Carina Markett, Inmaculada Arnedillo Snchez, Stefan Weber,

1
pls txt ur thoughts using short message service
to lower the bar to interactivity in the
classroom

• Carina Markett, Inmaculada Arnedillo Sánchez,
  Stefan Weber, Brendan Tangney
• Center for Research in IT in Education
• tangney_at_tcd.ie
• www.cs.tcd.ie/crite/mobile/

The University of DublinTrinity College
2
Background

• Classrooms are currently awash with
  under-utilised technology a challenge for
  educators is to harness this available technology
  while building a pedagogically sound learning
  environment.
• Key concerns in ICT implementation in education
• technology is in the foreground,
• pedagogy is neglected,
• costs remain high
• student-to-computer ratios remain low.
• Over 90 of Irish 15-to 24-year-olds own a mobile
  phone and use SMS extensively.
• (Hegarty, 2004).

3
Interactivity ICT

• In student-instructor interaction the concepts
  are set in context, allowing students
  development of cognitive structures (Moore, 1989
  Liu et al., 2002)
• Allows students to build their learning
  environment and influence the learning process,
  leading to more active learning while providing
  instructors with ongoing feedback (Anderson,
  2002 Muirhead and Juwah, 2003)
• The students interest and motivation can be
  stimulated and maintained (Prammanee, 2003)
• In distance-learning interactivity has been shown
  to reduce student isolation, positively effecting
  performance and enrolment (Hirumi, 2002)
• ICT can play a significant role in supporting
  interactivity in class and after class via email,
  chat, bulletin boards, classroom Response
  Systems, among others.

4
Defining Interactivity

• By the participants of the interaction
• learner-content (central), learner-instructor,
  and learner-learner (Moore, 1989)
• learner-interface, instructor-interface,
  instructor-content, instructor-instructor and
  content-content (Muirhead and Juwah, 2003)
• By the medium of communication
• face-to-face interaction (traditional
  classroom-based interaction)
• Computer-mediated interaction (in any physical
  space or time)
• Human-computer interaction (a program providing
  individual, customised instruction)
• Simultaneous group interaction (the use of
  personal devices to support i.e. student
  communication mediated by the lecturer and
  technology) (Liu et al., 2002)
• By the structure in relation to
• Loops
• Coherance
• Originator ( Yacci 2000)

A Completed Message Loop Between Two Entities
5
Student-centred Interactivity

• Learners transforming information and
  constructing knowledge (Dewey, 1916)
• Interactivity is complete message loop
  originating from the student and returning to the
  student. The reciprocating participant can be
  instructor or fellow student/s. This loop occurs
  irrespective of the technology or medium of
  communication.

6
Pls Turn Ur Mobiles Off

• Allowing the use of primarily social technology
  such as instant messaging or mobile phones can
  distract student attention away from the
  classroom (Roschelle, 2003)
• They can act as an intruders removing the
  teachers centrality in communication (Mifsud,
  2002)
• If the school provides handhelds, policies
  regarding proper use (game downloading
  pornography) and care (theft/accidental damage)
  are essential for a safe and lasting
  implementation (Roschelle, 2003 Savill-Smith and
  Kent, 2003)
• If the school relies on students personal
  devices, issues and tensions can arise if not all
  students are similarly equipped and able to
  access the full communication systems (Iles,
  Glaser, Kam and Canny, 2002)
• Mobile phones are banned in many schools, leading
  to some implementation with simulated mobile
  phones on PDAs (Bollen, Eimler and Hoppe, 2004)
• A recent study found most implementations of
  handhelds do not involve connectivity outside the
  classroom or the ability for students to pass
  notes via a back-channel (Roschelle, 2003).

7
The Txting Technology
8
Txting In-class after-class

• In-class, using a modem interfacing with
  customised software to produce text and
  spreadsheet files of SMS, the lecturer can view
  the messages and develop the interaction further.
• After-class the SMS are available in a website to
  allow the development of the interaction by
  lecturer students via online threaded comments.

9
(No Transcript)
10
Tsting Bed Implementation

• Undergraduate (Computers and Society course)
  Postgraduate Classes (MSc in Ubiquitous
  Computing)
• Undergraduate couse at the end of the academic
  year the class dynamic was already set i.e.
  students had determined their role in class (i.e.
  participatory or not)
• Postgraduate class In general, more enthusiastic
  response from post-graduates
• 20 students
• Data from 3 sessions. Students presenting work to
  their peers.

11
Sample LogsMasters Class Ubiquetous Computing
12
Postgrad Sessions 1-2Tsting findings

• Before Project
• 70 of students were already frequent texters
• Interaction in class was, for most students,
  occasional with greatest satisfaction stemming
  from lecturer contact
• During Project
• 70 participation
• 1 4 texts sent per student
• 90 use of website, 80 felt it helped
  understanding of concepts
• 35 of messages on website had additions to
  threads

13
Txt in the Classroom Limitations

• Texting can be slow and divert students
  attention
• Texting can be awkward
• Anonymity could encourage flaming
• Provides link to outside
• Students read other messages received during
  class (although limited number sent other
  messages)
• Outsiders can send in texts (not closed to
  classroom)

14
References

• 1. Anderson, T. (2002). An Updated and
  Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. IT Forum.
  Retrieved 25 April, 2004, from the World Wide
  Web http//it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63
  .htm
• 2.Muirhead, B., Juwah, C. (2003). Interactivity
  in Computer-Mediated College and University
  Education A Recent Review of the Literature.
  International Forum of Educational Technology
  Society. Retrieved 7 December, 2003, from the
  World Wide Web http//ifets.ieee.org/discussions/
  discuss_november2003.html
• 3. Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding
  Participation in Online Courses A Case Study of
  Perceptions of Online Interaction. IT Forum.
  Retrieved 29 Feb 2004, from the World Wide Web
  http//it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper68/paper68.html
  
• 4. Muhlhauser, M., Trompler, C. (2002).
  Learning in the Digital Age Paving a Smooth Path
  with Digital Lecture Halls. Paper presented at
  the IEEE 35th Hawaii International Conference on
  System Sciences, Hawaii.
• 5. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York Basic
  Books.
• 6. Mitchell, A., Doherty, M. (2003). M-Learning
  Support for Disadvantaged Youth A Mid-Stage
  Review. Anglia Ultralab.
• 7. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial Three Types of
  Interaction. The American Journal of Distance
  Education, 3(2), 1-6.
• 8. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity Demystified A
  structural definition for distance education and
  intelligent computer-based instruction.
  Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16.
• 9. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M.,
  Sharples, M. (2003). Guest Editorial Wireless
  and Mobile Technologies in Education. Journal of
  Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255-259.
• 10. Roschelle, J., Pea, R. (2002). A Walk on
  the WILD Side How Wireless Handhelds May Change
  CSCL. Paper presented at the Computer Support for
  Collaborative Learning, Boulder, Colorado.