More heads around a screen
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

“ More Heads Around A Screen“ PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 45 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

“ More Heads Around A Screen“. Pilot Findings From A Study On The Use of Tablet PCs To Support Collaborative Learning. George D.T. , Passerini, K., Jones, Q., Hiltz, S.R., Manikopoulos, C. New Jersey Institute of Technology. Summary.

Download Presentation

“ More Heads Around A Screen“

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


More heads around a screen

“More Heads Around A Screen“

Pilot Findings From A Study On The Use of Tablet PCs To Support Collaborative Learning

George D.T., Passerini, K., Jones, Q., Hiltz, S.R., Manikopoulos, C.

New Jersey Institute of Technology


Summary

Summary

  • This research provides a proposed framework in which to examine the use of Tablet PCs for collaborative team-based learning.

  • It contributes to a further understanding of the influence of the TAM on computer mediated collaboration and instruction; and the possible impacts on learning


Overview

Overview

  • Literature Background

    • Educational Uses of the Tablet PC

  • Collaborative Learning

    • Collaborative Learning with Tablet PC

  • Framework

  • Task

  • Results


Educational uses of the tablet pc

In the educational literature, tablet PCs (TPC) have found to be supportive of :

Lecturing

Note-Taking

Instructor-Student Interaction

Student-Student Interaction

Grading

Educational Uses of the Tablet PC


Tablet pc education enhancements lecturing

Tablet PC education enhancements - Lecturing

Lecturing with the TPC

  • Allows lecturer to add impromptu annotations to slides or to create new drawings/diagrams using “digital ink”

  • “Digital Ink” allows more flexibility of expression in responding to questions.

  • Allows archiving drawings/annotations for later review and reference.


Tablet pc education enhancements note taking

Note-taking with the TPC

Allows students to make personalized annotations to the lecturers slides using “digital ink”.

TPC allows free-hand note-taking

Allows for easy archiving and sharing of digital notes.

Tablet PC education enhancements – Note Taking


Tablet pc education enhancements interaction

Teacher-Student, Student-Student Interaction

When TPCs are networked:

Students may draw directly on instructors slides during a lecture (for the whole class to see…as instructor allows).

Highly flexible/interactive classes where students may use the TPC to solve problems and respond to the instructor’s questions with “digital Ink”.

Students may take notes collaboratively using “digital ink” and share freehand annotations in real-time.

Tablet PC education enhancements – Interaction


Tablet pc education enhancements grading

Grading

TPC allows instructors to annotate and comment on students work with “digital ink”

Provides an excellent tool for peer review and peer grading of assignment.

Archival nature of digital documents make them readily distributable and available for future reference.

Tablet PC education enhancements – Grading


More heads around a screen

no

.


Collaborative learning with tpcs

Collaborative Learning with TPCs

  • Computer Supported Collaborative Learning - Students generate knowledge through the interaction with their peers through the help of computers/technology.

  • Given the flexibility of expression / communication that the TPC allows, it is anticipated that the TPC may be an ideal tool to support collaborative learning activities.


Framework

Framework

Framework Constructs for Pilot Study Using the TPC for Collaborative Learning

  • Motivation

  • Enjoyment*

  • Ease of use*

  • Usefulness*

  • Perceived learning outcomes

  • Self efficacy*

  • Collective efficacy

  • Time management strategies

  • Intention to use*

    *Based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).


Hypotheses

Hypotheses

When Using the TPC for Collaborative Learning:

  • H1a & b: Higher degrees of motivation and enjoyment will increase perceived learning outcomes.

  • H2a & b: Higher degrees of perception of “usefulness” and “ease of use” that individuals experience will increase the degree of intention to use it for future tasks.

  • H3a & b: Higher degrees of the perception of “ease of use” and “usefulness” of the TPC that individuals experience will increase the intention to use the TPC fortime management.


Hypotheses1

Hypotheses

When Using the TPC for Collaborative Learning

  • H4a & b: Higher degrees of perception of “usefulness” and “ease of use” that individuals experience will increase Perceived Learning Outcomes.

  • H5a & b: the higher degrees of self efficacy and collective efficacy expressed by participants will increase Perceived Learning Outcomes.

  • H6a & b: the higher degrees of self efficacy expressed by participants will increase Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness

  • H7: the higher degrees of enjoyment expressed by participants will increase collective efficacy


Collaborative learning with tablet pc pilot research framework

Enhanced Communication/ Expression

Collective Efficacy

H5b

H7

Motivation

H1a

Perceived/Actual Learning Outcomes

H1b

Enjoyment

H4a

H4b

Teams w/t TabletPCs

Ease of Use

H2a

Intention to Use

H6a

H2b

Usefulness

H3a

H6b

Self Efficacy

H3b

Time Mgt Strategies

H5a

Collaborative Learning with Tablet PC Pilot Research Framework


The task

Course: Knowledge Management   (MGMT- 650 )

Took place over a 4 week time frame (4 different exercises)

Students organized into 10 different teams

1 TPC per Team

Teams alternated each week using the TPC

Students had varying amounts of exposure to using the TPC (from 5 minutes to a week)

The Task


The survey and subjects

The Survey and Subjects

  • A 46 item survey was administered at the end of the semester. 33 out of 40 study participants responded.

    Gender Demographics

  • 21 males

  • 8 Females

  • 4 provided no gender information

  • Most of the participants declared of being between 18-35 yrs old


Results based on 7 point scale

Results (Based on 7 Point scale)


Results and analysis

Results and Analysis

  • All constructs yielded “> 4” except Perceived Usefulness

  • Population was nearly equally divided based on “Usefulness” construct.

  • Divided population into 2 groups based on “Usefulness” construct.

  • The 2 groups differed significantly on all constructs except Self and Collective Efficacy.


High low usefulness analysis

High/Low “Usefulness” Analysis


Bivariate correlation analysis significance 0 01 0 025 0 05 0 10

Bivariate Correlation AnalysisSignificance: “****” => α=0.01, “***” => α=0.025, “**” => α=0.05,“*” => α=0.10

  • All constructs showed statistically moderate to strong correlations (Pearson’s R)


Bivariate correlation analysis cont significance 0 01 0 025 0 05 0 10

Bivariate Correlation Analysis – cont’Significance: “****” => α=0.01, “***” => α=0.025, “**” => α=0.05,“*” => α=0.10

  • All constructs showed statistically moderate to strong correlations (Pearson’s R)


Framework hypotheses

Collective Efficacy

(+)H7 Supported

R=0.46

(+)H5b supported

R=0.51

Motivation

H1a

Perceived/Actual Learning Outcomes

(+)H1b supported

R=0.68

Enjoyment

(+)H4a supported

R=0.46

(+)H4b supported

R=0.80

Teams w/t Tablet PCs

Ease of Use

(+) H2a supported

R=0.58

Intention to Use

(+) H2b supported

R=0.69

H6a

Usefulness

(+)H3a supported

R=0.43

(+)H3b supported

R=0.67

Time Mgt Strategies

(+)H6b supported

*R=0.27

Self Efficacy

(+) H1a not supported R=0.11

(-) H6a Not supported R=-0.04

“*” means significant at the α = 0.10 level.

“**” means significant at the α = 0.05 level.

All other values of R shown are significant at the α = 0.01 level

(+)H5a supported

**R=0.32

Framework & Hypotheses


Findings and impressions

Findings and Impressions

Overall bivariate correlation show a general support for the hypotheses, except for

  • Unsupported: “Self Efficacy” – No significant correlation with “Ease of Use” (contrary to TAM)

  • Unsupported: “Motivation” in this situation – No significant correlation with Perceived Learning

  • TAM corroborated by findings concerning

    “Enjoyment”, “Ease of Use”, “Usefulness” and “Intention to Use”


Findings and impressions cont

Findings and Impressions – Cont’

  • TAM may also explain Perceived Learning Outcomes and Time Management Strategies

  • “Usefulness” has a very strong correlation with Perceived Learning Outcomes (R=0.80)

  • Groups differing on “Usefulness” differ on every other construct except Self and Collective Efficacy


Findings and impressions cont1

Findings and Impressions – Cont’

  • “Motivation” negatively correlated with “Usefulness” (did tool fit the task?)

  • “Self Efficacy” only positively correlated with

    Perceived Learning Outcomes (…self-directed learning)

  • “Collective Efficacy” – significant correlation with “Ease of Use” (group dynamics?).


Limitations and future research

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

  • The TPC didn’t facilitate group communication (served more as group repository)

  • 1 TPC per group and limited practice with it (ie Steep learning curve)

  • All groups were able at some point to use the TPC.

    Future Research will use control groups (some with TPCs others without)


Limitations and future research cont

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH – Cont’

Future research will examine:

  • Effects of the TPCs more flexible means of expression (Communication Enhancement)

  • The effects of social influence on Technology Acceptance (TAM2)

  • Larger/more classes will be examined (only 33 students surveyed)

  • Apparent strong influence of “Usefulness” (Implies a need for discovery of best practices for TPC- based Collaborative Learning)


Contributions and conclusions

Contributions and Conclusions

  • The Technology acceptance model in addition to explaining Intention to Use, may also explain or exert a positive influence on Perceived Learning Outcomes and Time Management Strategies.

  • Perceived Usefulness - very strong role in the successful use of the TPC in supporting collaborative team-based learning (tool must fit task)

  • Collective Efficacy - seems to be a stronger determinant of Ease of Use than individual Self Efficacy as it concerns collaborative learning with TPC and TAM


Contributions and conclusions1

Contributions and Conclusions

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  • This research is partially supported by grants from the National Science Foundation ( NSF CISE 0454081 and 0534520). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and may not reflect those of the National Science Foundation..


References

References

  • Alavi, M. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 150-174, June, 1994.

  • Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., Simon, B., Videon, V., and Wolfman, S., “Lecture Presentation from the TabletPC,” Workshop on Advance Collaborative Environments, 2003.

  • Anderson, R., Anderson, R., McDowell, L, Simon, B., "Use of Classroom Presenter in Engineering Courses", -2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005,IN 35 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T1A-1

  • Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage, MIS Quarterly, 24,4, 665-694.

  • Arnett, K. P., Schmidt M. B., Shim J. P.,”Tablet PCs for teaching Information Systems Courses”, Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE, USA August 11th-14th 2005

  • 6. Bandura, A. (1997). “Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control”. New York: Freeman


References1

References

7.Bandura A., “Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 9 Issue 3 - June 2000

8.Berque D., Bonebright T., and Whitesell M. Using Penbased Computers Across the Computer Science Curriculum. 35th SIGCSE, 2004.

9.Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon and Brooks, Martin G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

10.Davis, F. D. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology."MIS Quarterly (133), September 1989, pp. 318-339.

11.Goodwin, N. C. (1987). Functionality and usability. Communications of the ACM, 30, 3, 229-233.

12.Hiltz, S.R., Benbunan-Fich, R., Coppola, N.,Rotter, N., and Turoff, M.(2000). "Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi-Measure, Multi-Method Approach." JALN, 4, 2. Available online at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol4issue2-3.htm

13.Hiltz, S. R., Goldman, R., “Learning Together Online – Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks”, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 2005


References2

References

14.Kam, M., et al., “Livenotes: A System for Cooperative and Augmented Note-Taking in Lectures,” Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems

15.(CHI 05), ACM Press, 2005, pp. 531-540.

16.Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D., Role of Commitment and Motivation in Knowledge Management Systems Implementation: Theory, Conceptualization, and Measurement of Antecedents of Success, Proceedings of 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January 6-9, 2003, IEEE, Pages 1-10.

17.Parker, A. “Interaction in Distance Education”, The Critical Conversation, “Educational Technology Review, 12,13-17

18.Pérez-Quiñones, Manuel and Turner, Scott, “Using a tablet PC to provide peer review comments, ” Technical report TR- 04-17, Dept. of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, June 8, 2004

19.Pintrich P., “A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts”. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 667–686. (2003)


References3

References

  • 20.Ryan R. M., Deci E.L., “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78

  • 21.Riggs, M.L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. 1994. Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58: 1017-1034.

  • 22.Simon, B., et. al. (2004). Preliminary Experiences with a Tablet PC Based System

  • 23.to Support Active Learning in Computer Science Courses. In Proceedings of

  • 24.SIGCSE '04, Norfolk, Virginia March 2004. ACM Press.

  • Viswanath Venkatesh , Fred D. Davis, A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, v.46 n.2, p.186-204, February 2000

  • Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 4 (2000), 342–365.


References4

References

  • Venkatesh, V.,Smith, R., Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1999) , pp. 239-260

  • Willis, C. & Miertschin, S. Tablet pc’s as instructional tools or the pen is mightier than the ’board! Proceedings of SIGITE’04, October 28–30, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

  • 28.Wilkerson, M., Griswold, W., and Simon, B. Ubiquitous Presenter: “Increasing Student Access and Control in a Digital Lecturing Environment”. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE, 2005, pp. 116-120

  • 29.Yi, Y. Y., Hwang Y., “Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,Volume 59 , Issue 4 (October 2003)

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

  • 31.Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.


  • Login