Now, it can be confidently predicted that almost every student in America campus, especially high schools and universities possesses at least one digital product such as computer, cellphone and more latest iPad . Since the “invasion” of electronic devices is unavoidable, many researchers and educational institutions are trying to explore their adaptation to teaching setting. Previous studies and research on the role of these electronic products in the setting of campus are abundant. This article may shed light on the questions on whether and how should educators incorporate them in the teaching and student learning based on previous studies on the implementation of digital products in classroom.
Keywords: electronic devices, cellphone, iPad, computer, internet, student
Introduction
In this digital era, educators and policy-makers have a great interest in updating traditional education methods with digital products, ranging from more computer to iPad (Jonassen et al.; Engel and Tim; Curry et al.). Initially, these newborn artifact seemed to give people a promising prospect that they would surely revolutionize the field of education and have proven their value in terms of many areas such as improved efficiency and retention. While the revolution did come, problems come as well such as cyberbullying, easier cheating and distraction. (Braguglia; Gasparini and Alma) Some scholars began to be cautious about the implementation of digital products in the classroom. Previous studies have covered a wide range of related topics. This review will put together previous studies on the role of four technological inventions: computer, cellphone, iPad and internet in the setting of classroom, and how they have been used followed by changes brought to teacher’s instruction.
COMPUTER
Computer has long been viewed as a method to offer students increased access to information and a more economic way for teachers to delivery lecture to a large number of people. Early study focus on whether computer can bring about pedagogical advantages. For instance, Brewer (2) , based on his own teaching experience shows that computer-based teaching can be an effective tool to change students from passive recipients to active learners. Meanwhile, he stresses that practitioners need to be cautious about “student backlash” which means lectures with poor mastering of this technology tool may spend excessive amount of time on deciding how to present instead of what to present that is more essential for a class. For the purpose of maximizing computer’s positive advantages in instruction, Brewer (4) briefly describes four applications for merging it with teaching pedagogy: engaging lectures, learning environment and student’ participation, learning communities and real-time assessment of student’s achievement.
Jonassen et al (2) observe that computer can be used as Mindtools for students and introduce five classes of this application, including semantic organization tools, dynamic modeling tools, information interpretation tools, knowledge construction tools , and conversation and collaboration tools. While computers ‘value in boosting students’ reflecting on what they have learnt and disseminating information are clearly stated, Jonassen et al (3) remind audience to use it as a educational tool student to learn with, nor learn from.
Skolnik and Puzo (12) give a firm stance on computer’s positive impacts on enhancing instruction and learning efficiency, by enhancing student’s note-taking skills and boosting effectiveness in transferring information. However, their research has also found that using laptops in the classroom may raise the rate of academic dishonesty. Besides, more than 15% of student report that they have lost attention on the topic and been distracted to other applications. Similar cases can be found among teachers who complain that using Powerpoint often result in off-task activities.
Studies on application of computer in educational scenario are generally based on observation or survey instead of quantitative research. It often leads to lack of credibility based on a small amount of researchers and students’ personal comments. Future research can be conducted in a more systematic and statistical way.
CELLPHONE
There is an increasing number of research on cellphone on the campus in recent decade, accompanied by a booming in cellphone ownership among high school and college students. Educators and parents generally hold a negative opinion on it and their concern is challenged by research.
Engel and Tim (4) conduct a pilot program, tracing the usage of cell phones in a pre-calculus classroom at Clarkstown High Schoolin West Nyack, NY. They attempt to solve the dilemma faced by school officials that whether they should allow cellphone used in schools. Cell phones are used in three main manners: an audience response system, a research tool and a tool for collecting multi-media material. Generally speaking, the result is positive in that researchers witness gains in several areas including participating, reflection and academic assessment. Yet, considerations of integration of cell phone into the classroom are raised and two student examples are given. One example is a student without a cellphone; the other is a student with learning disability. Although special adjustment have been conducted to ensure them to take active part in class teaching activities and contribute to class discussion.
More recent studies tend to take a cautious stance on the implementation of cellphones in instruction. Robinson et al (3) states that cellphones pose real and tangible threats to schools in a number of areas. According to the authors, these threats are often caused by lack of prior education among students, low involvement of parents, and incompatible policy in school and community. In addition to student’s preparation, teachers involved in digital teaching need to have a clear understanding of how the devices work and be prepared for potential risks, including cyberbully and easier cheating; administrator have to be clear issues ensured from the implementation of mobile phones in instruction.
Concerning the interference of cellphone in learning and college life, Braguglia (4) conducts a survey among undergraduate business students with an intention to clarify the following four questions: (1) how much time is spent using a cellphone; (2) what impact do students believe they receive during learning; (3) how often do students use cellphones to assist learning; (4) how much do they pay for cellphone service. The results are informative. All students surveyed indicate that they own a cellphone and 44.8% of them spend four or more hours daily on their cellphones. The rate of students reporting to interact with their “digital friend” during every class time is 53.5%. Even though there are tons of applications available on the phone, 76.1% of students report they seldom or never use cellphones to facilitate learning. Faced with increasingly tight budget, college 77% students are still willing to spend more than $50 per month on cell phone service. Compared with previous qualitative research, this survey is more data-based since it covers 84 full-time business-majored college students. However, the sample remains too small to draw a generalized conclusion.
These research all lead to a conservatively positive stance toward cell-phone. The public and school administrators are curious about the possible changes brought by cell-phone to the classroom while they also concern about the possible risks such as cyberbully, more cheating and distraction.
IPAD
Since iPad was released in 2010, it has constantly drawn attention from both the public and academia. Almost everyone believes that this digital artifact will completely change students’ learning experience and teachers’ teaching methodology.
Curry et al. (5) conduct a four-year study to investigate the long-term effect of implementing iPad on instruction and school change. The study took place in Mason County High School in Maysville, Kentucky where iPads were placed into the hands of every student and teacher. The program evaluation is based upon information from multiple sources including end-of-course (EOC) assessments, ACT achievement, college and career readiness (CCR) ,break/loss data. The result does not show a strong correlation between the program and student’s EOC score except in the area social science. There is a clear improvement along the progress of implementation in the areas of ACT achievement and CCR. The results may be attributed to regular practice taken on iPad. After the initial excitement, teachers have concerns about gaming in the classroom, cheating and other disciplinary problems (Curry et al. 8).
Gasparini and Alma’s (4) study reveals a more positive side of iPad’s educational use. One interesting finding is that, in addition to multiple applications, using iPad can give students opportunity to show self identify and coolness (Gasparini and Alma 8). Another prominent finding is the emerging need for separating educational and leisure use of the iPad among students. These high school students start with an interest in using iPad for entertainment, yet quickly abandon this method and use their iPads mainly for educational purposes.
From two research aforementioned, students do not use iPad only for a gaming box or e-book reader. iPads bring about some brand new features to learning experience, including video access, hyperlink and colored notes. But some problems remain unsolved because of its entertaining features and being an easier access to cheating and other disciplinary matters. Besides, quantitative studies clearly find their place in the study in the past decade, but how to evaluate the effectiveness of the program need more discussion.
INTERNET
One main driver of Internet-based teaching method is the possibility of teaching a large number of people at the same time. Limited by size of the given lecture space, the number of audience is limited in traditional educational ways. With Internet, streamed video lecture become possible for unlimited number of audience watching simultaneously. Furthermore, the materials can be easily reproduced, solving the problem of remote resources allocation. It is fairly attractive for educational higher-education institutions and private educational entities with the increasing rent and higher requirement for space.
Twigg (4) records the Program in Course Redesign to address the problem of cost reduction and quality enhancement. Thirty institutions participated in this program and received a grant of $200,000 each. Internet revolution shows a positive result: all participants report a cost reduction by 40% on average. In terms of the criteria such as course-completion rates, retention rate, student satisfaction, the results are positive in general (Twigg 12). Despite the differences in how the project is run is each institution, there are five provenly effective course redesign models: supplemental, replacement emporium, fully online and buffet. Since the article focuses on introducing models and how it run in certain universities or colleges, no limitations nor disadvantages are mentioned in the article towards this program.
Limitations of online-learning cannot be ignored. Three major limitations are mentioned by Mahanta and Majidul (9). One is major barrier is the necessity of computer hardware and Internet coverage. Lack of computers and limited bandwidth can make institutions and teachers unwilling to open on-line courses. Another problem is that some students may have to learn Information and Communication Technology (ICT) before they can have full access to on-line resources. Self-discipline is required to have a successful online-learning and a large portion of students may stop learning when they are not self-motivated enough. The third barriers is the difficulty of seeking help from teachers compared with traditional face-to-face.
Compared with other digital devices, research on Internet-facilitated learning is abundant. E-learning has developed significantly from on-line communication tools to sophisticated “visual classroom”. All these achievement is attributed to the breakthrough in modern technology. However, without technological barriers, the drawbacks and limitation of this methodology is left with students’ personal issues which is more related to teachers’ guidance and students’ selfdiscipline.
CONCLUSION
Digital products keep updating, meeting consumers’ all types of needs. Two decades ago, most parents and educator held a cautious attitude towards them and believe that the less time spent before the screen, the better. However, when younger generation become more and more tech-saturated, more schools administrators and policy makers start to think about integrating smartphones, laptops, iPad into the classroom.
In this article, I try to accumulate the results of implementing four digital products: computer, cellphone, iPad and internet into classroom. As is shown in the discussion above, most people hold a positive attitude towards the application of computer into pedagogy, but still are cautious about its risks in cheating and distraction. Cellphones are pervading on campus, and their presence in classroom is a challenging effort. Since cellphones’ communicational advantages, they can be used as a good response tools. But some students tend to abuse cellphone for entertainment and even cyberbullying. The iPad did not come into students’ life until 2010. On one hand, some students and teachers make full use of its hardware and applications, other than merely an e-book reader. The entertainment function remain a good alternative for students to relax, but there is greater number of students who can separate educational and leisure use. The implementation of Internet is a larger picture than the other three. In the past 30 years, it has already completely changed how we receive and store information and knowledge. As is mentioned in the previous chapter, Internet-based teaching has to tackle the limitation of humanization other than technical barriers.
For further research, more quantitative studies should be conducted since most research in this field is more based on observation. One difficulty is how to statistically evaluate student’s progress in the program. In addition, a larger scale of research is needed in the aspect of larger scope of schools, larger number of students, more subjects involved, and more teaching scenarios. Furthermore, new digital devices are constantly emerging in the market, which leaves a question for researchers to keep in pace with them and develop new methods to revoluionze the classroom and evaluate their effectiveness accordingly.
References
Braguglia, Kay H. “Cellular Telephone Use: A Survey Of College Business Students.” Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), vol. 5, no. 4, 2011, pp. 55-62.
Brewer, Carol. “Computers in the Classroom: How Information Technology Can Improve Conservation Education.” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 657–660.
Curry, John H., et al. “Four More Years? A Longitudinal Study of One High School’s 1:1 IPad Implementation.” TechTrends, vol. 63, no. 1, 2018, pp. 53–61.
Engel, George, and Tim Green. “Cell Phones in the Classroom: Are We Dialing up Disaster?” TechTrends, vol. 55, no. 2, 2011, pp. 39–45.
Gasparini, Andrea, and Alma Culen. “ The iPad in a classroom: a cool personal item or simply an educational tool?" TechTrends, pp.204-209.
Jonassen, David H., et al. “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking.” TechTrends, vol. 43, no. 2, 1998, pp. 24–32.
Mahanta, Devajit, and Majidul Ahmed. "E-Learning objectives, methodologies, tools and its limitation." International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), no. 2 , 2012, pp.46-51.
Robinson, LeAnne, Abbie Brown, and Tim D. Green. Security vs. access: Balancing safety and productivity in the digital school. International Society for Technology in Education, 2010.
Skolnik, Richard, and Mia Puzo. "Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom." Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2008, pp.1.
Twigg, Carol A. “Improving Learning and Reducing Costs for Online Learning.” Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, pp. 1054–1060.