Last Post – Article Review and Final Thoughts

There seems to be limited literature in finding ways to bring mobile devices into science labs.  I get the fear behind it – bringing chemicals and tablets onto the same table has the potential for disaster.  This is why some lab-specific devise like Vernier’s LabQuest are meant to be “kid-proof” durable for lab and outside use.  Below are three articles of times when devices are used in a lab situation – 2 in college and 1 in middle school.

Paperless Organic with iPads

In this example, iPads were used by all students taking Organic Chemistry at Washington College in Maryland.  Students used the tablets for both lecture and lab.  In lecture, students took notes using Notability and 9 out of 12 students commented that they liked the ease of use of the tablet.  Students are easily able to integrate instructor and personal notes, quickly flipping between multiple pens.  Having the easy ability to do this helps, especially in a subject like orgo which is so detail oriented.   What I loved reading about, in particular, was how they worked with the tablets during labs.  Since substances in organic labs can be damaging to tablet, students were not allowed to touch the tablets while their gloves were on and they were not allowed to be kept in the hoods.  As a result, many students used the talk-to-text function in Notability.  This is a great idea to help students still use the tablet while working with dangerous solvents.  Another advantage of lab work is the ability to integrate photos of lab setups and other details into lab notes.  Having photos of complicated set-ups or of final products can help in the final write up of a lab.  Students who worked with the iPads generally outperformed the students who did not use the iPads in the course by a third of a letter grade (Lab: iPad B, without B-; lecture B-, without C+).  Not only did students go paperless in this organic chemistry class, but they proved it can also have a positive outcome on their understanding of the material.

Paperless Gen Chem Lab with iPads

This study begins with an introduction highlighting how more colleges are starting iPad programs, but how not as many universities have been introducing these devices into the labs.  In 2012 the University of New Haven Gen Chem Honors lab course started using iPad 3 with the goal of having a paperless lab.  At the start of the course students were asked to download a variety of apps (Blackboard, UPAD, Dropbox, CloudOn, Chemist, Vernier Graphical Analysis).  Students were able to download any “handouts” typically given out for lab.  Notes were easily able to be added to these documents.  In this experiment, in order to protect the tablets, the iPads were placed into plastic Ziploc bags at the start of every lab (works well with gen chem labs – not as well with the organic labs as performed above since the same solvents could potentially dissolve the bag as well as damage the tablet).  The touch screen was still able to function through the bag, and the only time it was removed was to use the camera functions for the same reasons described in the previous study.  Students had to have their data signed by a TA at the end of each lab period, and then moved the data into BookPAD, which would lock the data and make it difficult to alter.  Final labs/datasheets/reports were then submitted through Dropbox.  The authors make it very clear, however, that it takes a lot of time and effort to set up a program such as this and to find the appropriate apps for the course.  At the start of the semester, students were quite frustrated with the process, finding it difficult to work in multiple apps, but their attitudes had changed quite a bit by the end of term.  There was also a steep learning curve in learning how to neatly write on the tablets.  While they don’t have specific data to show, student comments show that it was a positive experience and they liked the impact the iPads had on labs.  Environmentally, they suspect that approx.. 120 pages of paper/student were saved by use of the iPads, and it was easy to convert all of the data into an electronic notebook.  Overall, they had a very positive experience and are now also including the iPads into the lecture portion of the course.

Hands On: Physical vs. Virtual

In this final article, the authors point out that it has been repeatedly stated that “hands-on learning” is crucial, especially in science instruction.  What they do, however, is challenge the concept “hands-on.”  Traditionally, I think of this as things that I can physically manipulate, but they argue that the concept applies just as easily to things that can be virtually manipulated.  Students in seventh and eighth grade were given the task of building mousetrap cars. One group of students built physical cars with materials provided, and the other group used a computer interface to “point-and-click” build the cars on the computer screen.  The images in the computer interface were “cartoon-like” to help widen the gap between the physical and virtual worlds.  One advantage to the virtual cars was the time required to build these cars.  Because no physical dexterity was needed to connect the parts, cars could be assembled very quickly and several cars could be made and tested in the time needed to build a physical car.  Students in both groups were given pre- and post-tests to evaluate their knowledge of the properties of fast mousetrap cars.  Students in each group were split into an additional group – fixed time (build as many cars as you can in that time span) and fixed number (build 6 cars in whatever time is needed).  This study ultimately showed that there was no difference in improved scores between the two groups.  Ultimately students were able to learn the same concepts if working in a physical or virtual environment.  While it’s hard to think of turning all labs virtual (this study worked with older students who, presumably, already have good motor skills and have had several physical hands-on experiences in the past), this study shows that a well-designed virtual lab can provide the same benefits.  The first example I think of for virtual labs is dissection.  Every year there are a few students who are squeamish and resistant to doing physical dissections.  If a program is well designed, this shows there is potential in students gaining the same benefits without the cutting.

 

Ultimately, there is hope in bringing mobile technology into lab scenarios.  There are potentially more difficulties with this than, say, in a history classroom due to liquids and other potentially dangerous chemicals.  I know this has inspired me to find ways to bring it into the lab.  I would love to have students have all of their information in one place, data stored in the cloud, and students be able to easily work with each other both in the physical lab space and outside of class.

To make mobile learning work, it takes a significant amount of forethought and planning.  Using these mobile devices as mindtools and not just e-textbooks is challenging, but potentially very rewarding.  Being able to access devices from anywhere to work either individually or collaboratively is a large part of being a successful mobile tool.  In addition to the devices themselves, finding the appropriate apps for the situation is also vitally important.  Taking the time to try out different apps and test them out on the platforms the students have available to them is important.  We may or may not be able to find all of the bugs ahead of time, but we should know if the task can be completed on whatever platform we think our students may use.  I’ve cycled through a range of emotions in this course – first naively excited, then terrified and overwhelmed, and back finally to cautiously excited.  I’m looking forward to the new year that is starting all too soon to start putting some of the ideas into practice.

 

Amick, A.W., Cross, N.  (2014) An Almost Paperless Organic Chemistry Course with the Use of iPads. Journal of Chemical Education. 91(5). 753-756

Hesser, T.L., Schwartz, P.M. (2013) iPads in the Science Laboratory: Experience in Designing and Implementing a Paperless Chemistry Laboratory Course. Journal of STEM Education. 14(2). 5-9

Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., Williams, C. (2007) Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.  44(1). 183-203

Atomic Elements

From Carolina Biological Supply

Requires iOS 4.3 or later.  Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

lite version Free, full version $2.99

It’s unfortunate this app does not yet exist for Android systems because it is a great app for introductory chemistry students.  Students often struggle at the start of the year with building atoms, visualizing how many atoms go in which orbital, and figuring out how many protons, electrons, and neutrons are in each atom.  This app gives a visual way to work this out not only with neutral atoms, but also with ions and isotopes.  In addition to working through problems, there is a way for students to just input numbers and see what element is formed.  In addition to atom building, there is a brief section with atomic history, but I felt that area was lacking.

Looking at the research

“…pedagogy rather than technology; perspective in which the pedagogy is central and the technology is under investigation only for what may be distinctive about the learning afforded by that technology.” (Kearney, p2)

Technology is changing at such a fast rate that it is difficult to find one type that will be the “magic answer” to our educational problems.  In doing research in this field, it is important to look at how the technology is impacting the way students learn, as compared to the intricacies of the technology itself.  It is hard to have one set of rules to evaluate m-learning, as the goals and objectives for each type might be different.  Kearney et al. put together an interesting rating scale to look at what they classified as the three main components my which these types of activities can be measured: personalization, authenticity, and collaboration.  I can imagine cases where you want all of these parameters to be measured “high”, but also where some might be better served as “low”.  Collaboration is a great thing – but while we want students to learn this crucial skill, we also want students to be able to try their new skills out by themselves to see how well they, as individuals not a group, understand the material.

As Looi et al. stated on page 162, there is no “off-the-shelf” methodology available for doing research with mobile technology.  As this is still a relatively new and fast changing field, there is no gold standard yet by which research in this field should be performed.  There are also so many ways that this technology can be used (informal, formal, not-formal), that studies in each setting present its own set of challenges.  Within my own classroom, I can think of ways to use mobile technology in all of these types of settings.  The two parts that most stood out to me are looking at ways to unobtrusively monitor behavior (p 162) and to collaborate with others to perform the study (p166).  I think about trying to perform studies with my own group of students and realize the sample size would be too small to have significant data.  It would be a better study to work with students at different schools, whether that be locally, regionally, or internationally.  I would also want a way to be able to monitor what students are doing without interrupting the activity itself.  If looking at various apps, can student inputs be recorded and viewed by the teacher at a later point?  If the study involves time not involved in the classroom, how can the information about what occurs can be recorded?

As Park showed in his paper, there is a wide range of ways that these mobile learning programs can be classified.  Are they used as a supplement to a standard class environment, or are they used in distance education? There are so many possible uses, that again, it’s hard to create a single model in which to judge these programs by.   Ultimately, in all three of these papers, there are a few themes that come through.  Terms need to be defined, as there are often several varying definitions for some common terms.  Also, the main pedagogical goals need to be established before the study begins.

The final paper I chose to look at investigated the use of digital augmentation and scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum (Yoon, 2012)   Right off the bat the researchers realized there are difficulties at studying the effects of mobile devices in museums.  Museum visitors are there for a wide variety of reasons and the amount of time and focus spent on various exhibits greatly varies.  For this reason, the authors chose to use a school group as their target group, since students in these groups often have a more academic approach to their learning while in the museum.  This group discovered that adding digital augmentation (overhead camera/projection system) to an exhibit caused the greatest increase in knowledge, but the addition of scaffolding (posted instructions, questions, and bank of peer ideas along with a clipboard with student response form) had the greatest increase to their cognitive theorizing ability.  This was mostly thought to come from the ability of this group of students to work in groups (each of the other test groups did individual work).  As discovered during interviews, there was some confusion from the students as to the purpose of some of the posted information and students in this group did not often follow the posted directions.  This study did look at the increase in learning skills, rather than focus on the technology portion.  I find it curious that the addition of the scaffolding decreased the student’s scores on a knowledge based quiz, but I wonder if that is because there were other activities that were distracting from the straight knowledge.  It gives an interesting thought that as a teacher trying out new activities, some might increase knowledge but not cognition, and some might do the opposite.  Ultimately, we’d all love to improve both equally, but we have to ask ourselves what is our objective and if we have to choose, which is more important?

These studies are not easy to design or implement.  What is so important, however, is to have a good idea of what goal does one ultimately hope to accomplish by the addition of these technologies into the given activities, and how can we design a study to reflect the true learning goals.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research In Learning Technology, 20:1, 1-17

Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology41(2), 154-169

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning12(2).

Yoon, S. a., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

Mobile Programs in the Science Classroom

The assigned reading I chose was “Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom.”  This group look an inquiry based lesson on heat and used a mobile program, “ThinknLearn” as a guided tool to help students perform the experiment.  Data was entered into this program and questions were asked along the way to help the students guide their thinking.  Data for students using this program was compared to a control group who did not use the mobile device.  I have several questions that I would like know about this study – and the biggest is what did the control group used?  As stated on page 67, “the control group students were required to perform the experiment in the traditional way.”  What is “traditional way”?  Was it also inquiry based?  Was it a standard “cookbook” lab?  I feel as if the program had good possibilities, but I wonder about the difference between this program and a well-written lab handout.  It is true that the results for the students who used the program did better on the post-test, but I question the experiment and lab questions themselves if students with the device only had an average of 66.67% (Ahmed, p69).  I also wonder about the student groups themselves. Researchers could not randomly assign the groups due to the teachers wanting class continuity, but what was the thought behind deciding which group was experimental and which was control?  The difference in post-test averages (<10%) make me wonder if one group had stronger students to start.

In Powell and Mason’s paper, “Effectiveness of Podcasts Delivered on Mobile Devices as a Support for Student Learning During General Chemistry Laboratories”, the focus of the case study was looking at using Podcasts that were accessible only during schedule laboratory periods for a primarily freshman Introductory Chemistry lab at Abilene Christian University.  While my primary interest is in 9-12 education, teaching inquiry based labs at this level is very comparable to what can happen at a high school level.  The students taking the lab this semester were split into two group – a control that only had pre-experiment lectures and one that, on varying weeks, had access to podcasts, lectures, or both.  Both groups had access to teaching assistants during the labs.  While, ultimately, the performance of most of the students did not vary between the control and podcasts groups, the podcast groups asked fewer questions during labs and became somewhat more self-sufficient. (p162)  At the end of the semester, a survey was given to the students, and on a 5-point Likert scale, an average of 4.1 (with 5 being strongly agree) was given to “I found the chemistry podcasts helpful.”  (p166)  Many students wished these podcasts would be available outside of the class period (which the authors did not do in order not to contaminate the lecture-only group).  As a teacher, I think having these available to watch before and after class would not only be extremely helpful, but would also be potentially safer, since I worry about students watching 2-5 minute videos (potentially with headphones in?) in a chemical lab where safety is everyone’s number one priority.  I can see this easily translating down to the high school level, although here there is more direct interaction between student and teacher.  I am already thinking of having students video tape themselves on their phones during the initial lab (general experiment on how to use lab equipment) so they have a reference they can use in future experiments.

In van der Kolk and associates article “Exploring the Potential of Smartphones and Tablets for Performance Support in Food Chemistry Laboratory Classes”, a web app, “LabBuddy” was created to allow users to have access to all information needed about labs on their mobile devices.  The creators of this program chose to create a web app that can be accessed on computer and phones instead of creating an app so they did not have to worry about coding in multiple languages.  The school in which this was tested (Wageningen University, Netherlands) has a lower percentage of students who carry smartphones, although at the time of this article, a BYOD program was in development.  They do not expect all students to always have devices with them, and are looking to create an alternative application – not something that will replace all of their books.  19 of the 26 students in the program stopped using the LabBuddy during the semester for many reasons, but the 7 who did found it to be a valuable tool.  This replaced multiple programs that were used before, and it was thought that having too many sources of information (2 programs + timer + lab book) caused too much strain on the working memory.  Having an app where all of the information is stored in one place allows the students to better manage information, such as procedures, safety, location of chemicals, etc.  They did point out a possible downside to using devices occurred when labs needed to be moved to the lab.  Students, understandably, seemed to be more reluctant to have their devices easily accessible around dangerous chemicals.  While the culture at this school is not yet “mobile”, the researchers have great ideas on how to make it easier for students to access all of the information needed from one place.

The online article, “How Teachers Make Cell Phones Work in the Classroom”, many examples are given of how Ramsey Musallam’s A.P. Chemistry class at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory in San Francisco uses the phones in the classroom.  He texts students at the start of class with a warm up question (using Remind 101).  When students are working in groups and call him over with a question.  He writes his answer and records his voice on an iPad, and that is instantly uploaded to the internet so other students can benefit from the same answer.  Students also take short online polls during class, and the results are immediately displayed on the board.  This gives students and the teacher an idea of how many people are getting the concept correct and if more time is needed on particular ideas. There are other examples on this site of teachers who have successfully integrated phones, and others who have not.  Teachers who have struggled with not every student in the class having a phone are not as prone to continuing to use them, as to not struggle with inclusion problems.  Doing something like this on a regular basis in the classroom might very well depend on what percentage of your classroom has regular access to mobile devices and to internet access at school.

All of these examples have focused on the science classroom, and several were focused on lab settings.  While there are very practical concerns for using technology in a lab environment (how do you not endanger the expensive devices by keeping them close to the experiment, but away from chemicals and liquids), finding ways to improve inquiry based labs and to also to reduce the cognitive load on students in very important.  Inquiry based labs are a huge push in science right now (so much so the College Board has mandated that many, if not all, of the AP chem and bio labs be inquiry based).  These are difficult to implement well, and if access to mobile tools can help ease some of the burdons, then they should be tried.  I am already starting to brainstorm ideas on how students can input data into Google Sheets or into a Google Form and allow for the compilation and comparison of everyone’s data in one place.

Obviously, all of these plans work best when everyone has access to a device.  Most, if not all of my students do carry smart phones, and I am fairly certain that within lab groups, there will be at least one smart phone that can access online information.  After considering all of these things, I know part of the first homework assignment the students will have will be to fill out a survey of what devices will they have at school with them every day and what devices do they have access to at home.  I love the idea of the virtual lab manual, but I know how often my students spill on their lab sheets – I would feel horrible if they spilled on their phones and ruined their expensive devices.  I have heard of people creating special computer “stools” to put on the lab benches so they are away from liquids and possibly at a height that is easier to use.  This could help with the safety of the phone and to keep it off to the side, away from chemicals.  I am getting really excited about the possibilities – but as we saw in a reading from last week, so many of the education apps are for younger students – a relatively small percentage exist at the middle and high school level.  Without programing experience (or maybe I need to learn to code to make my own apps!), I need to find ways to work with what currently exists.

 

Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2012). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom. Computers & Education. 63: 62–72

Powell, C. & Mason, D, (2013). Effectiveness of Podcasts Delivered on Mobile Devices as a Support for Student Learning During General Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Science Education & Technology. 22(2), 148-170

van der Kolk, K., Hartog, R., & Beldman, G. (2013). Exploring the Potential of Smartphones and Tablets for Performance Support in Food Chemistry Laboratory Classes. Journal of Science Education & Technology. 22(6), 984-992

Barseghian, T.  (2012) How Teachers Make Cell Phones Work in the Classroom, http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/05/how-teachers-make-cell-phones-work-in-the-classroom/, accessed 7/5/13

Nearpod

Android v5.0.32

iPad v4.8, Requires iOS 5.0 or later.  Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch

free

This is a type of presentation software to be used by teachers and students in a 1 to 1 or BYOD classroom.  Teachers can create presentation, store links, create quizzes through this program.  Students can then log onto their site, enter in the classroom code, and instantly access this information.  During class, the teacher can essentially “take over” a students tablet by dictating what is shown on the screen.  This would be a great way to work in a classroom where every students has a tablet with this free program on it and this could work easily for all grade levels.  Not only can students be shown passive presentations, but can also be given links to active sites where they can do their own exploring.  Presentations are created online, not through the app.

Algebra Genie

Android v3.5.2

iPad v3.5, Requires iOS 4.3 or later.  Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch

I installed this version on 6/29, then reinstalled on 7/5 to complete this assignment.  When the app opens, a box comes up saying “the technology used by this App has expired on 2014.6.30  Please download the latest version”.  There are no updates for this program on either platform, so it cannot be accessed.

instaGrok

Android v1.3.0

iPad v1.3.0 Compatible with iPad

free

instaGrok is a tool used to interactively research various topic.  When you “Grok” (Definition: understand (something) intuitively or by empathy) a topic, a concept map is created.  Each term can be defined, links, videos, and images are provided to aid in the understanding of this topic.  For other terms that are connected to the central term in the map, the same information can be explored, and the concept map can be expanded from those points.  The difficulty level (think elementary to college) of the topics can be adjusted based on what the user is looking to do.  This is a great tool to help with preliminary research for a paper or to help study for an exam.

Evernote

Android v5.8.5

iPad v7.4.1 Requires iOS 7.0 or later.  Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch

free

This is a great program to help keep students organized.  If students take notes on a computer or laptop, students can use this to either type or write notes with a stylus.  App can sync notes with whatever device is available (tablet, phone, or computer).  One can also take pictures of documents to store, or take notes on (class handouts, important reminders, etc).  Separate notebooks can be created for different classes or different parts of your life.  Audio notes can also be taken and later replayed.  Notebooks can be shared with other uses for collaborative purposes and files can be uploaded into the notebooks in the app.  This is a great organization app for students who need help keeping all of their information in one place.

Prezi

iPad v3.4.2, Requires iOS 5.1 or Later. Compatible with iPad

free for some features, monthly subscription for private presentations (Starting $4.92/mo or $59/yr)

I was first disappointed to discover that while you can install Prezi for Android, you need Flash to run the program, and Adobe has stopped supporting flash for Android.  The app does work well for the iPad as well as through their website (prezi.com).  Prezi is a platform which allows the user to view and create interactive presentations.  Users can use a variety of given or user created themes to produce a creative visual presentation where pictures and videos are easily integrated.  Unlike PowerPoints, Prezi presentations don’t always have to occur in a linear fashion.  The program can be accessed for free, but then all presentations are public.  Private presentations can be created for a monthly charge.

Mobile Learning

When I thought of mobile learning before this course started, I was tempted to just think of mobile technology.  But in looking at Sharples paper, I once again was reminded how much more there is to mobile learning.  In thinking of the 5 parts he lists on page 235, I start to reconsider how to bring these ideas into the classroom.  I want to find ways to introduce mobile technology in my classroom so it allows them to use it at school, home, or wherever they may be.  But I also want to find ways to make life easier for my students who are constantly on the go.  So many of my students are not in one location settled for the night until late at night because of school, sports practice, music lessons, or whatever their other activities may be.  I start thinking – how can I not tie them to a book and desk and still have them engaged?  In thinking about designing mobile learning – the suggestion to create quick and simple interactions (p 237) that will keep them engaged seems key.  I’m starting to brainstorm – what can I have them do to revisit concepts and practice key ideas in a mobile environment – and do it in such a way that the average teenage would stay engaged?

I was intrigued by the ideas in Sha et al’s self-regulated learning model.  The study they did with the 3rd and 4th grade classes in Singapore seemed to really highlight some of the possibilities for this type of learning.  I was impressed that they did not only look at one or two lessons, but did this study over the course of a 40-week year.  I would be very interested, however, to see this study brought to American students and to students of all age levels.  Students in Singapore generally score much better than American students (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf), and I would be curious to see if the 50/50 split of those who were extrinsically motivated continues in older students and in students in the US.  (Sha, 375)  While I love the idea of the SRL model, I worry that students are extremely extrinsically motivated, especially at the high school level.  I feel that a majority of my students, both in lower and upper level classes, are so grade focused that they just want to know about the exam.  Every year I try emphasize a love of science, and while it comes through in some of the students, more of them are just focused on getting the good grade for their transcript.

Ultimately, I’m struggling with finding ways to use mobile learning to keep students excited about science.  Most of them love labs, and they love the hands on concepts…  so the question I will continue to work with is how can I shift them from being extrinsically motivated to just keeping that curiosity that most have when they are young.

 

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf, accessed 6/21/14

Sha, L., Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B. H. (2012). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of self‐regulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning28(4), 366-378