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?