Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Tech Know Learn (2013) 18:165–178

DOI 10.1007/s10758-013-9207-z

The Role of iPads in Constructing Collaborative


Learning Spaces

Brian Fisher • Timothy Lucas • Araksi Galstyan

Published online: 20 September 2013


Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Traditionally, research on technology in mathematics education focuses on


interactions between the user and the technology, but little is known about how technology
can facilitate face-to-face interaction among students. We will explore the role that iPads
versus traditional laptops play in shaping the learning spaces in which students explore
concepts in business calculus. We will present a system for coding student interactions
with the technology and fellow classmates during classroom observations. Our main result
is that introducing the iPad, a portable device with a tactile interface and intuitive appli-
cations, enhances collaboration by allowing students to transition back and forth from
private to public learning spaces.

Keywords Learning spaces  Classroom technology  iPad  Business


calculus

1 Introduction

Since its release in April 2010, the iPad has drastically altered the computing landscape
and has been applauded for its potential to bring people together in social computing (della
Cava 2010). It is not surprising, then, that the iPad made an immediate impact on the
education community and has been adopted by numerous institutions of learning (Hu
2011). Although different institutions have wrestled with the challenge of adopting the

B. Fisher  T. Lucas (&)  A. Galstyan


Mathematics Department, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu,
CA 90263, USA
e-mail: timothy.lucas@pepperdine.edu
B. Fisher
e-mail: brian.fisher@pepperdine.edu
A. Galstyan
e-mail: araksi.galstyan@pepperdine.edu

123
166 B. Fisher et al.

iPad in different ways (Chester 2010), early studies of the iPad have been positive as
institutions have found that the iPad excels as a media consumption device (Kolowich
2010) which allows instructors to weave more information from more sources into the
classroom dialogue. At the same time, the ease of use, mobility and vast array of apps have
been identified as features of the iPad that make it ideal for classroom use (Fusch 2011).
These results have been found primarily through surveys, interviews and other indirect
sources of data collection.1 At this time there is very little research involving direct
observation of the usage of iPads in the classroom.
The motivation for our research originated with a campus-wide initiative to study the
effectiveness of the iPad as a classroom tool at Pepperdine University.2 The pilot study
began in the fall of 2010 with four courses from four different disciplines, each with two
identical sections. For each course, one section was given a set of iPads to be used both
inside and outside of the classroom throughout the term and the other section was taught in
the same manner as previous terms. The university study focused on the effect the iPad had
on student performance with regard to specific learning outcomes in each of the four
courses.
The university study included two sections of Business Calculus which incorporated
many group activities that are designed to lead the students through the development of
new concepts or applications. Prior to the study, students exclusively used personal laptops
as their computational device in Business Calculus. During the study, one section of the
course with 24 students used spreadsheets and a Java graphing applet that ran on personal
laptops while the other section with 20 students ran similar applications on the iPad.
During that semester we became aware that the students interacted with the technology and
each other differently between the two sections. Students that were working with laptops
had trouble collaborating because they were isolated from each other by their screens. In
contrast, we observed that the size and portability of the iPad allowed students to share
their screens as part of their dialogue. One student from the iPad section reflected ‘‘You’re
more likely to help each other when it’s portable and you can see what each other is
doing.’’ This prompted us to consider a revised study in the fall of 2011 that focused on
how the technology influenced the way in which students worked collectively.

2 Research Motivation

Since the 1990s, and in particular the publication of the embodied mind (Varela et al.
1991), there has been an increased emphasis on human cognition as shaped by the inter-
actions of an individual with his surrounding environment. This perspective moves away
from a view that the mind simply observes the world to an acknowledgement that the
individual is an active participant in the world he is experiencing and the structure of the
mind is wholly interconnected with his experiences. According to Lakoff and Núñez
(2000) all human understanding originates from these bodily experiences which are then
transferred to abstract conceptualizations through metaphorical projection. They argue that
abstract concepts, and in particular mathematics, arise from embodied metaphors.
As technology becomes more pervasive in our culture and our classrooms it is natural to
ask what bodily experiences students have with regard to technology. Naturally, students’
experiences will vary significantly with the technology used. We would expect students to
1
http://community.pepperdine.edu/it/tools/ipad/research/similarstudies.htm.
2
http://community.pepperdine.edu/it/tools/ipad/research/.

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 167

experience educational software that emphasizes text and static images in a fundamentally
different manner than software that incorporates dynamic images and allows for high
levels of user interaction. This observation has led designers to focus on the development
of multimodal technology that allows for diverse experiences for the user while engaging
in technology.
Along with increased sensory experiences arising from technology comes a greater
challenge for the user to effectively absorb the added information given the constraints of
human thought (Sweller 1999). According to dual coding theory (Clark and Paivio 1991),
audio and visual information are decoded and processed along different channels in the
brain. This has allowed developers to improve user recall by creating technology that
simultaneously communicates with both the audio and visual systems of the user. This
philosophy of technology development has experienced success in a wide range of fields
from assisting students with autism (Dautenhahn and Werry 2004) to aiding students’
conception of infinite sequences (Cory and Garofalo 2011). According to Mayer (2009)
learning in a multimedia environment occurs when audio and visual representations based
on information received from technology are organized and coordinated with one another
and prior representations. Furthermore, studies from multiple disciplines have shown an
improvement in learning when the information received from technology is designed to be
manipulated by the user (Harman et al. 1999; Jones 2000; James et al. 2002; Stieff and
Wilensky 2003). With the recent popularization of iPads and other haptic devices, the
ability for students to engage mathematics in multimodal environments is expanding.
(Jaimes and Sebe 2007; Hegedus and Moreno-Armella 2011).
Moreno-Armella and Hegedus (2009) describe two such technologically-enhanced
environments, SimCalc MathWorlds and dynamic geometry programs such as Cabri II?
and Geometers Sketchpad. These programs fundamentally alter the learning of mathe-
matics by providing students an interactive environment to explore mathematical objects.
In regards to such environments they observe that, ‘‘The emergent knowledge from this
digital medium is different from the knowledge emerging from a paper-and-pencil medium
because the mediator is not epistemologically neutral. That is, the nature of the knowledge
is inextricably linked to the mediating artifact.’’ (p. 511).
Given the importance of the experiences that students develop while engaging with
technologically enhanced learning environments, it is natural to ask how students interact
with these devices in a classroom setting. There is significant research describing the
interactions between students and technology-rich environments (Drijvers et al. 2010;
Raines and Clark 2011) as well as a growing field of research on using technology as
medium to connect students within a learning environment (Chen et al. 2008; Liu et al.
2009). Although there is some evidence that advanced technology can support meaningful
discourse among students (Güçler et al. 2013), there remains much to be known about how
students interact with one another while using technological devices in a traditional, face-
to-face learning environment. For this reason we are studying the role a particular device
plays within a group of students working together on a technology-dependent assignment.
In particular, we wish to examine how the choice of device (laptop vs. iPad) affects the
manner in which students use the technology during face-to-face conversations.

3 Theoretical Perspective

Our theoretical perspective for this study relies primarily upon the foundational work of
Vygotsky (1978, 1986), which recognizes that the process of learning is inherently social

123
168 B. Fisher et al.

and our interaction with others is central to our development as a learner. This perspective
has been extended to describe the social aspects of student activity (Engeström et al. 1999)
and instrumentation (Drijvers and Trouche 2008). From this viewpoint we agree with
Ernest (1994) that mathematical thought is primarily conversational in nature and that an
individual’s perceptions of mathematical concepts are linguistically mediated through
social activity.
For a learner, knowledge is socially constructed through the publication and appro-
priation of signs. Signs are words, gestures, images, or other publicly displayed statements
that carry signified meaning in the context of the conversation. The meanings of the signs
are repeatedly shaped by the learner through the cycle shown in Fig. 1 which is adapted
from Ernest (2010). The cycle begins as an individual displays a sign publicly in order to
express his personal meaning to members of the conversation. The other members of
conversation may respond to this public statement in a manner that alters or influences the
meaning of the sign for the individual. At this point the individual is able to appropriate
this new, socially negotiated meaning back into his own privately owned schema. The
individual is now able to use this transformed sign in his internal conversation or display it
publicly representing the new transformed meaning.
This process is central to social learning and allows the individual to bridge the gap
between his understanding and that of others. As Ernest (2010) puts it, ‘‘the processes of
appropriation and publication are boundary operations between public and private domains
in which the learner participates in the communicative activity of sign reception and
production’’ (p. 45). It is essential at this point to stop and recognize the existence and
importance of two locations for learning, the public and private. In order for a sign to
develop a robust social meaning it must fluently travel between these two locations for
each individual involved in the conversation.
The introduction of technology into the conversation changes the dynamics of sign use
within the conversation. Because the technology creates and distributes signs to its users,
these signs must be considered as an active part of the conversation. Frequently, however,
these signs are restricted to the individual user manipulating the technology and are not
intended to enter into the public domain of the conversation. This in turn creates a dynamic
in which some members of the conversation may possess both a visual and auditory sign
for a given concept but attempt to communicate that sign to others in a strictly auditory

Fig. 1 A model of sign appropriation and use by Ernest (2010)

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 169

manner. As communication with technology becomes more complex it becomes more


essential that members of the learning community are able to communicate in the same
multimodal manner as they interact with the technology.
Liu et al. (2009) distinguished between uses of technology among students with
handheld devices and a shared display by using the terms private and public space. For
students in her study, the information provided by the handheld device remained in the
private space until that student made a conscious decision to publish that information
through a shared display. In this case the shared display system provides the rest of the
group access to an individual’s work, facilitating a group discussion of the material. We
can extend this notion of public versus private space to characterize collaborations between
students in any setting. For students working independently with technology while part of a
small group, the signs that are created through interacting with technology are privately
owned by the student. The student can then choose to grant access to his signs by sharing
his technology with the group. Figure 2 shows how the iPad can be used either publicly or
privately when students are working together in small groups.
During the conversation, the physical space that the technology occupies affects the
accessibility of the device to others in the group. Similar to studies of proxemics (Hall
1966) we will measure the distance between a group member and piece of technology by
the degree to which that group member is able to access the technology. This accessibility
is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the technology and the students’ will-
ingness to collaborate with each other. We define three tiers of accessibility for a device
being used publicly:
1. Multi-use: Multiple students can interact with a single device.
2. Multi-view: Other students can only view the user’s interactions with a device.
3. Single-use: Other students can only discuss the user’s interactions with a device.
In a typical classroom setting, these three tiers are hierarchical in the sense that a student
who is able to interact with the technology will also be able to view and discuss the
technology. The accessibility of the device in each of the three tiers is illustrated in Fig. 3.
When interacting with multi-modal devices, the signs created by the user are the result of
manipulating visual content on the device. In this case, there will be a significant difference
in the communication of these signs depending upon the accessibility of the student’s
device to the other members of the conversation.

Fig. 2 An example of a student displaying his iPad publicly and another student performing a computation
with his iPad privately

123
170 B. Fisher et al.

Student Student Student Student Student Student

Tech Tech Tech

Fig. 3 Three tiers of accessibility of a device within a conversation between students. (Left) Multiple
students can input and receive output from a device. (Center) A student can only view and discuss output
from another student’s interactions with a device. (Right) A student can only discuss the output from another
student’s interactions with a device

4 Methods

In collecting data for our study, we followed Engestrom’s first principle of activity theory
by focusing on the social structure of collaborative learning rather than the individual as
our unit of analysis (Engeström 2001). In order to analyze the role technology plays in
collaborations, we thoroughly reviewed the pilot data in order to create a coding scheme
that captured both students interactions with one another and the role of technology within
those interactions. Our analysis of student interactions was inspired by Granott’s (1993)
two dimensional interaction model which is constructed from the relative expertise of the
students in a group and the degree of interactions among the group. Our model begins with
describing each group member’s use of the public or private space which is dependent on
how accessible the technology was to each member of the group. To capture the degree of
interactions we included a code for the type of activity within the group. To capture the
relative expertise of the members of a conversation, we included codes for which members
were involved in the conversation and the relative dominance among group members. Our
resulting coding scheme is outlined in Table 1 and described in detail below.
When observing a group of students we recorded the activity of each student in the
group using the label that best described the student’s behavior from each of the five
categories listed in Table 1. We categorized students as working in the private versus
public space, noting whether or not those public interactions incorporated technology.
When working in the public space, we observed the students discussing the material,
viewing each other’s work or devices, or interacting with the technology. These codes are
hierarchical in that all instances of interacting with the technology involved viewing and
all use of the public space involved a discussion. We note that the accessibility of the
technology as pictured in Fig. 3 will influence the students ability to publicly discuss, view
or interact with the technology. Students working in the private space were thinking,
writing, interacting with the device or possibly not involved in coursework. We chose not
to code these actions because it was difficult to distinguish between categories and our
study was focused on interactions in the public space. We characterized the students’
activities as either translation, computation, verification, validation or off topic. The act of
translation refers to a broad range of activities involving a student mediating on behalf of
other group members. These activities typically involve a misunderstanding between a
student and the technology or a student and the course materials (e.g. definitions, graphs,
tables or problem statements). In this setting, the translator intercedes to ensure a common

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 171

Table 1 A list of categories and codes used to describe the interactions and use of technology while
students are working in groups
Physical space Use of public space Activity Verbal exchange Relative dominance

Private Discussing Translation Bidirectional Guiding


Public (w/tech) Viewing Computation Multidirectional Following
Public (w/o tech) Interacting Verification Occasional Shared
Validation Opposed
Off topic

understanding of the course materials or technology. Computation refers to performing


calculations either on paper or using technology. Verification refers to students simply
checking each other’s answers while validation describes the process of examining the
thought process involved in solving a problem. We captured which students were involved
in the discussion by labeling the verbal exchange as bidirectional, multidirectional or
occasional if a student was only partially involved in the conversation. Finally, we char-
acterized the relative dominance of the students in the group by whether they were guiding
or following, there was a shared dominance or the students held opposing views. Using
these codes we were able to record a snapshot of the behavior of each group five times
throughout a 50 min class period.
Figures 4 and 5 provide two snapshots of interactions amongst the students and tech-
nology in class and the corresponding codes. In Fig. 4, two students are viewing each
other’s laptops in the public space while a third student is working independently with her
laptop. The two students engaged in the bidirectional discussion are simply verifying each
other’s work on a question that involved a spreadsheet computation. Neither student
touches the other student’s laptop throughout the conversation and the picture is similar to
the Multi-view diagram in Fig. 3. In Fig. 5 all three students are working in the public
space. Two students are interacting with a single iPad with one student acting as a
translator to guide the other through a spreadsheet computation. The picture is very similar
to the Multi-use diagram in Fig. 3. The third student is viewing the interactions of the other
two students with the iPad and makes occasional contributions to the conversation.
The data we present in this paper comes from an in-depth study of two sections of
Business Calculus in the fall of 2011. The first section contained 22 students and each
student was issued an iPad to be used both inside and outside the classroom. The second
section contained 27 students who used their personal laptops throughout the semester.
Approximately two thirds of the students matriculated in the fall of 2011 and were placed
into one of the two sections by the registrar’s office. The returning students registered for
one of the two sections the previous spring. None of the students were aware of the study
prior to the beginning of the semester and students were not allowed to switch between
sections. In both sections, the students worked together in groups approximately half of the
total class time. Both sections participated in identical activities designed to guide the
students to discover a new core concept or application. These activities included linear,
exponential and power fits of data as well as investigations of limits, difference quotients
and Riemann sums using spreadsheets: Numbers on the iPad or Microsoft Excel on the
laptops. For the purposes of these activities Numbers and Excel provided the same func-
tionality. The students were also provided with Graphing Calculator HD3 on the iPad and a

3
http://www.appcylon.com/graphing-calculator-hd/.

123
172 B. Fisher et al.

Fig. 4 A sample coding of a group working together in the laptop section. The students are numbered from
left to right

Fig. 5 A sample coding of a group working together in the iPad section. The students are numbered from
left to right

Java graphing applet4 on the laptops which could be used to explore graphs of functions
and their derivatives. The main difference between these two applications is the use of a
touch screen and gestures to manipulate graphs on the iPad versus a keyboard and mouse

4
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/dstrong/Java/CalculusNew/.

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 173

on the laptops. The use of technology to investigate concepts in calculus and solve
computationally complex problems was a major theme in both sections of the course.
Our observations of both sections focused on five class periods in which the students
worked exclusively in groups on activities that required the use of technology. For each 50 min
class period we chose two to three groups and recorded a snapshot of the interactions among
students and the technology five times throughout the period. Each of these class periods were
recorded on video. Initial coding was performed by the observer during the class period and
independently validated by the remaining two researchers using video data. Differing opinions
were addressed in a group discussion until all researchers reached a consensus. We then
triangulated our direct observational data with indirect data from the students. We invited
students from both sections to participate in focus groups about their general impressions of
how technology impacted the course and at the end of the term we collected written surveys
about their experiences with technology throughout the course. Both the iPad and laptop
sections were asked the same questions during the focus groups and on written surveys.

5 Results and Analysis

5.1 Results from Observation Data

Table 2 displays the results from five class observations arranged by the categories listed in
Table 1. These observation totals give us an insight into the similarities and differences in
behavior between the iPad and laptop sections of the course. We first note that when
working in groups, there is not much difference in the amount of time that the students
worked in the public space, 69.1 % for the iPad section versus 74.7 % for the laptop
section. The difference between these two sections was that students with iPads incorpo-
rated the technology into nearly all of their public interactions while students incorporated
their laptops into approximately half of their public interactions. This gives us our first
insight into how the accessibility of the iPad affects the willingness for students to use the
technology publicly.
The difference between the two sections can be seen more clearly when examining how
the students used the public space. For the students in the laptop section 57.9 % of their
public collaborations were discussions that did not involve viewing or interacting with the
technology. The remaining time in the public space was spent viewing the technology
(30.8 %) and interacting with the technology (11.3 %). In contrast, discussions only
comprised 30.8 % of the public interactions in the iPad section while 36.9 and 32.3 % of
the time was spent publicly viewing and interacting with the technology, respectively.
These data show that students with the iPads were more willing to share their screens and
interact with each other’s devices while developing the mathematics. Laptops were more
often regarded as private workspaces with students publicly discussing the process or
results. One explanation for this difference is that the portability of the iPad allowed for
students to interact more with each other’s devices while the laptop screens restricted the
interactions to primarily verbal discussions. Another explanation could be that the tactile
and intuitive nature of the iPad applications allowed for more collaboration.
As with the amount of time each section spent in the public versus private space, there
was very little difference in the types of verbal exchange between the students and the
relative dominance within the group. There was also little difference in the types of
activities in which the students participated throughout the classes. This is evidence that
the students in both sections were similar in their willingness to engage in group activities.

123
174 B. Fisher et al.

Table 2 Observation totals from


iPad section Laptop section
five class periods using the cate-
gories listed in Table 1
Physical space
Private 58 (30.9 %) 45 (25.3 %)
Public (Total) 130 (69.1 %) 133 (74.7 %)
Public (w/tech) 129 (67.0 %) 91 (51.1 %)
Public (w/o tech) 1 (0.5 %) 42 (23.6 %)
Use of public space
Discussing 40 (30.8 %) 77 (57.9 %)
Viewing 48 (36.9 %) 41 (30.8 %)
Interacting 42 (32.3 %) 15 (11.3 %)
Activity
Translation 26 (19.8 %) 43 (32.1 %)
Computation 46 (35.1 %) 32 (23.9 %)
Verification 44 (33.6 %) 33 (24.6 %)
Validation 14 (10.7 %) 16 (11.9 %)
Off Topic 1 (0.8 %) 10 (7.5 %)
Verbal exchange
Multidirectional 42 (29.4 %) 55 (39.6 %)
Each code represents a single
observation of an individual Bidirectional 69 (48.2 %) 57 (41.0 %)
group member during one of five Occasional 32 (22.4 %) 27 (19.4 %)
observations per 50 min class Relative dominance
period. The Use of Public Space,
Guiding 37 (28.5 %) 32 (24.1 %)
Activity, Verbal Exchange and
Relative Dominance categories Following 54 (41.5 %) 51 (38.3 %)
all represent interactions in the Shared 39 (30.0 %) 50 (37.6 %)
public space

The largest difference between the two sections was that the students with personal laptops
were more likely to stray away from their assigned tasks, 7.5 % of activities were off-topic
as compared to 0.8 % in the iPad group. One explanation for this difference could be the
way in which iPads and laptops define the personal workspace of each student. The laptop
screens can isolate students in their personal workspaces and conceal their activities from
other group members. Since the iPads were often left face up on the desks, the devices
were visible to the entire group and students could not hide their activities from the rest of
the group. Another explanation could be that the iPad only allows the user to work with
one application at a time while laptops allow for multiple windows to be open at once.

5.2 Results from Focus Groups and Surveys

After the conclusion of our observations, all students completed written surveys and fre-
quently observed groups were invited to participate in focus groups. On written surveys
and during interviews students from both sections were asked how their respective tech-
nology affected interactions with classmates. A main theme in the responses from students
was to point out the accessible nature of the iPad versus the private nature of the laptop.
For example a student in the iPad focus group reflected, ‘‘I mean it is easier to show on the
iPad because it’s more mobile. Um whereas it’s hard like you know to put two laptops
together and to compare, with the iPad you can move it and manipulate it so that it is easier
to share in a group.’’ In contrast, a student in the laptop focus group responded that laptops

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 175

Table 3 Survey responses about


Device use iPad Laptop
how students used the technol-
section section
ogy, iPad or laptop
Reading materials 9 (53%) 3 (16%)
Completing homework, quizzes 16 (94%) 18 (95%)
and exams
Presenting material to the class 4 (24%) 1 (5%)
Showing information to classmates 14 (82%) 9 (47%)
Total respondents 17 19

Table 4 Survey responses to the question ‘‘How helpful was your device, iPad or laptop, for sharing
information with others in class?’’
Section Very unhelpful Unhelpful Neutral Helpful Very helpful Total

iPad 0 1 1 9 6 17
Laptop 0 0 8 9 2 19

are ‘‘hard for more than one person to use.’’ As seen in the written survey results in Fig. 3,
82 % of the students in the iPad section responded that they used the device to show
information to classmates, while only 47 % in the laptop section indicated the same.
Similarly Table 4 shows that 88 % of the students in the iPad section found the device
helpful for sharing information with others in the class, while only 58 % of the laptop
section found the device helpful for sharing.
In the post-term surveys we asked the students how they felt the technology was used
effectively in the course. The students in the laptop section exclusively referred to the
usefulness of the spreadsheet and graphing applications. While students in the iPad section
also responded positively about the apps themselves, they also discussed the accessibility of
the technology, stating that they would ‘‘compare graphs with other classmates’’ and ‘‘could
easily show our equations to those around us.’’ To those students, the iPad was not just a
device for calculations, but a tool for sharing their work and collaborating on problems.
During the focus groups, we also noticed a subtle difference in how the two sections
described the effect that their collaborations in class had on their understanding of the
material. There was a contrast in emphasis between the two classes, an emphasis on
sharing answers in the laptop class versus an emphasis on explaining concepts in the iPad
class. Several students in the laptop section saw the benefit of the assistance from their
classmates in obtaining answers. For example, one student explained ‘‘I mean if somebody
has already got it on their computer figured out, then they could show you and explain why
he did this and how he did it, and that helps to see the final result.’’ Another student
remarked, ‘‘I just kind of ask them (the other group members) and they do a pretty good job
of explaining it.’’ In contrast, several students in the iPad section discussed the benefit of
having to explain a concept to another student. One student commented, ‘‘I didn’t really
understand it when he (the teacher) was explaining it until we like went into our small
groups and like I had to explain it to someone else.’’ Similarly another student explained ‘‘I
knew how to do the problem, but then when I actually explained it back then it wasn’t just
rote memorization, it was understanding the concept.’’ In analyzing the transcripts of the
focus groups we noted eight separate instances in which iPad students mentioned that they
took advantage of the opportunity to teach their classmates and solidify their own

123
176 B. Fisher et al.

understanding of the material. In contrast, the laptop students commented four times on the
value of receiving assistance from their classmates, but never mentioned the benefit of
explaining concepts to others. In our opinion this difference may be attributed to the
accessibility of the two devices. Laptops, primarily used privately, lend themselves to
sharing information only at the conclusion of the problem; whereas, the iPad’s versatility
allows students to use it as a device for explanation throughout the problem solving
process.

6 Conclusion

iPads and other tablet devices have been lauded as beneficial for education due to their
portability and efficiency as media consumption devices. This study establishes strong
support for the adoption of these devices for a separate reason: their ability to transform the
spaces in which students work. Throughout our study, we observed that the accessibility of
the iPad facilitated the collaborations between students. The size, portability, versatility
and tactile nature of the iPad are four of the main factors that contribute to it’s accessi-
bility. Unlike a handheld graphing calculator, the iPad has a large screen that can be clearly
viewed and manipulated by multiple students. Similar to a laptop computer, the iPad is
capable of running a more diverse set of applications than a graphing calculator. One major
difference is that the iPad is smaller and more portable than a laptop. In discussing the
psychology of learning spaces Graetz (2006) quotes a professor who bans laptops in the
classroom because they add a ‘‘picket fence between you and the students.’’ (AP 2006). In
our study, we observed that laptops can create picket fences between students working
together in groups. In contrast, the iPad can be used by one or more students while lying
flat on a table and can be picked up and shown to classmates. Both laptops and graphing
calculators use keyboard inputs that limit the number of simultaneous users while the iPad
display allows multiple students to use gestures to manipulate objects on the screen. Due to
their size and modes of input, graphing calculators with small screens and laptops that
create large barriers are best used as private workspaces. The advantage of the iPad is that
it can also serve as a public center of communication in which multiple students can view,
discuss, and interact with the device simultaneously.
As teachers when we consider the adoption of new technology, we should pay close
attention to the physical space of the classroom and the space that technology occupies,
always seeking settings in which students in collaboration can transform their private
workspaces into highly accessible public workspaces as they desire. These considerations
should inform the development of educational applications as well as activities and
assignments that incorporate technology. Our study focused on the role of technological
devices in shaping learning spaces, but we recognize the need for further research on the
applications, activities and assignments that encourage the collaborative use of technology.
Our study emphasized student actions, but we recognize that a closer study of student
dialog may reveal how the ability to view and interact with a device impacts the way
students discuss mathematics.
This study demonstrates how the physical space that technology occupies inside a
classroom works to shape the manner in which that technology is incorporated into dif-
ferent classroom interactions. Because of its physical makeup and tactile input, the iPad is
able to take on dual roles during a student-to-student conversation: the role of a private
workspace for an individual student and the role of a public workspace for sharing
information, teaching fellow group members, and co-exploring new ideas. As technology

123
The Role of iPads in Learning Spaces 177

continues to develop and new devices come onto the market, it is essential for educators to
question the physical makeup of technology and the impact it has on classroom interaction.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Timothy Chester for initiating the iPad study at Pepperdine
University and Dana Hoover and Janet Valencia for their involvement in conducting the university-wide
study.

References

AP. (2006). Law professor bans laptops in class, over student protest. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.
com/tech/news/2006-03-21-professor-laptop-ban_x.htm.
Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., & Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of
faculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 339–353.
Chester, T. M. (2010). Cio predicament: What to do about the ipad. Campus Technology. URL http://
campustechnology.com/articles/2010/05/05/cio-predicament-what-to-do-about-the-ipad.aspx.
Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3,
149–210.
Cory, B. L., & Garofalo, J. (2011). Using dynamic sketches to enhance preservice secondary mathematics
teachers’ understanding of limits of sequences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(1),
65–97.
Dautenhahn, K., & Werry, I. (2004). Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: Background motivation
and challenges. Pragmatics and Cognition, 12(1), 1–35.
della Cava, M. R. (2010). Does ipad have the magic to bring people together? USA Today. URL http://www.
usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2010-06-07-ipadculture07_CV_N.htm.
Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M.-A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y. C., et al. (2010). Integrating
technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In Mathematics education and
technology-Rethinking the terrain, (pp. 89–132). Springer.
Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the
orchestra metaphor. Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, 2,
363–392.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.
Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ernest, P. (1994). The dialogical nature of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education and
philosophy: An international persective, vol. 3 of studies in mathematics education series. The Falmer
Press.
Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman, & L. English (Eds.), Theories of
mathematics education: Seeking New Frontiers, Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer.
Fusch, D. (2011). Piloting the ipad. Academic Impressions. http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/
piloting-ipad.
Güçler, B., Hegedus, S., Robidoux, R., & Jackiw, N. (2013). Investigating the mathematical discourse of
young learners involved in multi-modal mathematical investigations: The case of haptic technologies.
In D. Martinovic, V. Freiman, & Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual Mathematics and Cyberlearning, vol. 1 of
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era (pp. 97–118). Springer: Netherlands.
Graetz, K. A. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces,
chap. 6. Educause. http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces.
Granott, N. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge: Separate minds, joint effort,
and weird creatures. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and
thinking in specific environments (pp. 183–207). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Harman, K. L., Humphrey, G. K., & Goodale, M. A. (1999). Active manual control of object views
facilitates visual recognition. Current Biology, 9, 1315–1318.
Hegedus, S., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2011). The emergence of mathematical structures. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 77, 369–388.
Hu, W. (2011). Math that moves: Schools embrace the ipad. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/01/05/education/05tablets.htm.

123
178 B. Fisher et al.

Jaimes, A., & Sebe, N. (2007). Multimodal human-computer interaction: A survey. Computer Vsion and
Image Understanding, 108(1–2), 116–134.
James, K., Humphrey, G., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. (2002). Active and passive
learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment.
Behavior Research Methods, 34, 383–390.
Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using
dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 44, 55–85.
Kolowich, S. (2010). Apple of their eye? Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/
22/college_students_test_drive_the_apple_ipad.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathe-
matics into being. Basic Books.
Liu, C.-C., Chung, C.-W., Chen, N.-S., & Liu, B.-J. (2009). Analysis of peer interaction in learning activities
with personal handhelds and shared displays. Educational Technology and Society, 12(3), 127–142.
Mayer, R. E., (2009). Multimedia learning. 2nd ed Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno-Armella, L., & Hegedus, S. J. (2009). Co-action with digital technologies. ZDM, 41(4), 505–519.
Raines, J. M., & Clark, L. M. (2011). A brief overview on using technology to engage students in
mathematics. Current Issues in Education, 14(2), 1–6.
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistryincorporating interactive simulations into the
chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 285–302.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

123

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen