Writing a summary

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 4, 15 June 2010, 487–500

Tablet PCs in engineering mathematics courses at the J.B. Speed

School of Engineering

Jeffrey L. Hieb* and Patricia A.S. Ralston

Department of Engineering Fundamentals, J.B. Speed School of Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, USA

(Received 21 July 2009)

In fall 2007, J.B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville joined the ranks of universities requiring the purchase of Tablet PCs for all new entering students. This article presents a description of how the Department of Engineering Fundamentals incorporated Tablet PCs into their instruction, a review of the literature pertaining to the use of Tablet PCs for instruction and preliminary survey results from the students in engineering mathematics courses at the end of the first year, after students had been exposed to Tablet PCs for 1 year. Results show that a large majority of students in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals agree that presentation of engineering mathematics material using the Tablet PCs and DyKnow software is a vast improvement over overhead projector, blackboard, or PowerPoint lectures and course packs. However, students are split as to whether the Tablet PC is something they actually want to use for their own note-taking. Finally, a plan for assessment of tablet impact on student learning is presented.

Keywords: tablet pc; engineering mathematics instruction

1. Introduction

Many schools and universities, in the US and abroad, have begun incorporating Tablet PCs and associated presentation software, such as Classroom Presenter and DyKnow, into classroom instruction [1]. A survey of recent literature shows that most institutions are currently relying on student survey responses as the primary assessment of the impact this new technology is having on student learning, indicating that assessment of the impact of Tablet PCs on student learning is still in the preliminary stages. It is well established [2] that incorporating active learning and collaborative activities into courses improves student learning outcomes in many cases. Much of the educational excitement surrounding Tablet PCs comes from the new and exciting ways of active learning that can be implemented using features regularly praised in DyKnow and Classroom Presenter. However, Tablet PCs offer other student learning enhancement opportunities that should be explored as part of a deliberate migration to the use of Tablet PCs in the classrooms of higher education.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0020–739X print/ISSN 1464–5211 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/00207390903477467

http://www.informaworld.com

The Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville began requiring entering freshmen to purchase Tablet PCs in fall 2007. Only entering freshman are required to purchase a Tablet PC, therefore, incorporation of Tablet PCs into courses is occurring gradually as the percentage of students with Tablet PCs increases with each entering freshman class. The Department of Engineering Fundamentals teaches core engineering mathematics courses, such as Engineering Analysis I, II and III and Differential Equations. Since these courses are taken predominantly by freshman and sophomores, the department has begun incorporat- ing the use of Tablet PCs into their instruction. This article discusses the department’s experiences to date, including the strategy taken in incorporating Tablet PCs into courses, and faculty and student impressions about the use of Tablet PCs. Section 2 reviews the current literature on the use of Tablet PCs in education. The department’s initial incorporation of Tablet PCs into its courses is described in Section 3 and a preliminary evaluation of that incorporation is presented in Section 4. Conclusions and future directions for the continued effort to incorporate Tablet PCs into courses in ways that provide a measurable benefit for students’ learning are discussed in Section 5.

2. Literature review of Tablet PC use

Since the introduction of the Tablet PC edition of Windows XP in 2002, there has been a significant increase in the interest in Tablet PCs, no more so than in education. There are many uses of Tablet PCs in education. Tablet PCs can be used by instructors for lecture and presentation; using a Tablet PC and a projector, instructors can mark up prepared notes or use the Tablet PC as an electronic white board on which to conduct the class. On the other side of the desk, students can use Tablet PCs in lieu of traditional paper and pencil for taking notes during class. Or when both instructors and students have Tablet PCs, the use of specialized software makes new types of collaborative and active teaching and learning possible.

Many recent papers describe the software tools that have been developed to enhance the teaching and learning aspects of specific classes when Tablet PCs are used by both instructors and students. These tools are sometimes referred to as classroom learning systems or CLS [3]. Most commonly used tools include DyKnow Vision and Monitor [4], Classroom Presenter [5], Ubiquitous Presenter [6] which enhances Classroom Presenter and expands it to support non-tablet audiences and InkSurvey [7] which is a simple and robust web-based tool to facilitate the use of open-ended questions in Tablet PC classrooms. Group Scribbles [8] is a platform that supports more generalized coordination among students and can be down- loaded for free from http://groupscribbles.sri.com.

Widely published are papers that describe these tools and tout the merits of the particular tool, usually focusing on aspects that encourage active and collaborative learning but sometimes also note-taking [5,9–11]. One case study [12] specifically addressed the presentation capability of Tablet PCs, with survey results from two mechanical engineering classes indicating that students are more likely to pay attention during the lecture and recognize salient points when Tablet PCs are used. Several of the papers included in this review [13–15] acknowledge that students are often distracted by software applications other than the note-taking software used in

488 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

a specific class and therefore fail to stay focused on the material. Kraushaar et al. [13] actually gathered data on use of distracting software such as gaming or email and discuss briefly the difference between laptop and Tablet PC distractions. A disturbing finding from their analysis of 108 students was that on average, a Tablet PC user opened 93 active windows during a 75-min lecture. At least one CLS, DyKnow, includes a feature that allows instructors to block specific programs to discourage engaging in distractive Tablet PCs use. A recent paper by Lim et al. [14] had data that showed students placed more value on class attendance and note- taking if partial notes were available for download rather than the entire lecture with annotations. According to Lim et al., when students could get complete notes without attending class, they did not attend class. Birmingham and DiStasi present survey results in [3] from 130 students in 13 different computer science classes. Survey responses indicated that students seem to prefer the use of CLS and Tablet PCs to overheads and chalkboards but not to PowerPoint and OneNote. Neither did they find any advantage to Tablet PCs, despite the faculty thinking they were providing many more active learning opportunities. Students tended to be neutral or

to disagree with statements asserting the benefits of Tablet PCs for actual learning. Since their survey was completely optional and online, the results may not be truly representative.

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has been using Tablet PCs since 2003 and DyKnow since 2004; and they are assessing the impact in a variety of courses across the engineering, mathematics and science curriculum [15–17] and [18]. They report

that faculty and students like the active learning and collaboration that can be accomplished in some classes and the immediate assessment that is often possible via polling or collection of student work. Their assessment in most cases is based solely on surveys. Only Sutterer and Sexton [18] actually compare final exam scores from classes that used Tablet PCs and DyKnow with final exam scores from traditional classes. Unfortunately, the sample space was only 31 students and no significant difference between exam scores from the Tablet PC class and exam scores from the previous year (without Tablet PCs) were observed. However, survey responses from students were neutral to positive with respect to the impact of DyKnow on their learning. Results reported by Koile and Singer [19] indicate that student learning appears to be positively affected by the use of collaborative and active learning strategies provided by Tablet PCs and Classroom Presenter; their sample size was only 15 students and there was no control group. A following study by Koile and Singer [20] with a control group reported similar results. The results were based on a combination of surveys and course performance in recitation sections where problem solving was done, but not from the larger, lecture-based classes. Koile and Singer [20] report that formative feedback appeared to be the most significant improvement that affected learning. They plan to continue their research with larger sample sizes.

Several papers specifically address the use of Tablet PCs to teach mathematics [21–23]. The first two studies [21,22] were based on survey results only, but both reported that students and faculty felt that the learning environment was enhanced. Specifically mentioned advantages were:

. the ability for students to obtain annotated, archived notes

. the willingness of the instructor to be more engaged

. the ability of the instructor to interact more with students

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 489

. the ability of the instructor to produce, display and annotate high quality colour graphic images that better explained complicated analytic geometry than overhead projector or chalk board images

. the ability to retrieve material from previous lectures for discussion

Stickel’s study [23] was based on 310 students in a differential equations and linear algebra course taught within an Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. Of the 310 students, one section of 89 students had an instructor that used a Tablet PC; the remaining two sections were taught using a traditional blackboard and no technology. The study is interesting in that it has survey results and compares grades with the two sections not using technology. The author concludes that the use of a

Tablet PC by the instructor improved the academic performance of the students. However, the instructor could have accomplished many of the same things with the use of a laptop, since the use of pen-based technology did not appear to be particularly exploited, other than the ability to annotate PowerPoint slides. In all the sections, students took notes with pencil and paper.

The most comprehensive results are those reported by Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University [24,25]. Virginia Tech (VT) has one of the most coordinated and comprehensive Tablet PCs implementations reported, starting with plans and pilot studies in 2002 requiring all 1200 incoming students to purchase a Tablet PC in 2006. They have an extensive assessment plan although at this point it is still based on three surveys given to students in each semester, rather than any type of correlation with actual learning outcomes. VT identified three areas where faculty felt Tablet PC and associated software would enhance student learning: (1) oppor- tunities for active learning, (2) incorporation of collaborative exercises and (3) improved note collection and note searching/review. Their data collection and assessment so far has focused on the impact of Tablet PCs and OneNote on student note-taking and whether they use meta-cognitive strategies and critical thinking skills in individual studying and note-taking. They point out that OneNote provides an electronic notebook that mimics a traditional notebook but has advanced capabilities, such as the ability to search for words that relate to a concept. Students could also record the audio portion of lectures while they take notes if they desired. Outside class, students could click on digital ink objects in OneNote and play back the audio associated with when the digital ink was made, allowing specific review of classroom discussion or lecture.

Colwell [26] offers an extensive reference list as testament to the fact that note-taking is an important learner activity that increases subject cognition. His work builds from that to stress the importance of assisting students in note-taking and how digital inking can best improve teaching and student learning. Williams et al. [27] presented results of a cross-disciplinary survey of students’ note-taking strategies. They report that once students understand the advantages of annotating instructor provided notes as well as taking their own, they appreciate the ability to stay more organized. It is worth pointing out, students explicitly added comments about distraction associated with Tablet PCs without specifically being asked.

The connection between Tablet PCs in education and note-taking is clearly seen in the preceding review of Tablet PC literature. However, the literature on note- taking in general is massive and beyond the scope of this article. Due to its

490 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

importance both in the authors’ efforts of incorporating Tablet PCs into their classes and the obvious relevance to Tablet PCs in education, in general, Kobayashi’s meta-analysis of 33 studies relating to note-taking [28] was reviewed. Kobayashi concluded that note-taking and reviewing had a substantially positive effect on student learning and that the benefits can be increased by intervention in note-taking and intervention in reviewing procedures. Specifically, larger intervention effects were provided when a framework or instructor notes as a guideline were provided. The combination of Tablet PCs and a CLS like DyKnow support this type of note- taking intervention, with many possible different implementations. Furthermore, Brazeau [29], a pharmacy professor, reminds teachers that students must listen, identify and organize information by taking notes; students must develop the ability to organize information in their own cognitive perspective in order to learn. She posits that ‘active listening’ required for note-taking should not be replaced by presentation software and instructor-supplied notes.

3. Initial incorporation of Tablet PCs in engineering mathematics courses

The Department of Engineering Fundamentals teaches the following engineering mathematics courses: engineering analysis I, II and III, differential equations, numerical analysis and linear algebra. Engineering Analysis I, II and III (engineering-based calculus courses) and differential equations are required for all engineering majors. There is a high amount of content, and these are considered lecture courses. Problem solving is demonstrated and taught as an individual skill, and students need to be effective and efficient at taking notes during class, while they simultaneously engage the lecture material.

Entering freshman take engineering analysis I in the fall of their first year, followed by engineering analysis II in the spring and engineering analysis III in the summer. Entering freshman who are not ready for engineering analysis I take a preparatory course in the fall of their first year. These courses are generally taught every semester, but most students take the series in sequence, making enrolment in the in-sequence classes much larger. In the fall of 2007, coinciding with the school’s Tablet PC requirement for incoming freshman, the department decided to begin incorporating the use of Tablet PCs, starting with engineering analysis I in the fall of 2007.

3.1. Prior to Tablet PC incorporation

Previously, a typical engineering mathematics multi-section class (of up to 180 students) was taught using prepared transparencies (projected using an overhead projector) with additional information, mostly in the form of examples, presented on chalkboards. The chalkboards were large enough to allow information flow so that even the slower note-takers could keep up. These multi-section classes are taught with a co-anchored approach [30], where there are two teachers in the class at all times and interacting with each other. Out of sequence classes, for example engineering analysis I in the spring, are taught by a single instructor. The information on the transparencies, also available as a course pack students could purchase, consisted of the theoretical background for a specific mathematical

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 491

objective and proof of the theory. For many problems, preliminary information and

complex diagrams would also be provided. For most actual problem solving,

students would be required to fill in those notes themselves in a space available in the

course pack or on their own paper.

3.2. Options for including Tablet PCs in a course

There are four basic modes in which Tablet PCs can be incorporated in a course.

The first is for an instructor to use the Tablet PC as a digital chalkboard. Some

software is needed to achieve this and a digital projector is needed to project the

instructor’s Tablet PC screen to the class. Microsoft Journal and OneNote are two

software applications that could be used to achieve this. This is a large

improvement over traditional chalkboard presentation as options include:

embedded pictures and figures, prepared material, multiple colours, and there is

no need to erase the chalkboard and blank page is just a click away. An added

bonus of this approach is that it provides the instructor with a record of the lecture.

A second way Tablet PCs can be incorporated in a class is for students to use them

as a digital replacement for traditional pen and paper notebooks. Microsoft

OneNote TM

is an excellent platform for this. A third possibility is to combine the

first two; instructors and students both use Tablet PCs, as digital replacement for

chalkboard, overhead projectors and pencil and paper. The last, and most

interesting possibility, is to make use of a CLS, where students and instructors both

use Tablet PCs and the CLS creates a shared workspace in which students and

instructors can interact. One such CLS is the DyKnow software package. The central elements of

DyKnow are the panel and the notebook. A notebook is made up of panels much the

way a presentation is made up of slides. DyKnow supports digital inking of each

panel. Elements other than digital ink can be added to a panel as well, such as images

or text and digital inking lays on top of any added elements. During a session,

students and instructors share a common notebook. The instructor’s inking of a

panel shows up on each student’s notebook, unless the instructor uses a special

‘private’ ink, in which case the instructor’s ink is only applied to the instructor’s copy

of the shared notebook (but is therefore projected for the class to see). During a

session, students can apply digital ink to their copy of the shared notebook, this

inking is only applied locally. At the end of a session, each student can save a copy of

the notebook, a copy which contains:

. any initial material that the instructor included as part of the notebook preparation

. any ‘non-private’ ink applied by the instructor

. any inking the student applied during the session

The student is free out of the session to make any additional changes to the

notebook. Associated with each panel, there is a side note where digital ink can also

be applied. For a more thorough discussion of DyKnow, see their website:

dyknow.com. The Speed School of Engineering also adopted DyKnow as part of its

Tablet PC initiative, so this CLS was available to the department.

492 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

3.3. Initial Tablet PC incorporation

The Engineering Fundamentals Department faculty have well-developed course notes and an effective delivery approach. To avoid problems that an over aggressive Tablet PC initiative might produce, and to take advantage of the material already developed, the initial incorporation of Tablet PCs was done by making a digital copy of transparencies, and making these available to students during class through DyKnow. The instructors did not want the class to become passive by delivering all content via DyKnow and simply have students annotate some things. Instead, a combination of DyKnow with instructor annotation was used along with OneNote.

There are two places where students can take notes in DyKnow: on the shared panels and in separate private note-taking area. It was expected that students would need to view each panel in nearly full screen resolution, at least part of the time, which might hinder the use of private notes. Mircosoft’s OneNote was also available to students, and presented another option for note-taking. Another possible option was to add additional panels to DyKnow. The best choice was initially unclear to instructors, so it was left to the student’s discretion on how best to take notes and students were prompted with several options:

. To save the entire unit’s worth of notes at the beginning of unit (a units worth of material was collected into one notebook, all of which was available during a session) and then add panels to the DyKnow notebook.

. To take notes in the private note area provided by DyKnow.

. To screen clip from DyKnow into OneNote.

It was expected that students would use a variety of different approaches for taking notes, and that they might even choose methods other than those suggested. They were allowed to use their preferred method, but encouraged to use the Tablet PCs.

The following presentation approach was taken, achieved using three Tablets, and three projectors. The prepared material, organized by unit and previously presented via transparencies, was transferred to DyKnow notebooks, one for each unit. During class, the DyKnow software and a projection system delivered what was formerly shown only via overhead projectors. During class, each student, using his or her Tablet PC, joins the shared DyKnow session, and can access the prepared course material. Annotations to the prepared material are made in DyKnow, and therefore available to students. Relevant examples are worked in OneNote on one of two additional Tablet PCs, which are also attached to projectors. Students are encouraged take notes in either DyKnow or OneNote. In this early transition period, hardcopies of the coursepacks (used previously) were still made available to students, and students were permitted to take notes by hand if that was their preference.

3.4. A second approach

In the summer of 2008, a slightly different approach was taken for the engineering analysis II course. This course was taught by a single instructor. Instead of using OneNote to work example problems, the instructor added blank panels into the DyKnow notebooks already containing the scanned course materials. The instructor then worked example problems in private ink in DyKnow. Using the private ink,

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 493

students could see the instructor’s work on the projector, but it was not transmitted to each student’s notebook. A second DyKnow account, on a different Tablet PC, was used by the instructor to access and display two panels from the session notebook. This made it possible for the instructor to display an example solution that continued across more than one panel, or display relevant theorems or definitions related to the current problem being solved. Both Tablet PCs were connected to projectors. The main difference in this approach is that all of the content is delivered in DyKnow. An added benefit of this approach is that courses can be taught in rooms with only two screen projectors. Again, no specific note-taking method was prescribed to students, but another option was now available to students: to take all their notes in the DyKnow session notebook.

3.5. Single Tablet single projector options

In its incorporation of Tablet PCs, the Engineering Fundamentals Department used multiple Tablet PCs and multiple projectors because this most closely resembled the combination of chalkboard and overhead projectors used previously. The second approach, discussed in Section 3.4, could also be used with only a single Tablet PC and projector. With a single Tablet PC and projector, an instructor would need to pay greater attention to the layout of worked problems that cross multiple panels. This can be achieved by having prepared panels with the original problem and a previously found intermediate result at the top of a panel. During lecture, the instructor finds the intermediate result on a single panel, and then appends the prepared panel that restates the problem, and only the intermediate result, leaving room to continue working the problem. It is possible that this may spread the solution across more panels, but each panel should have enough information that students are able to follow the logic of the solution even though they cannot view previous panels that are part of the solution. Similarly, when there is a need to refer back to definitions, theorems or formulas, they could be included, in a smaller format, on panels where they are needed.

4. Evaluation of the use of Tablet PCs

The initial evaluation of the impact of incorporating the use of Tablet PCs into engineering mathematics courses included three elements:

(1) faculty impression/feedback (2) student academic performance (3) student impressions of course delivery and the effect on note-taking

Faculty impressions were gathered informally during daily discussions. The Engineering Fundamentals Department is small and members conversed freely about this initiative, so a formal assessment instrument was not used. Student impressions were gathered using a voluntary student survey given towards the end of the summer 2008 semester. Academic performance was gathered in aggregate for the classes and compared with aggregate data from the previous year courses.

Aggregate academic performance was obtained for the 2007 engineering analysis III course. This was then compared with similar data for the corresponding 2008

494 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

class to determine if the presentation and course delivery style using Tablet PCs or the student use of Tablet PCs affected academic performance in a significant way. A similar comparison for the engineering analysis II class was not preformed as these students had a less homogeneous experience, described below.

To gauge student impressions, surveys were used at the completion of the summer semester 2008 for the engineering analysis II and engineering analysis III classes. The survey consisted of two multiple choice questions and several Likert-type items related to the student’s use of the Tablet PC and DyKnow in engineering analysis and other courses, and their impressions of any benefits of Tablet PCs and DyKnow.

Students in these two classes had different experiences with respect to the use of Tablet PCs. Students in the summer 2008 engineering analysis II class were exposed to different situations in the two classes. Students in the summer 2008 engineering analysis III had been exposed to the course presentation via Tablet PCs and a three-screen projection system (described in Section 3.2) in all three of their engineering analysis courses (I, II and III). Students in the summer 2008 engineering analysis II class were exposed to three different styles of course delivery: their preparatory course was taught using overhead transparencies and chalkboard, course packs were supplied and most took notes with pencil and paper. Their engineering analysis I course was delivered with the three-screen system and the instructor used OneNote to work problems on the extra two projectors. The engineering analysis II course was delivered with two screens and the instructor used DyKnow exclusively (as described above). For all students in all classes, Tablet PC use was encouraged, but not required and students could purchase course packs and take notes using pencil and paper.

4.1. Faculty impressions

Faculty were uniformly excited about and preferred teaching with Tablet PCs, DyKnow and OneNote. The following course presentation and delivery advantages were immediately obvious:

. students have the instructors’ annotations of prepared visuals

. under the approach taken, students must still actively take notes

. faculty face students at all times, vastly improving eye contact

. time and energy is saved as there is no board erasing

. students can play back instructor markup

. the Tablet PCs and associated software make it very easy to use colour, create figures, lines and move material

. instructors have a complete copy of the actual lecture delivered each day

These benefits were largely expected, but there was an unforeseen and somewhat unexpected benefit. Because of the more efficient presentation (time savings) along with the fact that faculty faced students, the faculty felt their interaction with students during problem solving was vastly improved. With chalkboard presenta- tion, faculty often had to make a conscious decision to stop and turn around at important steps in problem solving to engage discussion. Even the faculty who had taught with chalk for nearly 40 years fully embraced the new technology and would

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 495

not consider returning. In reflecting on the faculties’ perception of the initial success, it must be pointed out that one of the reasons for the enthusiasm and success of this initiative has been the strong support from two department faculty members both of whom have doctoral degrees in computer science engineering, significant practical computer experience and have embraced Tablet PC technology. These two faculty members regularly find solutions to challenges and problems that would otherwise be left to students or faculty with less background and who would likely require the support of technical staff to solve the problem.

4.2. Survey results

The survey used was an initial attempt to ask questions to determine formative and exploratory information. It was understood that the survey was not comprehensive or designed so that a definitive statistical analysis could be performed. It used Likert items, namely questions about students’ attitudes with responses being strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree. Some items were grouped together for interpretation, though not formally comprising a true Likert scale. Faculty wanted to answer some fundamental questions: Did students find Tablet PCs counter-productive to their learning? Had faculty undermined in any way the delivery of the content? Do students find the Tablet PC a positive influence for note-taking, reviewing and learning? Results are reported only as percentages of students answering strongly agree/agree and strongly disagree/disagree. Nonetheless, critical information was gained and also insight for designing of a more informative survey for future research.

There is strong evidence in the survey results that students prefer the use of Tablet PCs and DyKnow as a presentation platform for the engineering mathematics classes. Eighty-three per cent of students in the engineering analysis III class and 65% of students in the engineering analysis II class responded positively (either strongly agree or agree) to the single item: ‘The use of DyKnow and Tablet PCs for the presentation and delivery of the course material is preferable to the use of overhead projectors and chalkboards’. Table 1 gives the results of combining several of the items to gauge three attitudes related to the use of DyKnow and the effect of Tablet PCs on learning and note-taking. Although students preferred the Tablet PCs for material presentation, they were much less enthusiastic about the use of

Table 1. Summary of survey responses.

Percentage of students (%)

Statement Class Agree or

strongly agree Disagree or

strongly disagree

Prefer the use of Tablet PCs and DyKnow for class presentation

Analysis III 46.6 18.9 Analysis II 35.4 27.8

The use of DyKnow was beneficial to my learning

Analysis III 58.6 15.2 Analysis II 45.4 24.4

Taking notes on my tablet was beneficial to my learning

Analysis III 42.8 38 Analysis II 36.1 40

Note: Data were collected from 79 students in Analysis II and 156 students in Analysis III.

496 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

DyKnow. Although the percentages of students who selected strongly agree/agree were higher than those who strongly disagree/disagree (with the exception of the engineering analysis II class on the combined questions about note-taking), many students selected the neutral category for all of the combined items.

These preliminary results challenge faculty to work harder at demonstrating the efficacy of the Tablet PCs. It is interesting to note that the engineering analysis III students had slightly more positive responses in total in all areas than the engineering analysis II classes. A major difference explained earlier was in their initial exposure to the Tablet PCs; however, cause and effect cannot be gleaned from this survey. Future surveys will be re-designed to better assess information on exactly how students are using their Tablet PCs and how to better gauge the effectiveness of Tablet PC use on note-taking.

4.3. Academic performance

Both cumulative grade point average (GPA) and average course quality points (on a four-point scale) were examined for the summer 2007 and summer 2008 engineering analysis III class. The two classes appear to be quite similar as evidenced by a similar overall GPA, 3.158 for the summer 2007 class and 3.150 for summer 2008 class. There were no significant differences in the quality points earned by the two classes (2.773 for 2007 and 2.786 for 2008). However, instructors did observe a difference in the lower end of the grade distribution. For the summer 2007, 30.6% of the students received an A, 24.4% received a B, 32.3% received a C, and 12.8% received either a D or F or withdrew from the course. In the following summer, 2008, 30.2% of the students received an A, 25% received a B, 34.3% received a C, and 10% received a D or F or withdrew from the course. While this does not represent a significant difference, it does open the door for further research and possible opportunity for impact. The distribution of A and B grades is very similar, and probably to be expected, as we would not expect measurable change in the more talented students’ grades. What instructors find encouraging is the slightly smaller percentage of D, F and W grades and slightly larger percentage of C grades. If this is attributable, at least in part, to the use of Tablet PCs, that is path worth further exploration. Does the department’s use of Tablet PCs help students be more organized and study more effectively? Is it possible to identify and then measure the effect/impact of Tablet PC use on learning specific mathematical skills or to gauge the time spent learning specific skills, rather than relying on course grade as a measure of impact. These are questions that the department would like to answer.

5. Conclusions and future directions

The departments’ efforts to embrace the use of Tablet PCs have been beneficial to both faculty and students. Faculty are uniformly excited about the use of Tablet PCs and are anxious to continue developing and evaluating new and innovative approaches to incorporate Tablet PCs and CLS into teaching and learning. Although, yet there is no definitive objective evidence of the actual impact of Tablet PCs on student learning, students appear to be responding positively to use of Tablet PCs and DyKnow for lecture delivery. To anyone considering Tablet PCs, whether

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 497

for one course or several, the authors feel it is critically important to start slowly. The authors acknowledge that a key to their success so far was starting with the goal of reproducing the good aspects of their previous mode of delivery using new technology without introducing new problems. Once that is achieved, other, more ambitious goals can be considered; the experience gained early on will increase the likelihood that more ambitious attempts to use Tablet PCs in the classroom will be successful. Also critical to success is having faculty members or staff who are willing and able to assist with all technical problems that both faculty and students may encounter when they begin using their Tablet PCs. Frustration quickly dissolves enthusiasm for trying new things.

The next step in this effort is to redesign the student surveys to better measure how students are actually using their Tablet PCs, and then tracking this use with measures of academic performance or learning activities such as time spent studying, as well as tracking individual student performance along with Tablet PC use. One area the authors would like to address in more detail is how to help students use their Tablet PCs to take better notes, be more efficient at taking notes and to more effectively use notes and Tablet PCs in reviewing and preparing for formal assessment. Equally important will be developing new techniques to leverage the power and flexibility of Tablet PCs to improve student engagement during lecture by using their Tablet PCs.

References

[1] K. Sheehy, A. Kukukska-Hulme, P. Twining, D. Evans, D. Cook, and A. Jelfs, Tablet PCs

in schools: A review of literature and selected projects, Becta ICT Research, BEC1-15346,

June 2005. [2] M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research, J. Eng. Edu. 93 (2004),

pp. 223–232. [3] W. Birmingham and V. DiStasi, Active learning across the computer science curriculum,

Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburgh, PA. June

22–25 2008, pp. 1–14.

[4] D. Berque, An evaluation of a broad deployment of DyKnow software to support note taking

and interaction using pen-based computers, JCSC. 21(6) (2006), pp. 204–216. [5] R. Anderson, R. Anderson, P. Davis, N. Linnell, C. Prince, V. Razmov, and F. Videon,

Classroom presenter: Enhancing interactive education with digital ink, Computer. 40(9)

(2007), pp. 56–61. [6] M. Wilkerson, W.G. Griswold, and B. Simon, Ubiquitous presenter: Increasing student

access and control in a digital lecturing environment, ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37(1) (2005),

pp. 116–120. [7] F. Kowalski, S. Kowalski, and E. Hoover, Using inksurvey: A free web-based tool for

open-ended questioning to promote active learning and real-time formative assessment of

Tablet pc-equipped engineering students, Proceedings of the ASEE National Conference,

Honolulu, HI. June 24–27, 2007, pp. 1–11.

[8] J. Roschelle, D. Tatar, S. Chaudbury, Y. Dimitriadis, C. Patton, and C. DiGiano,

Ink, improvisation and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets, Computer. 40(9)

(Sept 2007), pp. 42–48. [9] E. Price, R. Malani, and B. Simon, Characterization of instructor and student use of ubiquitous

presenter, a presentation system enabling spontaneity and digital archiving, Physics Education

Research Conference, 883 ed, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 2007, pp. 125–128.

498 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

[10] R. Anderson, R. Anderson, L. McDowell, and B. Simon, Use of classroom presenter in

engineering courses, 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis,

IN. October 19–22. pp. T2G-13, 2005, pp. 1–6.

[11] Z. Hrepic, Utilizing DyKnow software and pen-based, wireless computing in teaching

introductory modern physics, Proceedings of 30th Jubilee International Convention

MIPRO, Conference on Computers in Education, Opatija, Croatia, 2007.

[12] D.G. Walker, M.A. Stremler, J. Johnston, D. Bruff, and S.P. Brophy, Case study on the

perception of learning when tablet PCs are used as a presentation medium in engineering

classrooms, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 24(3) (2008), pp. 606–615. [13] J.M. Kraushaar, T. Chittenden, and D. Novak, A descriptive study of percieved and

actual PC use by undergraduate students in a traditional lecture-based graphical modeling

class, in The Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education, R. Reed,

D. Berque, and J. Prey, eds. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2008,

pp. 81–88. [14] K.Y. Lim, R. Toto, H. Nguyen, S. Zappe, T. Litzinger, M. Wharton, and J. Cimbala,

Impact of instructors’ use of the Tablet PC on student learning and classroom attendance,

Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposotion, Pittsburgh, PA. June

22–25 2008, pp. 1–15. [15] A. Chidanandan, R. DeVasher, P. Ferro, D. Fisher, S. Mitra-Kirtley, L. Merkle,

D. Mutchler, M. Simoni, S. Sexton, A. Watt, and J. Williams, Evaluating the symbiosis of

DyKnow software and Pen-basedcomputing in the Rose-Hulman classroom, in The Impact

of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education, R. Reed, D. Berque, and J. Prey,

eds. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2007, pp. 1–9.

[16] D. Fisher, P. Cornwell, and J. Williams, Teaching dynamics using interactive Tablet PC

instruction software, Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education

Conference, Milwaukee, WI. October 10–13. pp. 53J-3–53J-4. 2007.

[17] Z. Chambers, A. Chidanandan, R. DeVasher, L. Merkle, M. Minster, S. Sexton, A. Watt,

J. Williams, and M. Zoetewey, What is beyond the laptop initiative? Perhaps: Tablet PCs

and DyKnow Vision software, Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE 36th Frontiers in Education

Conference, San Diego, CA. October 28–31. 2006. [18] K. Sutterer and S. Sexton, Interactive learning using a Tablet PC in civil engineering soil

mechanics, Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE National Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. June

22–25 2008, pp. 1–14. [19] K. Koile and D. Singer, Development of a Tablet-PC-based system to increase instructor-

student classroom interactions and student learning, in The Impact of Tablet PCs and

Pen-based Technology on Education, D. Berque, J. Prey, and R. Reed, eds. Purdue

University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University Press, 2006. [20] K. Koile and D. Singer, Improving learning via Tablet-PC-based in-class assessment,

Proceedings of the Second International Computing Education Research Workshop,

Canterbury, UK, 2006, pp. 119–126. [21] K. Fister and M. McCarthy, Mathematics instruction and the tablet PC, Int. J. Math.

Educ. Sci. Technol. 39(3) (2008), pp. 285–292. [22] W. Olivier, Teaching mathematics: Tablet PC technology adds a new dimension,

Proceedings of The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project: Reform,

Revolution and Pardigm Shifts in Mathematics Education, Pod Tezniami, Ciechocinek,

Poland. June 26–July 1 2008, pp. 176–181. [23] M. Stickel, Effective use of Tablet PCs for engineering mathematics education Proceedings

of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Saratoga, Springs, NY.

(2008), pp. 1–6. [24] V. Lohani, R. Castles, A. Johri, D. Spangler, and D. Kibler, Analysis of Tablet PC based

learning experiences in freshman to junior level engineering courses, Proceedings of the

ASEE National Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. June 22–25. 2008, pp. 1–18.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 499

[25] K. Filer, J. Tront, G. Scales, and D. Olsen, The Tablet PC as a catalyst for pedagogical

innovation and improvement in higher education, Conference Proceeding at Asia-Pacific

Educational Research Association Conference, Singapore, November 26–28. 2008. [26] K. Colwell, Digital ink and notetaking, Tech Trends, 48(3) (2004), pp. 35–39.

[27] J. Williams, A. Chidanandan, P. Coppinger, D. Fisher, M. Hirotani, R. Rogge, S. Sexton,

M. Simoni, K. Sutterer, and D. Walter, Measuring the impact of Tablet PCs and DyKnow

Vision software on students’ note-taking strategies: A cross-disciplinary case study, in The

Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education, R. Reed, D. Berque, and

J. Prey, eds. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 2008, pp. 145–152.

[28] K. Kobayashi, Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement

through interventions: A meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol. 26(3) (2006), pp. 459–477.

[29] G.A. Brazeau, Handouts in the classroom: Is note taking a lost skill, Am. J. Pharm. Educ.

70(2):38 (2006), pp. 1–2.

[30] P. Ralston and L. Tyler, The co-anchored classroom: Teaching problem solving

effectively to combined classes, Proceedings of the ASEE Southeast Section Conference,

2002, pp. 1–8.

500 J.L. Hieb and P.A.S. Ralston

Copyright of International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology is the property of

Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.