The use of a tablet to teach soil science through active and collaborative learning

1. “Digital ink” for collaborative
learning
Aatika Shema: Elsenburg Agricultural Training
Institute

2. CURRICULUM FOCUS
• A Soil Science 1 course
• Soil and water as a natural resource in the
agricultural sector
• Do calculations to determine the status of the soil or
water to make a decision within an agricultural
context.
• The students are taught the skill of problem solving
that is used in this module as well as the subjects to
which it articulate.

3. STUDENT NEEDS
• Integrate conceptual and mathematical aspects to
solve problems (Heller et.al., 1992)
• Diverse backgrounds and varying academic
abilities.
• Lecturing material and class notes available off-
campus
• Understand the problem solving steps within an
agricultural setup.

4. RATIONALE
• The change in student profile
• Investigate into teaching strategies that engage
the student in class and promote active learning.
• In the traditional class setup
• Calculations and problem solving difficult with the
normal Powerpoint and large classes to achieve this
(Theys et. al., 2005).
• The tablet enhances collaboration and
communication, students learn from each other
(Crouch and Mazur, 2001)
• Actual class notes available (Theys et. al., 2005).

5. CONTEXT WHERE IT TOOK PLACE
• The tablet in the classroom for • In the formal class setup
formal lecture mechanical rhythm disrupted.
• It will replace the laptop or • Switch between different
computer (Heller et. al., 1992) presentation modes
• In a tutorial session 3 or 4 • Instructional language is a
students with a tablet that can barrier
connect to a central projector • Peer instruction and
(Theys et. al., 2005) collaborative learning eliminate
• The focus is the problem this blockage and it
solving skills with associated encourages self-explanations
decision making through (Mason, 2001; Brüssow &
collaborative learning and peer Wilkinson, 2010). In order to
instruction explain it to others they need to
have the reasoning behind
every step.

6. OUTCOMES AND INTENTIONS
• Keep students interested - not a major but
compulsory to pass
• Solve problems in real time and make decisions
through a process of critical thinking (Brüssow &
Wilkinson, 2010).
• Bridging the language barrier
• Promotes higher level thinking and reasoning
(Mason, 2001).
• Students take responsibility for their own learning
(Van der Meer & Scott, 2008).

7. TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED ACTIVITY
• Live presentations and problem-and-answers are
published in LMS (Winer & Cooperstock, 2002)
• Remote access and post their questions from a web-
enabled cell phone
• In tutorial - collaborative learning and peer instruction
(Van der Meer & Scott, 2008; Mason, 2001; Crouch &
Mazur, 2001).
• Groups with a tablet that can connect to a central
projector.
• Groups selected by the lecturer
• Each group must solve a problem to make a real time
decision and explain to the tutorial class the steps and
reasoning to reach the decision.

8. STUDENT FEEDBACK
• In the class setup - very interesting and helpful for the
problem solving through a step-by-step process
• Files that are available with audio even on a cell phone
very useful for preparation
• Tablet has positive effect on their learning with active
participation in the tutorial that made them feel
• important,
• comfortable and
• part of the team and
• in the end they know exactly where they stand
• Compile groups strategically and facilitate the sessions
• Sometimes the explanations in the tutorials were too fast

9. ASSESSMENT
• Formative evaluation in the tutorial session
• students are graded on
• ability to scrutinise the information
• logical reasoning
• apply the correct mathematical equations
• reach an answer
• make a decision
• explain the whole process (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).
• Each student in the group has a different role and this is
shifted in each tutorial.
• In the summative evaluation - similar real time problems that
must be solved.
• Graded on
• identifying what is required,
• applying the concepts and mathematical equations,
• calculating an answer and
• making a decision.

10. • An increase in class attendance
keep students interested • Posing questions
• In summative assessment – solve real
time problems
solve problems
• Achieved with collaborative learning
Bridging the language • In summative assessment – not
barrier reached
• Not properly assessed
promotes higher level • Real time problem solving not clear
thinking reflection

11. REFERENCE
• Brüssow, S.M. & Wilkinson, A.C. (2010). Engaged learning: A pathway to
better teaching, 24(3), 374-389.
• Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. (2001) Peer Instruction: ten years of experience
and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
• Dabbagh, N. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Chapter 6: Instructional
strategies that support constructivist-based pedagogical models. In:
Online learning: Concepts, strategies and application. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson, 206-227.
• Heller, P., Keith, R. and Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving
through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem
solving, American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627-636.
• Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a
classroom study, Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
• Theys, M.D., Lawless, K. and George, S. (2005). Tablet computers and the
traditional lecture. In: 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 19-
22. Indianapolis.
• Van der Meer, J. & Scott, C. (2008). Shifting the balance in first year
learning support: from staff instruction to peer learning primacy, 1(1), 70-79.
• Winer, L.R. & Cooperstock, J. (2002). The “intelligent classroom”: changing
teaching and learning with an evolving technological
environment, Computers & Education, 38, 253-266.