As I continue my research into mobile technology and its impacts on learning, I find myself reading “Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes” by B. Haßler, L. Major and S. Hennessy. This is a research study that basically seeks to find out if tablets actually help students to learn better or show ‘learning gains’ and what contributes to those gains if they are there. They used a complex system to evaluate what research was out there on the topic and weeded out many published forms of research that did not meet their criteria. In total, they found 33 articles or journals that met their strict criteria and based their findings off of those journals. They found that all but two of the studies they looked at found that tablets increase student learning or have a neutral impact on learning outcomes. They found the following factors to be key in students showing learning gains through tablet use:

• Easy to use and have many features
• Easy to customize
• Use of a touchscreen
• Portable

They also looked at 1:1 versus 1:m (many) and found that 1:1 use might not be the best course of action for schools to take for both fiscal and academic reasons. They believe that students produced better quality ‘artifacts’ when working as a group with one tablet because of the ability to collaborate verbally as a group. This would be a less expensive option for a district as well if they planned for only one tablet per group of students. As a teacher, I feel that having the option for both 1:1 and 1:m is important because the structure and needs of your lesson plans change constantly throughout the year. This article mentioned briefly that districts should also make sure that their staff is adequately trained in order to implement tablet use successfully, rather than assume that teachers already know how to best use the technology in their classroom.

The second article I read was “Thou shall not try to speak in the Facebook language: Students’ perspectives regarding using Facebook for chemistry learning.”. This article was supposed to describe the students’ attitudes towards using Facebook both for educational purposes and non-educational purposes and also to describe the needs of the students. I do not feel that this article did a good job explaining their feelings towards using Facebook but did an okay job explaining their needs (or things they didn’t want/need). The article spent a lot of time talking about formulas and research that I think was good, but not entirely needed for the results they were looking for. To sum up the findings, students seemed to give more useful responses in the form of things they didn’t want to see, based on the chart of ‘Thou Shall Not’s provided in the article. The study also found that students seemed to find the Facebook chemistry group less important to their learning after the second year, which the author even said might prove there needs to be a further study across a longer time frame.

The final article I read was, “Mobile devices and apps as scaffolds to science learning in the primary classroom.” This article sought to find how app scaffolding was used by students and how the teachers planned to use the apps within their teaching. The findings were not entirely surprising that the students preferred the use of video and audio scaffolding over textual scaffolding. What was surprising was that the students seemed to use the scaffolding pertaining to the experimental steps more often than the scaffolding for concepts. The author warned that teachers shouldn’t assume what scaffolding the students will be more likely to use because of surprises like that one. During the conclusion, the author also talked about the fact that a well-planned lesson and carefully-chosen apps are most important in designing a lesson. A common theme that I have seen in many readings. The reason this was added at the end was because of the fact that the teachers needed to help facilitate at many points during the experiments, thus showing the need for a teacher to be present during an app-guided lesson.

I found these articles to be useful as they pertain to my final project because I would like to plan on using tablets or laptops to create a flipped environment. In the first article, I had hoped to read about whether or not tablets seem to provide positive learning outcomes in the classroom, and was happy that the results were there and in a concise format. In a flipped environment there needs to be a learning management system of some kind, and at the moment I am open to ideas. I read the Facebook article hoping it would provide some anecdotal evidence that swayed me one way or another towards using it as a LMS, but I didn’t think the article provided enough information for that. In the final article I read, I wanted to read about the impact of apps in the classroom, as I would like to use apps for supplemental purposes after an art project is made. I found it to be helpful because it reminded me that even with supplemental materials or art games, students will still need my support in getting things to run smoothly.

Falloon, G. (2017). Mobile devices and apps as scaffolds to science learning in the primary classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 613–628

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139–156.

Rap, S., & Blonder, R. (2017). Thou shall not try to speak in the Facebook language: Students’ perspectives regarding using Facebook for chemistry learning. Computers & Education, 114, 69–78.

The first article I read was “Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—a format assessment perspective” and it discussed an experiment that intended to determine if students would be negatively impacted by technology if they had a higher cognitive load than students in a traditional setting with the same criteria. The article was difficult to read as it listed off a lot of formulas and acronyms related to the study. The main findings of the study concluded that if the children in the study had a higher cognitive load (which was determined by a formula) while using the mobile technology, that the technology was negatively impacting their learning. To me, it sounded more like the PDA version was harder and could be confusing compared to the traditional classroom model. However, they determined through theories and formulas that the two methods were comparable and attributed the lower scores and higher mental strain to the technology. They did mention near the end of the article that they felt “…with a proper learning design, the effect of mobile and ubiquitous learning can be much better than that of the traditional approach.” So perhaps they were acknowledging that the design of the lesson on the PDAs was the problem after all and not the PDAs themselves.

The second article I read was “‘It’s more funner than doing work’: Children’s perspectives on using tablet computers in the early years of school” and it was centered around the viewpoints of children as they pertain to their education. They did a study that was set up to view the impact of tablets on math and literacy skills in a group of children in Ireland. By the end of the article, it seems that they didn’t have conclusive evidence of improved skills in either area. They only had recommendations for what types of things to take into consideration when choosing apps for student mobile devices. They identified three key themes across their data sets, which were: “links with home, fun and games, choice and competition.” They talked about the fact that children in this study had seamless interactions between home and school on their tablets, but they discussed more home details when talking with researchers about their use. They would mention the names of people and places where they would use their tablets, showing that these things were important to them. When talking about tablet use at school, they didn’t mention names or locations. There was also a big emphasis on games, choice, and competition. Children enjoyed those three things the most when talking with researchers about what apps they liked to use. The competition included a competition to beat their own high scores, not just to compete with others. They also liked when they had to earn a high enough score to get a prize or reward, such as new in-game content. The article concluded by basically saying that we need to listen more to children and what they say about apps when choosing what apps to use with each age group. Children were described in the article as being the primary source of information about what children like and respond to, and as such, their voices should be heard.

The third article I read was “Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology–enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies” and it was about flipped classrooms and the use of mobile technology. The whole idea behind a flipped classroom is that the content that would traditionally be covered in class is covered before or after class, and the content and tasks that are traditionally done before or after class would be done during class. In this way, students would learn and construct knowledge outside of class (perhaps at home) and then do their homework or project during class. In this way, it creates more dialog between the teacher and student in clearing up confusion and clarifying and solidifying new ideas. The article also discussed the 5C’s of 21st-century learning/skills and proposes that a flipped classroom and flipped learning could better contribute to learning the 5C’s than a traditional classroom setting.

A theme that I keep seeing come up was mentioned here. It should be a no-brainer but apparently is a big hang-up for some when designing their lesson and unit plans. That theme is: “…that the success of mobile technology-supported seamless learning heavily depends on the teachers’ learning designs.” Basically, the success of the lesson depends on how well the teacher designs and implements it. With this in mind, the article finishes by sharing examples and in-depth ideas for promoting the 5C’s and the flipped classroom in general.

Finally, the case study I chose is also about the flipped classroom and it is titled “A Learning Analytics Approach to Investigating Factors Affecting EFL Students’ Oral Performance in a Flipped Classroom”. It describes an 18-week case study of students who are taking English as a foreign language and using Facebook as their classroom’s platform.

1. Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—a format assessment perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1). 332–344.
2. Dunn, J., Gray, C., Moffett, P., & Mitchell, D. (2018). ‘It’s more funner than doing work’: Children’s perspectives on using tablet computers in the early years of school. Early Child Development and Care, 188(6), 819–831.
3. Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology–enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473.
4. Lin, C., & Hwang, G. (2018). A Learning Analytics Approach to Investigating Factors Affecting EFL Students’ Oral Performance in a Flipped Classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205-219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/26388398

First of all, I would just like to say that outside of drawing, photo editing, and coloring, there aren’t a lot of quality art apps out there (at least based on my searches). I chose to try out and review the following apps: Sketch by Sony Mobile, Photoshop Express by Adobe, DailyArt by Moiseum, Crayola Create and Play by Crayola, and the Newsela app by Newsela. All five apps seem to be good at what their intended uses were and I will discuss each more in depth below.

Sketch by Sony Mobile

Sketch was a good all-around drawing application. I used it on my Android phone, but it is also available for iOS. The biggest limitation I found with this app is that it is definitely geared for a tablet, rather than a cell phone. I thought that trying to draw with accuracy was possible, but difficult when using my fingers on such a small screen. The app had a variety of drawing options including different brushes and nibs, special effects such as smudging, and the ability to add ‘stickers’ to your drawing. You could also use a photo as the basis for your drawing or stickering which was a surprise as I thought this was an app for drawing only, not photo editing. This app would be good for promoting critical thinking and creativity skills, just as a regular art class would through the decision-making skills needed to create. I would consider this app to be ‘constructive’ but also a ‘knowledge and skill building’ app because it would allow for the discovery and experimentation described in the article Educational Apps Ontology (Notari, M. et al. 2016) while also asking a user to practice their drawing skills. There is another feature of the app that allows the user to share and view their art with other users. Someone viewing a work of art can favorite it or add a comment. While there is some level of communication going on with that feature, I personally do not think it is enough to consider it a ‘communication’ app according to the research in Educational Apps Ontology (Notari, M. et al. 2016). I think the best age group for this app would be 6th grade and up due to the slight challenge of navigating the different menus. However, with enough practice, students as young as grade 2 could probably use this app to create art. This is a free app.

Photoshop Express by Adobe

I was pleasantly surprised by how many functions and options this app had. I haven’t used Photoshop in almost 10 years so it’s possible that the number of features is typical of photo editing software today. There honestly were so many features that in some cases it was hard to see the difference that each filter or effect was making. This would be a great application for adding mood to a photo that is otherwise ordinary. In addition to the photo editing portion of this app, you can also add borders, text, and ‘stickers’ to liven up any photograph. This would be another good app for fostering creativity and problem-solving skills, although not quite as much as creating your own art from scratch. I would consider this app to be in the category of ‘other’ because its use is so specific, however, I feel that one could argue that it also falls into the ‘knowledge and skill building’ category due to the construction of knowledge via a creative activity (Notari, M. et al. 2016). This app would be best suited for grades 5 and up due to the subtleties involved in photo editing. I don’t really think a younger student would appreciate the slight variances in mood and tone of an image based on just the filters. Younger grades might appreciate the stickering and text editing portion, but I think the multiple menus they would have to dig through to find those features would throw them off too much for them to enjoy it. This is a free app.

DailyArt by Moiseum

This app is very simple and has one main feature of sharing a work of art with the user. The work of art is accompanied by a brief article about the piece and its significance. This would be a good supplemental activity for early-finishers to learn more about art and art history. The free version of this app has advertisements at the bottoms and every 4 or so artists, which is a little annoying but bearable. Also, the app lets you scroll through the previous artworks and articles one day at a time for more than a month’s worth of ‘daily’ information. You cannot select a reading level or language with this app so it further limits the grade level and type of students who could successfully use the app and learn from it. This app would fall under the category of ‘knowledge and skill building’ because it offers art history information that students could learn about (Notari, M. et al. 2016). I think this app would be best for students in grades 5 and up because the language might be too difficult for the ‘average’ fourth grader or younger. This is a free app with an option to pay for other features (no cost listed).

Crayola Create and Play by Crayola

This app was fun to play with and had a lot of features for kids. You could draw, color, create a coloring page of your face by using the camera function, raise a pet, and play games. The only downside to this app is that it only has a 24-hour free period and then you are billed $5.99 a month through your Apple Store or Google Play account. This app definitely fosters creativity and problem solving not only through its drawing and coloring features but through its educational games and puzzles. I would categorize this as a ‘knowledge and skill building’ app as well as being ‘instructive’ and ‘constructive’ (Notari, M. et al. 2016). This app is geared for young children and would only be useful for PreK through 4th grades.

Newsela app by Newsela

I went out on a limb a little with this app in the hopes that it contained art-related articles. I was pleasantly surprised to find not only articles about art but options to change the reading level based on a reader’s Lexile number and change languages on some articles. You can also take quizzes for each article and give an open-ended written response. As an educator, you can assign articles and assignments, too. This app improves global awareness, social and cross-cultural skills, and information literacy through its articles and quizzes (IMLS 2009). This app would fall into the ‘knowledge and skill building’ or ‘other’ category due to the ability of the user to construct new knowledge and gain information from it (Notari, M. et al. 2016). This app would be good for ‘early finishers’ as an enrichment activity or an activity for a substitute if you didn’t want the students using art supplies while you were out. Its limitation as a news application is that it isn’t as interactive or engaging as some of the other apps I reviewed. This is a free app.

“New Forms of Engagement”

In terms of creativity, a device is only going to aid in creativity and will only be as creative as the person using it. If a person only uses and sees their device as something to play games and check social media on, then that device will probably only be used for a small number of creative purposes. However, devices can be used for so much more than that. Users can create and edit photos and videos, share information through the use of social media, blogs, and wikis, and can interact with people and places via a digital interface. Additionally, anything that a person can create on their phone can be shared online or with other individuals. I feel that mobile devices can harness all of the above and tie it into education. The only limitations would be the creativity of the instructor and the meaningfulness of how these functions are applied.

Badges in Education

Before reading these two articles about badges, I had never heard of them before or thought I hadn’t. This is an instance where a component of video games is trying to cross the divide to become integrated into an educational setting. Badges are essentially like getting a certificate of achievement for completing some type of task or a certain amount of work. The basis for earning a badge is decided by the person or people who are giving them out. The reason I mentioned video games is that this sounds just like the achievement systems used by certain video games when a task or goal is completed. I kept thinking of earning achievements in World of Warcraft and noticed it was a very similar system to badges.

In the first article I read, An Online Badging System Supporting Educators’ STEM Learning, discussed using badges in conjunction with professional development. Honestly, I didn’t see how this would be beneficial myself, other than showing an administrator that you were doing your PD work. If I were given this same opportunity to learn about my subject area I wouldn’t really care about the badges unless they were useful for something outside of the PD itself. This sentiment was described in more detail in the second article I read, titled: Digital badges in afterschool learning: Documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Badges were used to show students that they had achieved something or learned something, but when interviewed, many of the students either didn’t know what they were or didn’t understand why they were supposed to be important. I agree with the discussion in the article that badges would be useful if students could use them to show colleges or potential employers that they had obtained a particular skill set that would set them apart in some way and make them a more appealing candidate. However, because this wasn’t the case, students didn’t find the value in them. I would also agree that a larger system would need to be in place for something like that the work. There is no way for a separate institution from the one issuing the badge to tell if the badge is a good quality attribute or not. To quote one person interviewed from the program issuing the badges, “…it’s going to be hard for people to sort you know, crap from good stuff.”

If I were to use badges in my classroom, I would use them one of two ways. One, I would tie them into a positive reward system. For example, if a student earned a badge in something, they could earn a ticket for a prize raffle or some other token in a token economy. Or two, I could use badges as they were mentioned in the first article I read, as being used for evaluation. Earning badges could be a way to show that they have learned a certain skill or completed a task and that in turn could be their key to progressing in a course. Rather than having me administer an assessment and then decide if they should move on to a new topic, students could digitally earn badges and move through the course material on their own. I have always wanted to create a classroom setup that allowed students to choose their own art projects and content and proceed through a course, however, I didn’t have a good plan in mind for how to monitor their progress other than when they turned in an assignment. Badges would provide me with a good way to check in on students and see their progress at a glance, rather than having to manually check on their progress.

Augmented Reality

Augmented reality gives students the opportunity to interact with an assignment by means of virtual reality. It provides students with an authentic and engaging experience that is open-ended and provides the opportunity to use problem-solving and exploratory skills. The article talks about the pros of this type of learning being: 1:1 interaction, working with multiple perspectives, and high engagement and motivation. Cons were: cognitive overload, incompatibility with standards-based school cultures, and technical problems. This was a very introductory article that placed a lot of emphasis on theories behind using AR in the classroom rather than instances where it was used in practice. For my own content area, I have only read about one instance of AR for art. This was in the form of a field trip to a museum that uses an app where students can take a photo of a work of art and the app tells them information about that work. Otherwise, while I’m sure there are many places in the art curriculum that AR would be useful, I haven’t seen or heard or any other instances of it in practice. This makes me wonder is AR lends itself more to certain fields than others.

• Davis, K., & Singh, S. (2015). Digital badges in afterschool learning: Documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Computers & Education, 88, 72–83.
• Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp. 735-745). New York, NY: Springer.
• Gamrat, C., & Zimmerman, H. (2015). An online badging system supporting educators’ STEM learning. In D. Hickey, J. Jovanović, S. Lonn, & J. E. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Open Badges in Education Co-located With the 5th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK 2015)(pp. 12–23). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Poughkeepsie.
• Klopfer, Eric. (2012). New Forms of Engagement [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=691&v=_UHA9XYAXjA