
Technology in Early Childhood [TEC] Center at Erikson
Institute—The TEC Center seeks to
promote appropriate use of technology in early childhood
settings. The site offers updated
news and blog posts, listings of upcoming center events, and a
free webinar series, Early
Childhood Investigations, taught by leaders in the fi eld of
education and technology.
www.teccenter.erikson.edu
University of Maine Listserv—Follow and post current news
about technology in early child-
hood education. The web archive interface is available for
anyone to view. However, you
must sign up and log in to post to the listserv. Subscribers can
see and manage different
lists. www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=ECETECH-
L&H=LISTS.Maine.edu
Resources for Technology and Young Children (cont’d from p.
13)
Copyright © 2012 by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints
online at .

Copyright of YC: Young Children is the property of National
Association for the Education of Young Children
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.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 4, 15 June 2010, 487–500
Tablet PCs in engineering mathematics courses at the J.B.
Speed
School of Engineering
Jeffrey L. Hieb* and Patricia A.S. Ralston
Department of Engineering Fundamentals, J.B. Speed School of
Engineering,
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, USA
(Received 21 July 2009)
In fall 2007, J.B. Speed School of Engineering at the University
of
Louisville joined the ranks of universities requiring the
purchase of Tablet
PCs for all new entering students. This article presents a
description of how
the Department of Engineering Fundamentals incorporated
Tablet PCs

into their instruction, a review of the literature pertaining to the
use of
Tablet PCs for instruction and preliminary survey results from
the students
in engineering mathematics courses at the end of the first year,
after
students had been exposed to Tablet PCs for 1 year. Results
show that a
large majority of students in the Department of Engineering
Fundamentals
agree that presentation of engineering mathematics material
using the
Tablet PCs and DyKnow software is a vast improvement over
overhead
projector, blackboard, or PowerPoint lectures and course packs.
However,
students are split as to whether the Tablet PC is something they
actually
want to use for their own note-taking. Finally, a plan for
assessment of
tablet impact on student learning is presented.
Keywords: tablet pc; engineering mathematics instruction
1. Introduction
Many schools and universities, in the US and abroad, have
begun incorporating
Tablet PCs and associated presentation software, such as
Classroom Presenter and
DyKnow, into classroom instruction [1]. A survey of recent
literature shows that
most institutions are currently relying on student survey
responses as the primary
assessment of the impact this new technology is having on
student learning,

indicating that assessment of the impact of Tablet PCs on
student learning is still in
the preliminary stages. It is well established [2] that
incorporating active learning and
collaborative activities into courses improves student learning
outcomes in many
cases. Much of the educational excitement surrounding Tablet
PCs comes from the
new and exciting ways of active learning that can be
implemented using
features regularly praised in DyKnow and Classroom Presenter.
However, Tablet
PCs offer other student learning enhancement opportunities that
should be explored
as part of a deliberate migration to the use of Tablet PCs in the
classrooms of higher
education.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0020–739X print/ISSN 1464–5211 online
� 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00207390903477467
http://www.informaworld.com
The Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville
began requiring
entering freshmen to purchase Tablet PCs in fall 2007. Only
entering freshman are
required to purchase a Tablet PC, therefore, incorporation of
Tablet PCs into
courses is occurring gradually as the percentage of students
with Tablet PCs

increases with each entering freshman class. The Department of
Engineering
Fundamentals teaches core engineering mathematics courses,
such as Engineering
Analysis I, II and III and Differential Equations. Since these
courses are taken
predominantly by freshman and sophomores, the department has
begun incorporat-
ing the use of Tablet PCs into their instruction. This article
discusses the
department’s experiences to date, including the strategy taken in
incorporating
Tablet PCs into courses, and faculty and student impressions
about the use of Tablet
PCs. Section 2 reviews the current literature on the use of
Tablet PCs in education.
The department’s initial incorporation of Tablet PCs into its
courses is described
in Section 3 and a preliminary evaluation of that incorporation
is presented in
Section 4. Conclusions and future directions for the continued
effort to incorporate
Tablet PCs into courses in ways that provide a measurable
benefit for students’
learning are discussed in Section 5.
2. Literature review of Tablet PC use
Since the introduction of the Tablet PC edition of Windows XP
in 2002, there has
been a significant increase in the interest in Tablet PCs, no
more so than in
education. There are many uses of Tablet PCs in education.
Tablet PCs can be used
by instructors for lecture and presentation; using a Tablet PC
and a projector,

instructors can mark up prepared notes or use the Tablet PC as
an electronic white
board on which to conduct the class. On the other side of the
desk, students can use
Tablet PCs in lieu of traditional paper and pencil for taking
notes during class. Or
when both instructors and students have Tablet PCs, the use of
specialized software
makes new types of collaborative and active teaching and
learning possible.
Many recent papers describe the software tools that have been
developed to
enhance the teaching and learning aspects of specific classes
when Tablet PCs are
used by both instructors and students. These tools are
sometimes referred to as
classroom learning systems or CLS [3]. Most commonly used
tools include DyKnow
Vision and Monitor [4], Classroom Presenter [5], Ubiquitous
Presenter [6] which
enhances Classroom Presenter and expands it to support non-
tablet audiences and
InkSurvey [7] which is a simple and robust web-based tool to
facilitate the use of
open-ended questions in Tablet PC classrooms. Group Scribbles
[8] is a platform
that supports more generalized coordination among students and
can be down-
loaded for free from http://groupscribbles.sri.com.
Widely published are papers that describe these tools and tout
the merits of the
particular tool, usually focusing on aspects that encourage
active and collaborative
learning but sometimes also note-taking [5,9–11]. One case

study [12] specifically
addressed the presentation capability of Tablet PCs, with survey
results from two
mechanical engineering classes indicating that students are
more likely to pay
attention during the lecture and recognize salient points when
Tablet PCs are used.
Several of the papers included in this review [13–15]
acknowledge that students are
often distracted by software applications other than the note-
taking software used in
488 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston
a specific class and therefore fail to stay focused on the
material. Kraushaar et al. [13]
actually gathered data on use of distracting software such as
gaming or email and
discuss briefly the difference between laptop and Tablet PC
distractions. A
disturbing finding from their analysis of 108 students was that
on average, a
Tablet PC user opened 93 active windows during a 75-min
lecture. At least one CLS,
DyKnow, includes a feature that allows instructors to block
specific programs to
discourage engaging in distractive Tablet PCs use. A recent
paper by Lim et al. [14]
had data that showed students placed more value on class
attendance and note-
taking if partial notes were available for download rather than
the entire lecture with
annotations. According to Lim et al., when students could get
complete notes

without attending class, they did not attend class. Birmingham
and DiStasi present
survey results in [3] from 130 students in 13 different computer
science classes.
Survey responses indicated that students seem to prefer the use
of CLS and Tablet
PCs to overheads and chalkboards but not to PowerPoint and
OneNote. Neither did
they find any advantage to Tablet PCs, despite the faculty
thinking they were
providing many more active learning opportunities. Students
tended to be neutral or
to disagree with statements asserting the benefits of Tablet PCs
for actual learning.
Since their survey was completely optional and online, the
results may not be truly
representative.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has been using Tablet PCs
since 2003 and
DyKnow since 2004; and they are assessing the impact in a
variety of courses across
the engineering, mathematics and science curriculum [15–17]
and [18]. They report
that faculty and students like the active learning and
collaboration that can be
accomplished in some classes and the immediate assessment
that is often possible via
polling or collection of student work. Their assessment in most
cases is based solely
on surveys. Only Sutterer and Sexton [18] actually compare
final exam scores from
classes that used Tablet PCs and DyKnow with final exam
scores from traditional

classes. Unfortunately, the sample space was only 31 students
and no significant
difference between exam scores from the Tablet PC class and
exam scores from the
previous year (without Tablet PCs) were observed. However,
survey responses from
students were neutral to positive with respect to the impact of
DyKnow on their
learning. Results reported by Koile and Singer [19] indicate that
student learning
appears to be positively affected by the use of collaborative and
active learning
strategies provided by Tablet PCs and Classroom Presenter;
their sample size was
only 15 students and there was no control group. A following
study by Koile and
Singer [20] with a control group reported similar results. The
results were based on a
combination of surveys and course performance in recitation
sections where problem
solving was done, but not from the larger, lecture-based classes.
Koile and Singer [20]
report that formative feedback appeared to be the most
significant improvement that
affected learning. They plan to continue their research with
larger sample sizes.
Several papers specifically address the use of Tablet PCs to
teach mathematics
[21–23]. The first two studies [21,22] were based on survey
results only, but both
reported that students and faculty felt that the learning
environment was enhanced.
Specifically mentioned advantages were:
. the ability for students to obtain annotated, archived notes

. the willingness of the instructor to be more engaged
. the ability of the instructor to interact more with students
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology 489
. the ability of the instructor to produce, display and annotate
high quality
colour graphic images that better explained complicated
analytic geometry
than overhead projector or chalk board images
. the ability to retrieve material from previous lectures for
discussion
Stickel’s study [23] was based on 310 students in a differential
equations and linear
algebra course taught within an Electrical and Computer
Engineering Department.
Of the 310 students, one section of 89 students had an instructor
that used a Tablet
PC; the remaining two sections were taught using a traditional
blackboard and no
technology. The study is interesting in that it has survey results
and compares grades
with the two sections not using technology. The author
concludes that the use of a
Tablet PC by the instructor improved the academic performance
of the students.
However, the instructor could have accomplished many of the
same things with the

use of a laptop, since the use of pen-based technology did not
appear to be
particularly exploited, other than the ability to annotate
PowerPoint slides. In all
the sections, students took notes with pencil and paper.
The most comprehensive results are those reported by Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute and State University [24,25]. Virginia Tech (VT) has
one of the most
coordinated and comprehensive Tablet PCs implementations
reported, starting with
plans and pilot studies in 2002 requiring all 1200 incoming
students to purchase a
Tablet PC in 2006. They have an extensive assessment plan
although at this point it is
still based on three surveys given to students in each semester,
rather than any type of
correlation with actual learning outcomes. VT identified three
areas where faculty
felt Tablet PC and associated software would enhance student
learning: (1) oppor-
tunities for active learning, (2) incorporation of collaborative
exercises and (3)
improved note collection and note searching/review. Their data
collection and
assessment so far has focused on the impact of Tablet PCs and
OneNote on student
note-taking and whether they use meta-cognitive strategies and
critical thinking skills
in individual studying and note-taking. They point out that
OneNote provides an
electronic notebook that mimics a traditional notebook but has
advanced
capabilities, such as the ability to search for words that relate to

a concept.
Students could also record the audio portion of lectures while
they take notes if they
desired. Outside class, students could click on digital ink
objects in OneNote and
play back the audio associated with when the digital ink was
made, allowing specific
review of classroom discussion or lecture.
Colwell [26] offers an extensive reference list as testament to
the fact that
note-taking is an important learner activity that increases
subject cognition. His
work builds from that to stress the importance of assisting
students in note-taking
and how digital inking can best improve teaching and student
learning. Williams
et al. [27] presented results of a cross-disciplinary survey of
students’ note-taking
strategies. They report that once students understand the
advantages of
annotating instructor provided notes as well as taking their own,
they appreciate
the ability to stay more organized. It is worth pointing out,
students explicitly
added comments about distraction associated with Tablet PCs
without specifically
being asked.
The connection between Tablet PCs in education and note-
taking is clearly seen
in the preceding review of Tablet PC literature. However, the
literature on note-
taking in general is massive and beyond the scope of this
article. Due to its

importance both in the authors’ efforts of incorporating Tablet
PCs into their classes
and the obvious relevance to Tablet PCs in education, in
general, Kobayashi’s
meta-analysis of 33 studies relating to note-taking [28] was
reviewed. Kobayashi
concluded that note-taking and reviewing had a substantially
positive effect on
student learning and that the benefits can be increased by
intervention in note-taking
and intervention in reviewing procedures. Specifically, larger
intervention effects
were provided when a framework or instructor notes as a
guideline were provided.
The combination of Tablet PCs and a CLS like DyKnow support
this type of note-
taking intervention, with many possible different
implementations. Furthermore,
Brazeau [29], a pharmacy professor, reminds teachers that
students must listen,
identify and organize information by taking notes; students
must develop the ability
to organize information in their own cognitive perspective in
order to learn. She
posits that ‘active listening’ required for note-taking should not
be replaced by
presentation software and instructor-supplied notes.
3. Initial incorporation of Tablet PCs in engineering
mathematics courses
The Department of Engineering Fundamentals teaches the

following engineering
mathematics courses: engineering analysis I, II and III,
differential equations,
numerical analysis and linear algebra. Engineering Analysis I,
II and III
(engineering-based calculus courses) and differential equations
are required for all
engineering majors. There is a high amount of content, and
these are considered
lecture courses. Problem solving is demonstrated and taught as
an individual skill,
and students need to be effective and efficient at taking notes
during class, while they
simultaneously engage the lecture material.
Entering freshman take engineering analysis I in the fall of their
first year,
followed by engineering analysis II in the spring and
engineering analysis III in the
summer. Entering freshman who are not ready for engineering
analysis I take a
preparatory course in the fall of their first year. These courses
are generally taught
every semester, but most students take the series in sequence,
making enrolment in
the in-sequence classes much larger. In the fall of 2007,
coinciding with the school’s
Tablet PC requirement for incoming freshman, the department
decided to begin
incorporating the use of Tablet PCs, starting with engineering
analysis I in the fall
of 2007.
3.1. Prior to Tablet PC incorporation
Previously, a typical engineering mathematics multi-section

class (of up to 180
students) was taught using prepared transparencies (projected
using an overhead
projector) with additional information, mostly in the form of
examples, presented on
chalkboards. The chalkboards were large enough to allow
information flow so that
even the slower note-takers could keep up. These multi-section
classes are taught
with a co-anchored approach [30], where there are two teachers
in the class at all
times and interacting with each other. Out of sequence classes,
for example
engineering analysis I in the spring, are taught by a single
instructor. The
information on the transparencies, also available as a course
pack students could
purchase, consisted of the theoretical background for a specific
mathematical
Technology 491
objective and proof of the theory. For many problems,
preliminary information and
complex diagrams would also be provided. For most actual
problem solving,
students would be required to fill in those notes themselves in a
space available in the
course pack or on their own paper.

3.2. Options for including Tablet PCs in a course
There are four basic modes in which Tablet PCs can be
incorporated in a course.
The first is for an instructor to use the Tablet PC as a digital
chalkboard. Some
software is needed to achieve this and a digital projector is
needed to project the
instructor’s Tablet PC screen to the class. Microsoft Journal and
OneNote are two
software applications that could be used to achieve this. This is
a large
improvement over traditional chalkboard presentation as options
include:
embedded pictures and figures, prepared material, multiple
colours, and there is
no need to erase the chalkboard and blank page is just a click
away. An added
bonus of this approach is that it provides the instructor with a
record of the lecture.
A second way Tablet PCs can be incorporated in a class is for
students to use them
as a digital replacement for traditional pen and paper notebooks.
Microsoft
OneNote

TM
is an excellent platform for this. A third possibility is to
combine the
first two; instructors and students both use Tablet PCs, as
digital replacement for
chalkboard, overhead projectors and pencil and paper. The last,
and most
interesting possibility, is to make use of a CLS, where students
and instructors both
use Tablet PCs and the CLS creates a shared workspace in
which students and
instructors can interact.
One such CLS is the DyKnow software package. The central
elements of
DyKnow are the panel and the notebook. A notebook is made up
of panels much the
way a presentation is made up of slides. DyKnow supports
digital inking of each
panel. Elements other than digital ink can be added to a panel as
well, such as images
or text and digital inking lays on top of any added elements.
During a session,
students and instructors share a common notebook. The
instructor’s inking of a

panel shows up on each student’s notebook, unless the
instructor uses a special
‘private’ ink, in which case the instructor’s ink is only applied
to the instructor’s copy
of the shared notebook (but is therefore projected for the class
to see). During a
session, students can apply digital ink to their copy of the
shared notebook, this
inking is only applied locally. At the end of a session, each
student can save a copy of
the notebook, a copy which contains:
. any initial material that the instructor included as part of the
notebook
preparation
. any ‘non-private’ ink applied by the instructor
. any inking the student applied during the session
The student is free out of the session to make any additional
changes to the
notebook. Associated with each panel, there is a side note where
digital ink can also
be applied. For a more thorough discussion of DyKnow, see
their website:
dyknow.com. The Speed School of Engineering also adopted
DyKnow as part of its

Tablet PC initiative, so this CLS was available to the
department.
3.3. Initial Tablet PC incorporation
The Engineering Fundamentals Department faculty have well-
developed course
notes and an effective delivery approach. To avoid problems
that an over aggressive
Tablet PC initiative might produce, and to take advantage of the
material already
developed, the initial incorporation of Tablet PCs was done by
making a digital copy
of transparencies, and making these available to students during
class through
DyKnow. The instructors did not want the class to become
passive by delivering all
content via DyKnow and simply have students annotate some
things. Instead, a
combination of DyKnow with instructor annotation was used
along with OneNote.
There are two places where students can take notes in DyKnow:
on the shared
panels and in separate private note-taking area. It was expected
that students would
need to view each panel in nearly full screen resolution, at least
part of the time,
which might hinder the use of private notes. Mircosoft’s
OneNote was also available
to students, and presented another option for note-taking.

Another possible option
was to add additional panels to DyKnow. The best choice was
initially unclear to
instructors, so it was left to the student’s discretion on how best
to take notes and
students were prompted with several options:
. To save the entire unit’s worth of notes at the beginning of
unit (a units
worth of material was collected into one notebook, all of which
was
available during a session) and then add panels to the DyKnow
notebook.
. To take notes in the private note area provided by DyKnow.
. To screen clip from DyKnow into OneNote.
It was expected that students would use a variety of different
approaches for taking
notes, and that they might even choose methods other than those
suggested. They
were allowed to use their preferred method, but encouraged to
use the Tablet PCs.
The following presentation approach was taken, achieved using
three Tablets,
and three projectors. The prepared material, organized by unit
and previously
presented via transparencies, was transferred to DyKnow
notebooks, one for each
unit. During class, the DyKnow software and a projection
system delivered what was
formerly shown only via overhead projectors. During class, each
student, using his or
her Tablet PC, joins the shared DyKnow session, and can access

the prepared course
material. Annotations to the prepared material are made in
DyKnow, and therefore
available to students. Relevant examples are worked in OneNote
on one of two
additional Tablet PCs, which are also attached to projectors.
Students are
encouraged take notes in either DyKnow or OneNote. In this
early transition
period, hardcopies of the coursepacks (used previously) were
still made available
to students, and students were permitted to take notes by hand if
that was their
preference.
3.4. A second approach
In the summer of 2008, a slightly different approach was taken
for the engineering
analysis II course. This course was taught by a single instructor.
Instead of using
OneNote to work example problems, the instructor added blank
panels into the
DyKnow notebooks already containing the scanned course
materials. The instructor
then worked example problems in private ink in DyKnow. Using
the private ink,
Technology 493
students could see the instructor’s work on the projector, but it
was not transmitted
to each student’s notebook. A second DyKnow account, on a

different Tablet PC,
was used by the instructor to access and display two panels
from the session
notebook. This made it possible for the instructor to display an
example solution
that continued across more than one panel, or display relevant
theorems or
definitions related to the current problem being solved. Both
Tablet PCs were
connected to projectors. The main difference in this approach is
that all of the
content is delivered in DyKnow. An added benefit of this
approach is that courses
can be taught in rooms with only two screen projectors. Again,
no specific
note-taking method was prescribed to students, but another
option was now
available to students: to take all their notes in the DyKnow
session notebook.
3.5. Single Tablet single projector options
In its incorporation of Tablet PCs, the Engineering
Fundamentals Department used
multiple Tablet PCs and multiple projectors because this most
closely resembled the
combination of chalkboard and overhead projectors used
previously. The second
approach, discussed in Section 3.4, could also be used with only
a single Tablet PC
and projector. With a single Tablet PC and projector, an
instructor would need to
pay greater attention to the layout of worked problems that
cross multiple panels.
This can be achieved by having prepared panels with the
original problem and

a previously found intermediate result at the top of a panel.
During lecture, the
instructor finds the intermediate result on a single panel, and
then appends the
prepared panel that restates the problem, and only the
intermediate result, leaving
room to continue working the problem. It is possible that this
may spread the
solution across more panels, but each panel should have enough
information that
students are able to follow the logic of the solution even though
they cannot view
previous panels that are part of the solution. Similarly, when
there is a need to refer
back to definitions, theorems or formulas, they could be
included, in a smaller
format, on panels where they are needed.
4. Evaluation of the use of Tablet PCs
The initial evaluation of the impact of incorporating the use of
Tablet PCs into
engineering mathematics courses included three elements:
(1) faculty impression/feedback
(2) student academic performance
(3) student impressions of course delivery and the effect on
note-taking
Faculty impressions were gathered informally during daily
discussions. The
Engineering Fundamentals Department is small and members
conversed freely
about this initiative, so a formal assessment instrument was not
used. Student
impressions were gathered using a voluntary student survey

given towards the end of
the summer 2008 semester. Academic performance was gathered
in aggregate for the
classes and compared with aggregate data from the previous
year courses.
Aggregate academic performance was obtained for the 2007
engineering analysis
III course. This was then compared with similar data for the
corresponding 2008
class to determine if the presentation and course delivery style
using Tablet PCs or
the student use of Tablet PCs affected academic performance in
a significant way. A
similar comparison for the engineering analysis II class was not
preformed as these
students had a less homogeneous experience, described below.
To gauge student impressions, surveys were used at the
completion of the
summer semester 2008 for the engineering analysis II and
engineering analysis III
classes. The survey consisted of two multiple choice questions
and several Likert-type
items related to the student’s use of the Tablet PC and DyKnow
in engineering
analysis and other courses, and their impressions of any benefits
of Tablet PCs
and DyKnow.
Students in these two classes had different experiences with

respect to the use of
Tablet PCs. Students in the summer 2008 engineering analysis
II class were exposed
to different situations in the two classes. Students in the
summer 2008 engineering
analysis III had been exposed to the course presentation via
Tablet PCs and a
three-screen projection system (described in Section 3.2) in all
three of their
engineering analysis courses (I, II and III). Students in the
analysis II class were exposed to three different styles of course
delivery: their
preparatory course was taught using overhead transparencies
and chalkboard,
course packs were supplied and most took notes with pencil and
paper. Their
engineering analysis I course was delivered with the three-
screen system and the
instructor used OneNote to work problems on the extra two
projectors. The
engineering analysis II course was delivered with two screens
and the instructor used
DyKnow exclusively (as described above). For all students in
all classes, Tablet PC
use was encouraged, but not required and students could
purchase course packs
and take notes using pencil and paper.
4.1. Faculty impressions
Faculty were uniformly excited about and preferred teaching
with Tablet PCs,
DyKnow and OneNote. The following course presentation and
delivery advantages
were immediately obvious:

. students have the instructors’ annotations of prepared visuals
. under the approach taken, students must still actively take
notes
. faculty face students at all times, vastly improving eye contact
. time and energy is saved as there is no board erasing
. students can play back instructor markup
. the Tablet PCs and associated software make it very easy to
use colour,
create figures, lines and move material
. instructors have a complete copy of the actual lecture
delivered each day
These benefits were largely expected, but there was an
unforeseen and somewhat
unexpected benefit. Because of the more efficient presentation
(time savings) along
with the fact that faculty faced students, the faculty felt their
interaction with
students during problem solving was vastly improved. With
chalkboard presenta-
tion, faculty often had to make a conscious decision to stop and
turn around at
important steps in problem solving to engage discussion. Even
the faculty who had
taught with chalk for nearly 40 years fully embraced the new
technology and would
Technology 495

not consider returning. In reflecting on the faculties’ perception
of the initial success,
it must be pointed out that one of the reasons for the enthusiasm
and success of this
initiative has been the strong support from two department
faculty members both of
whom have doctoral degrees in computer science engineering,
significant practical
computer experience and have embraced Tablet PC technology.
These two faculty
members regularly find solutions to challenges and problems
that would otherwise be
left to students or faculty with less background and who would
likely require the
support of technical staff to solve the problem.
4.2. Survey results
The survey used was an initial attempt to ask questions to
determine formative and
exploratory information. It was understood that the survey was
not comprehensive
or designed so that a definitive statistical analysis could be
performed. It used Likert
items, namely questions about students’ attitudes with responses
being strongly
agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly
disagree. Some items
were grouped together for interpretation, though not formally
comprising a true
Likert scale. Faculty wanted to answer some fundamental
questions: Did students
find Tablet PCs counter-productive to their learning? Had

faculty undermined in any
way the delivery of the content? Do students find the Tablet PC
a positive influence
for note-taking, reviewing and learning? Results are reported
only as percentages of
students answering strongly agree/agree and strongly
disagree/disagree. Nonetheless,
critical information was gained and also insight for designing of
a more informative
survey for future research.
There is strong evidence in the survey results that students
prefer the use of
Tablet PCs and DyKnow as a presentation platform for the
engineering mathematics
classes. Eighty-three per cent of students in the engineering
analysis III class and
65% of students in the engineering analysis II class responded
positively (either
strongly agree or agree) to the single item: ‘The use of DyKnow
and Tablet PCs for
the presentation and delivery of the course material is
preferable to the use of
overhead projectors and chalkboards’. Table 1 gives the results
of combining several
of the items to gauge three attitudes related to the use of
DyKnow and the effect of
Tablet PCs on learning and note-taking. Although students
preferred the Tablet PCs
for material presentation, they were much less enthusiastic
about the use of
Table 1. Summary of survey responses.
Percentage of students (%)

Statement Class
Agree or
strongly agree
Disagree or
strongly disagree
Prefer the use of Tablet PCs and
DyKnow for class presentation
Analysis III 46.6 18.9
Analysis II 35.4 27.8
The use of DyKnow was beneficial
to my learning
Analysis III 58.6 15.2
Analysis II 45.4 24.4
Taking notes on my tablet was
beneficial to my learning
Analysis III 42.8 38
Analysis II 36.1 40
Note: Data were collected from 79 students in Analysis II and
156 students in Analysis III.
DyKnow. Although the percentages of students who selected
strongly agree/agree
were higher than those who strongly disagree/disagree (with the

exception of the
engineering analysis II class on the combined questions about
note-taking), many
students selected the neutral category for all of the combined
items.
These preliminary results challenge faculty to work harder at
demonstrating the
efficacy of the Tablet PCs. It is interesting to note that the
engineering analysis III
students had slightly more positive responses in total in all
areas than the engineering
analysis II classes. A major difference explained earlier was in
their initial exposure
to the Tablet PCs; however, cause and effect cannot be gleaned
from this survey.
Future surveys will be re-designed to better assess information
on exactly how
students are using their Tablet PCs and how to better gauge the
effectiveness of
Tablet PC use on note-taking.
4.3. Academic performance
Both cumulative grade point average (GPA) and average course
quality points (on a
four-point scale) were examined for the summer 2007 and
analysis III class. The two classes appear to be quite similar as
evidenced by a similar
overall GPA, 3.158 for the summer 2007 class and 3.150 for
summer 2008 class.
There were no significant differences in the quality points
earned by the two classes
(2.773 for 2007 and 2.786 for 2008). However, instructors did
observe a difference in

the lower end of the grade distribution. For the summer 2007,
30.6% of the students
received an A, 24.4% received a B, 32.3% received a C, and
12.8% received either a
D or F or withdrew from the course. In the following summer,
2008, 30.2% of the
students received an A, 25% received a B, 34.3% received a C,
and 10% received a D
or F or withdrew from the course. While this does not represent
a significant
difference, it does open the door for further research and
possible opportunity for
impact. The distribution of A and B grades is very similar, and
probably to be
expected, as we would not expect measurable change in the
more talented students’
grades. What instructors find encouraging is the slightly smaller
percentage of D, F
and W grades and slightly larger percentage of C grades. If this
is attributable, at
least in part, to the use of Tablet PCs, that is path worth further
exploration. Does
the department’s use of Tablet PCs help students be more
organized and study more
effectively? Is it possible to identify and then measure the
effect/impact of Tablet PC
use on learning specific mathematical skills or to gauge the time
spent learning
specific skills, rather than relying on course grade as a measure
of impact. These are
questions that the department would like to answer.
5. Conclusions and future directions
The departments’ efforts to embrace the use of Tablet PCs have
been beneficial to

both faculty and students. Faculty are uniformly excited about
the use of Tablet PCs
and are anxious to continue developing and evaluating new and
innovative
approaches to incorporate Tablet PCs and CLS into teaching and
learning.
Although, yet there is no definitive objective evidence of the
actual impact of Tablet
PCs on student learning, students appear to be responding
positively to use of Tablet
PCs and DyKnow for lecture delivery. To anyone considering
Tablet PCs, whether
Technology 497
for one course or several, the authors feel it is critically
important to start slowly.
The authors acknowledge that a key to their success so far was
starting with the goal
of reproducing the good aspects of their previous mode of
delivery using new
technology without introducing new problems. Once that is
achieved, other, more
ambitious goals can be considered; the experience gained early
on will increase the
likelihood that more ambitious attempts to use Tablet PCs in the
classroom will be
successful. Also critical to success is having faculty members or
staff who are willing
and able to assist with all technical problems that both faculty
and students may
encounter when they begin using their Tablet PCs. Frustration
quickly dissolves

enthusiasm for trying new things.
The next step in this effort is to redesign the student surveys to
better measure
how students are actually using their Tablet PCs, and then
tracking this use with
measures of academic performance or learning activities such as
time spent studying,
as well as tracking individual student performance along with
Tablet PC use. One
area the authors would like to address in more detail is how to
help students use their
Tablet PCs to take better notes, be more efficient at taking notes
and to more
effectively use notes and Tablet PCs in reviewing and preparing
for formal
assessment. Equally important will be developing new
techniques to leverage the
power and flexibility of Tablet PCs to improve student
engagement during lecture by
using their Tablet PCs.
References
[1] K. Sheehy, A. Kukukska-Hulme, P. Twining, D. Evans, D.
Cook, and A. Jelfs, Tablet PCs
in schools: A review of literature and selected projects, Becta
ICT Research, BEC1-15346,
June 2005.
[2] M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the
research, J. Eng. Edu. 93 (2004),
pp. 223–232.
[3] W. Birmingham and V. DiStasi, Active learning across the

computer science curriculum,
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education, Pittsburgh, PA. June
22–25 2008, pp. 1–14.
[4] D. Berque, An evaluation of a broad deployment of DyKnow
software to support note taking
and interaction using pen-based computers, JCSC. 21(6) (2006),
pp. 204–216.
[5] R. Anderson, R. Anderson, P. Davis, N. Linnell, C. Prince,
V. Razmov, and F. Videon,
Classroom presenter: Enhancing interactive education with
digital ink, Computer. 40(9)
(2007), pp. 56–61.
[6] M. Wilkerson, W.G. Griswold, and B. Simon, Ubiquitous
presenter: Increasing student
access and control in a digital lecturing environment, ACM
SIGCSE Bull. 37(1) (2005),
pp. 116–120.
[7] F. Kowalski, S. Kowalski, and E. Hoover, Using inksurvey:
A free web-based tool for
open-ended questioning to promote active learning and real-
time formative assessment of
Tablet pc-equipped engineering students, Proceedings of the
ASEE National Conference,
Honolulu, HI. June 24–27, 2007, pp. 1–11.

[8] J. Roschelle, D. Tatar, S. Chaudbury, Y. Dimitriadis, C.
Patton, and C. DiGiano,
Ink, improvisation and interactive engagement: Learning with
tablets, Computer. 40(9)
(Sept 2007), pp. 42–48.
[9] E. Price, R. Malani, and B. Simon, Characterization of
instructor and student use of ubiquitous
presenter, a presentation system enabling spontaneity and
digital archiving, Physics Education
Research Conference, 883 ed, Syracuse University, Syracuse,
NY, 2007, pp. 125–128.
[10] R. Anderson, R. Anderson, L. McDowell, and B. Simon,
Use of classroom presenter in
engineering courses, 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, Indianapolis,
IN. October 19–22. pp. T2G-13, 2005, pp. 1–6.
[11] Z. Hrepic, Utilizing DyKnow software and pen-based,
wireless computing in teaching
introductory modern physics, Proceedings of 30th Jubilee
International Convention
MIPRO, Conference on Computers in Education, Opatija,

Croatia, 2007.
[12] D.G. Walker, M.A. Stremler, J. Johnston, D. Bruff, and
S.P. Brophy, Case study on the
perception of learning when tablet PCs are used as a
presentation medium in engineering
classrooms, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 24(3) (2008), pp. 606–615.
[13] J.M. Kraushaar, T. Chittenden, and D. Novak, A
descriptive study of percieved and
actual PC use by undergraduate students in a traditional lecture-
based graphical modeling
class, in The Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology
on Education, R. Reed,
D. Berque, and J. Prey, eds. Purdue University Press, West
Lafayette, Indiana, 2008,
pp. 81–88.
[14] K.Y. Lim, R. Toto, H. Nguyen, S. Zappe, T. Litzinger, M.
Wharton, and J. Cimbala,
Impact of instructors’ use of the Tablet PC on student learning
and classroom attendance,
Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposotion,
Pittsburgh, PA. June
22–25 2008, pp. 1–15.
[15] A. Chidanandan, R. DeVasher, P. Ferro, D. Fisher, S.
Mitra-Kirtley, L. Merkle,
D. Mutchler, M. Simoni, S. Sexton, A. Watt, and J. Williams,

Evaluating the symbiosis of
DyKnow software and Pen-basedcomputing in the Rose-Hulman
classroom, in The Impact
of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education, R.
Reed, D. Berque, and J. Prey,
eds. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2007, pp. 1–9.
[16] D. Fisher, P. Cornwell, and J. Williams, Teaching
dynamics using interactive Tablet PC
instruction software, Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education
Conference, Milwaukee, WI. October 10–13. pp. 53J-3–53J-4.
2007.
[17] Z. Chambers, A. Chidanandan, R. DeVasher, L. Merkle, M.
Minster, S. Sexton, A. Watt,
J. Williams, and M. Zoetewey, What is beyond the laptop
initiative? Perhaps: Tablet PCs
and DyKnow Vision software, Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE
36th Frontiers in Education
Conference, San Diego, CA. October 28–31. 2006.
[18] K. Sutterer and S. Sexton, Interactive learning using a
Tablet PC in civil engineering soil
mechanics, Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE National Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA. June
22–25 2008, pp. 1–14.

[19] K. Koile and D. Singer, Development of a Tablet-PC-based
system to increase instructor-
student classroom interactions and student learning, in The
Impact of Tablet PCs and
Pen-based Technology on Education, D. Berque, J. Prey, and R.
Reed, eds. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University Press,
2006.
[20] K. Koile and D. Singer, Improving learning via Tablet-PC-
based in-class assessment,
Proceedings of the Second International Computing Education
Research Workshop,
Canterbury, UK, 2006, pp. 119–126.
[21] K. Fister and M. McCarthy, Mathematics instruction and
the tablet PC, Int. J. Math.
Educ. Sci. Technol. 39(3) (2008), pp. 285–292.
[22] W. Olivier, Teaching mathematics: Tablet PC technology
adds a new dimension,
Proceedings of The Mathematics Education into the 21st
Century Project: Reform,
Revolution and Pardigm Shifts in Mathematics Education, Pod
Tezniami, Ciechocinek,
Poland. June 26–July 1 2008, pp. 176–181.
[23] M. Stickel, Effective use of Tablet PCs for engineering
mathematics education Proceedings
of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

Saratoga, Springs, NY.
(2008), pp. 1–6.
[24] V. Lohani, R. Castles, A. Johri, D. Spangler, and D. Kibler,
Analysis of Tablet PC based
learning experiences in freshman to junior level engineering
courses, Proceedings of the
ASEE National Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. June 22–25. 2008,
pp. 1–18.
Technology 499
[25] K. Filer, J. Tront, G. Scales, and D. Olsen, The Tablet PC
as a catalyst for pedagogical
innovation and improvement in higher education, Conference
Proceeding at Asia-Pacific
Educational Research Association Conference, Singapore,
November 26–28. 2008.
[26] K. Colwell, Digital ink and notetaking, Tech Trends, 48(3)
(2004), pp. 35–39.
[27] J. Williams, A. Chidanandan, P. Coppinger, D. Fisher, M.
Hirotani, R. Rogge, S. Sexton,
M. Simoni, K. Sutterer, and D. Walter, Measuring the impact of
Tablet PCs and DyKnow
Vision software on students’ note-taking strategies: A cross-
disciplinary case study, in The

Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education,
R. Reed, D. Berque, and
J. Prey, eds. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 2008,
pp. 145–152.
[28] K. Kobayashi, Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing
on learning and the enhancement
through interventions: A meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol.
26(3) (2006), pp. 459–477.
[29] G.A. Brazeau, Handouts in the classroom: Is note taking a
lost skill, Am. J. Pharm. Educ.
70(2):38 (2006), pp. 1–2.
[30] P. Ralston and L. Tyler, The co-anchored classroom:
Teaching problem solving
effectively to combined classes, Proceedings of the ASEE
Southeast Section Conference,
2002, pp. 1–8.
Copyright of International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science & Technology is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.
Keep taking the tablets? Assessing the use of tablet devices in
learning
and teaching activities in the Further Education sector
Khristin Fabian and Donald MacLean*
Learning Technologies Centre, Perth College UHI, Perth,
Scotland
(Received 19 August 2013; final version received 19 August
2013)
This article summarises the methodology and outcomes of an
interventionist/
action research project to assess the benefits, and potential
pitfalls, of the use
of mobile devices in learning and teaching activities in a
Further Education
environment. A bank of 15 tablet devices were purchased and
prepared for
classroom use. Staff members were approached to scope
potential activities and
uses for the tablet devices. Three departments took part in the
research activity:
the Language School, Social and Vocational Studies and the
Hairdressing
department. Use of the tablets was varied in nature and
included: use of

multimedia tools, use of apps, creation and use of a bespoke
app, multimedia
manipulation and sharing, and creation of an online e-portfolio.
Staff and student
feedback was gathered during and after the project, and project
authors were
present during classroom activities for observation and
recording purposes.
Overall feedback was very positive, but there were issues with
tablet use and
administration. One of the major issues was the onerous nature
of the security
setup, and app administration.
Keywords: mobile technology; tablets; student attitudes; staff
attitudes; mobile
classroom
Introduction
There is a growing interest in the use of mobile technologies in
the educational sector,
evidenced by both research and uptake in the use of tablets and
mobile phones in K�12
and Higher Education (Groupe Spéciale Mobile Association
(GSMA) 2012; Wu et al.
2012). The recent New Media Consortium (NMC) Horizon
Report (Johnson et al.
2013) identified that the adoption of tablet computing in higher
education would occur
within a year or less, signifying that adoption is actually
already established in some

areas.
Key opportunities in mobile learning include: encourage
anytime, anywhere
learning; reach underserved children; improve 21st century
social interactions; fit
with learning environments; and enable a personalized learning
experience (Shuler
2009, p. 6). In their toolkit for adopting mobile learning, Joint
Information Systems
Committee (JISC) (2011) provided some tangible benefits
associated with the use of
mobile technologies. Most of these are examples on Shuler’s
list but also add the
promotion of active learning, enablement of new learning
environments, and
accessibility, to the list of tangible benefits when using mobile
technologies.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Research in Learning Technology
Vol. 22, 2014
Research in Learning Technology 2014. # 2014 K. Fabian and
D. MacLean. Research in Learning Technology is the journal of
the Association
for Learning Technology (ALT), a UK-based professional and

scholarly society and membership organisation. ALT is
registered charity number
1063519. http://www.alt.ac.uk/. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY
4.0 License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to
copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and
to remix,
transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even
commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and
states its license.
1
Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2014, 22: 22648 -
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.22648
(page number not for citation purpose)
http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/artic
le/view/22648
Recently, the University of Hull was commissioned by the
Scottish government to
research the affordability and effectiveness of iPads in
education (Burden et al. 2012).
The study found that the use of tablet devices such as the iPad
facilitates the

achievement of many of the core elements required within the
Curriculum for
Excellence framework. It also noted that the adoption of mobile
technologies comes
with many attendant benefits for learning, which include
motivation, engagement,
parental involvement, and understanding of complex ideas.
Furthermore, the study
having tried several setups for implementing the use of the iPad,
found that the
personal ownership of the device is the single most important
factor for successful
use (Burden et al. 2012, p. 9). Although this report is
encouraging, it flags up the issue
of cost of implementation in Further Education, with more
students, and many more
simultaneous classes.
This pilot study aims to investigate the benefits as well as the
potential issues in
implementing the use of mobile devices as shared devices, and
aims to answer the
following questions:
(1) What are the benefits linked to the use of tablet devices in
the classroom?

(2) What are the potential issues linked to tablet use?
Literature review
The rate of adoption of mobile devices in Further Education
compared to K�12 has
been at a slower pace and smaller in scale (Wishart and Green
2010). A search of
education index databases using the search term ‘mobile
learning’ in Further
Education and its counterparts produced only a handful of
results in comparison
to a search of mobile learning in K�12 and higher education.
Whilst dissemination of
mobile learning in Further Education has been limited in peer-
reviewed journals,
m-learning in Further Education has attracted attention via a
proliferation of case
studies and good practice on the Internet.
Amongst the attributed benefits of mobile learning in Further
Education were the
improvement of communication channels, updating students
about course materials
via SMS (Derwen College 2008) and other forms of alerts and
updates through
mobile devices. This process has proven to be useful in
engaging students and has
improved learner welfare and retention (Northampton College

2010; Yorkshire Coast
College 2010).
On a one tablet per class setup, there are cost benefits
associated with cheaper
applications on tablets and cheaper hardware (Bridgewater
College 2013; Clydebank
College 2012). Mobile devices also facilitated location-based
assessments (Excellence
Gateway 2008; South Lanarkshire College 2012) allowing
assessors to document
student progress using various multimedia. This highlights not
just the digitisation of
processes, but also the manner in which mobile technologies can
widen the physical
scope of the classroom environment.
Location-based learning using mobile devices facilitated
learners to have mean-
ingful language interaction (JISC 2005b) and explore concepts
in authentic
environments (Lius 2011; Mobiilisti 2012). In addition, the
mobility of these devices
allows learners to engage with their learning materials anytime,
anywhere and not
just in the classroom environment (JISC 2005a).

Mobile devices have now evolved from mere communication
tools to pocket
computers with their own share of added functionalities and
limitations. Patten,
K. Fabian and D. MacLean
2
le/view/22648
Sánchez, and Tangney (2006) identified seven functions by
which a mobile device
would serve educational requirements: administration,
referential, interactive, micro
world, data collection, location aware, and collaborative. The
first four items are
functions that can be carried out with traditional fixed-location
computers while the
latter three items highlight beneficial features of mobile
devices. Patten’s framework
shows that a variety of learning activities can be carried out

with mobile devices.
Puentedura (2009) introduced the Substitution Augmentation
Modification
Redefinition (SAMR) model for technology integration (see
Figure 1). The framework
states that technology adoption ranges from substitution, where
the technology acts as
a direct substitute for traditional tools, to that of redefinition,
where the technology
allows for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable.
These two frameworks of
mobile use and technology integration will be used to evaluate
the range of activities
carried out in the different subjects during the intervention,
alongside the evaluation of
the benefits of using mobile devices.
Methodology
This is an interventionist/action research project that examines
how the use of tablets
as a shared device can contribute in a Further Education
learning environment. The
authors’ role in the research was interventionist, in that
propositions were identified,
and then practitioners were consulted to invite their
collaboration to help to prove or

disprove the propositions. Action research was then undertaken
in various classroom
scenarios to observe, gather data, and evaluate outcomes.
Project description
The pilot project was undertaken between November 2012 and
May 2013, covering a
period of 6 months. Prior to the start of the pilot project,
potential partners were
identified. The subject areas chosen were Hairdressing, the
Language School and
Social and Vocational Studies (SVS) to spread the diversity of
the pilot study.
Figure 1. SAMR model of technology integration (Puentedura
2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.22648 3
le/view/22648
The SVS department at Perth College works with students with
additional

learning support needs, and these can be at the extreme end of
the support scale.
They work to ensure that students can attain and achieve, and
progress through the
system to obtain higher level qualifications.
Contact with lecturers from the three subject areas was
established at the outset.
The lecturers involved were briefed about the nature of the pilot
study and were also
given introductory training on how to use the tablets and
potential learning activities.
The lecturers were also provided with individual tablets for the
duration of the pilot
study to allow them to explore the various apps available on the
market.
Lecturers decided when and how they would implement the
tablets in their lesson
planning, whilst trying not to disrupt the normal course of
activities for the semester.
Support from the Learning Technologies Centre was provided in
terms of technical
guidance on the use of the tablets; pedagogical support by
providing exemplars of
use; and in the case of one subject area, the development of a
bespoke application.

Throughout the pilot study, this partnership was maintained
through immediate
feedback on the part of the lecturers and on-going support on
the part of the
Learning Technologies Centre.
Joint Information Systems Committee Regional Support Centre
(JISC RSC)
Scotland were involved in this pilot project, offering support for
the SVS project,
which used the Infolio tool created by JISC Techdis, (York,
United Kingdom). This
tool is still under development, and the project offered feedback
to JISC about
practical use of the tool, as well as suggestions for its
improvement.
Participants
The lecturers were nominated because of their track record in
using innovative
technologies in the classroom and their previous involvement
with the Learning
Technologies Centre. They also had ideas for specific uses for
the tablets, and were
prepared to plan and prepare for such use. These lecturers then
selected the classes to

trial the tablets. A summary of participant numbers during the
pilot study is available
in Table 1.
Equipment
Three operating systems were considered: Android, Apple and
Windows 8. Windows
8 was attractive from an organisational viewpoint, because there
was a potential for
operating via the College network for security and identification
purposes. However,
at that time Win 8 tablets were not generally available and price
was an issue. Android
was chosen on the basis of two factors: price, and the relative
ease of native app
creation.
Table 1. Summary of participants per subject area.
Subject area
Number of
practitioners involved
Number of classes
involved
Total number of

participants
Cluster 1: Language 1 3 54
Cluster 2: Hairdressing 1 2 50
Cluster 3: SVS 2 4 40
Total 4 9 144
K. Fabian and D. MacLean
4
le/view/22648
A bank of 15 Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 tablets were
purchased together with a
20-slot charging unit. The devices run on the Android 4.0
operating system, and have
front and back facing cameras. This purchase was financed by
the college.
Students did not always have 1:1 access to devices. Students in
SVS had a 1:1 ratio
during use, but hairdressing and Language School students had
to share devices.
Three was the maximum number of student groups.

Data collection and analysis
Data in the form of observation, video recordings, practitioner
interviews, and survey
data were gathered throughout the pilot study. The authors
conducted all interviews
with practitioners, and recorded classroom activity for analysis.
One camcorder on
a tripod and one portable flip-camera were used to record
classroom activities.
Practitioner interviews were conducted throughout the 6-month
period; two informal
interviews, and one final formal interview per curricular area.
The informal
interviews were related to progress and immediate issues, and
the formal interviews
were more evaluative in nature. Student surveys were conducted
at the end of the
intervention.
Results and discussion
This section outlines the results of the pilot study in terms of
(1) the range of
activities the tablets were able to support; (2) student
engagement; and (3) issues

encountered.
A variety of learning activities were carried out using the
tablets as shown in
Table 2. Most of these activities were carried out as group
activities with 2�3
members in a group. In the SVS area, it was possible to provide
a one-to-one student
� tablet provision, with some activities carried out individually,
and later converged
into a group activity.
The assortment of activities carried out varied greatly, ranging
from referential to
collaborative activities. Table 3 shows how each subject area
utilized the tablets
Table 2. Activities carried out with the tablets.
Language Hairdressing SVS
Used the Internet to gather artefacts ª ª
Used the tablet camera (video and photos) ª ª ª
Used free and paid for apps available from the Android†
Market
ª1 ª2
Used bespoke apps ª
Created content with the tablet (aside from photos and
videos)
ª3 ª4

Used the tablet to access Blackboard ª ª
Used the tablets to create an e-portfolio ª
Used the tablets for word processing ª
Used the tablets to carry out learning activities outside
the classroom
ª ª
1. LearnEnglish Grammar; English Class Demo; Socrative
Student; Skitch; Comic Strip It (lite).
2. Virtual Makeover; Hair design game; Clairol Studio; Polaris.
3. Annotated images; Comics.
4. Moodboards.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.22648 5
le/view/22648
following Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney (2006) functional
pedagogical framework.
This shows that tablets can be suitable alternatives for the
standard fixed-location
computers. At the same time, the tablet’s data gathering
features, as well as its form

factor, make it suitable for carrying out collaborative learning
activities inside or
outside the classroom.
The activities carried out with the tablets in the various subject
areas are analysed
in terms of the SAMR model. The tablet feature(s) used, the
nature of the activity,
information on how an activity is normally carried out without
the tablets, and the
mapping of these tablet-based activities to the SAMR model is
available on Table 4.
From Table 4, it can be seen that some activities carried out
with the tablets offer
only minor enhancements, such as the use of the tablet for word
processing, whereby
the only measurable benefit, as the practitioner states, is that it
made reading the
student output a lot easier as opposed to a short story written on
paper. In one case,
this minor enhancement provided a functional improvement,
namely, the case of
using the Socrative App, which allowed the lecturer to see how
many students had

made a mistake. This allowed for instant corrective action or
advice. The Socrative
App allows the lecturer to ask questions in the form of a
multiple choice question
or a short answer without having to create the questions in
advance. This way,
the question can be elsewhere (e.g. from a textbook, or a totally
new, impromptu
concept), which is a valued feature over some traditional
classroom response systems.
Some tasks constituted a transformation of the learning activity
and from Table 4
we can see that these are activities that made use of the tablet’s
multiple features for
the same task. This highlights how the multiple features and
functions of the tablets
make them suitable tools to be used in the classroom
environment, making previously
unrealistic activities feasible.
Student engagement and feedback
The practitioners reported that students enjoyed using the
tablets regardless of which
spectrum of the SAMR model this technology integration fell
into. In one instance of

50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx

50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx

Similar to 50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx (20)

More from evonnehoggarth79783

More from evonnehoggarth79783 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

50 Young ChildrenTechnology and Young Children ® 2.docx