1
iPads in Higher Education 2014 1st International conference
a case study on using the iPad to encourage collaborative learning in an undergraduate web development class
Aekaterini Mavri, Fernando Loizides, Nicos Souleles
2
motivation
programming|web development✤abstract concepts✤difficult to apply + produce compound code
structures✤ lack of assistance✤design students, WYSIWYG tools + code✤consecutive lecture + practical (tutorial) session
3
related research points to
active learning✤ can effectively facilitate knowledge assimilation ✤ students are ‘actively engaged in the learning
process’✤ deep learning approach
collaborative learningcan increase student motivation + engagement mobile learning sophisticated mobile devices can garner a lot of
excitement
4
the iPad
iPad related initiatives due to: portability multi-modality cost savings sustainability
Apple mac technology - prevalent in Design courses
5
looking at
✤ student experience in using the iPad as part of an active learning process in learning web design + development
✤ the perceived impact of this method on the students’ learning outcomes
✤ the device enabled or hindered the learning process
6
study design: module
web design + development II elective module period: 13 weeks
o 3 four-week unitso duration: 3 hours
code development of client + server side technologies:html, css, javascript, xml, php, mysql
7
study design: participants
10 studentso final yearo 6 females, 4 maleso completed prerequisite module: web design +
development I
8
study design: teaching methodology
student-centered | active learning approach
intervals of short lecture units + problem solving exercises
basic syntax + simple examples coding entities were gradually constructed by
students
9
study design: phase 1
① informal communication setting ② no impact on marks③ problem and required solution were fully understood ④ identified steps needed + translated into
programming lingo
10
study design: phase 2
✤single input exercises✤groups-of-two exercises
11
single input exercises
✤ voluntary implementation ✤ exercise preloaded on editor software ✤ RDP (Doceri™), installed on iPad + instructor’s
workstation✤ user-input projected in real time on whiteboard✤ assistance from group was encouraged✤ device was passed-on
12
groups-of-two exercises
✤ compulsory✤ teams of two students✤ exercises preloaded on IDE (JS Bin)✤ independent completion✤ time-constraint✤ solution of first-group-to-finish displayed on
whiteboard
13
survey 2 focus group sessions lessons 1 + 4
observation
research & analysis
⎬
⎬
quantitative | qualitative
qualitative
14
pre-study survey: results
✤ average to excellent previous experience✤ easy to learn + use✤ mostly undecided about whether it :
o can help in the general learning processo can help when learning programming
15
key findings
✤active learning✤problem-solving ✤collaborative learning + equality✤single input vs groups-of-two exercises✤device affordances
16
1|active learning
✤ practice-based learning✤ better comprehension + assimilation✤ ...through scaffolding
o exchange of data + initiatives amongst groupo build from previous knowledge
✤ able to create more compound coding structures✤ minimal instruction prior to practice
17
2|problem-solving
✤ mistakes deemed important✤ trial and error✤ arrived to a better understanding of programming
concepts + methods✤ more effective than a solution-ready approach✤ reflection of experience vs reflection of instruction
18
3|collaboration + equality
✤ movers + stopperso persistent + successive contributions from the
entire groupo exposed a realistic picture of the problem-solving
process✤ synchronized level of knowledge acquirement✤ sense of equality
19
4|single input vs groups-of-two
✤ enthusiastic to help but unwilling to do it - risk of exposing:
o ignoranceo inabilityo shortcomings
✤pressing time constraints✤peer pressure✤ intrinsic pressure✤can lead to confusion
20
4|single input vs groups-of-two
✤ favored by female participantso collaboration was found crucial for comprehension
and performance in coding taskso peer tutoring
✤ male participants: o heterogeneity in personal coding styles
21
5|iPad affordances
1. obscured screen ‘real estate’
✤when keyboard is activated (keyboard-screen asymmetry)
✤ simultaneous overview + code segments focus✤ additional physical effort (pinching + spreading,
swiping)
22
5|iPad affordances
2. inability of native keyboard to cater for coding needs
✤absence of certain characters + symbols required✤ increased cognitive load✤small size of keys (read-tap asymmetry)
< > {} = + ( ) “”
23
5|iPad affordances3. point-to-click inaccuracy
✤efficient coding hindered by difficulties in:ocut|copy-pasteo select
✤ resorted to re-typing entire code statement “too hard to point to the exact spot”✤built-in lens feature was found to be confusing
oambiguity in actual fingertip versus virtual position
24
5|iPad affordances
4. lack of code-editing affordances
✤no isolated code + preview panel actionso select, magnification, scrolling occurred in both
✤scroll bars appeared too thin to handle✤ lack of code auto completion
25
general outcomes
✤ substitute one-way lecturing with active participation, collaborative problem solving
✤ enhanced perceived learning outcomes✤ theory should not be entirely precluded in favor
of practice✤ technology|mobile supported learning✤ responsibility lies with the educator:
o quantity of content, quality of content, order, treatment
✤ perceived learning experience was hindered by device-specific interface limitations
26
iPad-specific outcomes
✤ problematic typing on touchscreen ✤ inability to point and select with precision ✤ accidental error-prone activation✤ keyboard-to-screen asymmetry✤ read-to-tap asymmetry✤ lack of control and feedback in the gestural
interface
27
what next?
sample of participants scope of experiment device-related limitations
o processing powero screen resolutiono external keyboard + mouse
28
Thank you
questions?