Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”

Perpetual Heart Break Machine

These past two weeks my students submitted their feedback evaluating the course, my instructional strategies and suggesting improvements. In looking over the initial feedback, I felt it was somewhat heart breaking in their honestly in commenting. In actually averaging their ratings it wasn’t so bad. While most of the comments were negative I realized that they were not directed at me, persay, but the structure of the course. So I moved from being slightly distraught about not being an effective or engaging teacher…to not being able to really implement the changes they suggested.
For example, an overwhelming number of students hated the 3-hour-long 8 am class (not something I had control over) and suggested the class over two weeks. While I cannot control the length or scheduled time, I feel like I should be able to engross and entertain the students enough so that they don’t notice the horribly early and long class.

Another suggestion that came up was reduce the number of PowerPoint (slides) and reduce the number of assignments. Again this wasn’t something I can directly control, as all class sections have the same work load. While realizing that the work load can be overwhelming, I try to give the students additional ‘lab time’ so that they can work on projects. Even though I have been implementing this from the beginning, students still commented that it was not enough. Every week I struggle with trying to balance lecture, engaging discussions and in-class time for projects. Generally a third to half of my class time is devoted to ‘lab-time’ and it still doesn’t seem to be enough.

There was a hiccup in implementing the survey and it was administer twice, the first time 18 of 23 students responded later only 8 resubmitted their thoughts. Half of the questions were on a likert-scale (of 5 or 4). The first time (4-scale) the students agreed the course as outstanding by 2.5 of 4, the second time (5-scale) it improved to 3.5 of 5. Next the students evaluated the outstanding nature of the instructor. Both surveys were very close in response with a 2.7 of 4, first time, and a 2.9 of 5, the second time marking the teacher as outstanding.
The following responses were drawn from the second survey administration. The students rated the clear communication of content as a 2.5 of 5. The students rated the clarity of explanation of requirements/expectations/assignment as a 3 out of 5. Students rated appropriate use of class time as a 2.5 out of 5. On a more positive note the students felt that the instructor was creatively using teaching strategies, ranking it a 3.2 of 5. Lastly, the students noted that the instructor gave timely feedback by rating it 2.3 out of 5.

When students were asked about recommendation to improve the course and suggestions to the instructor a majority of the students responded that the course had too many things due (n=6), with overwhelming due dates and expressed a need to consolidate class resources. An additional student commented that the content housed to many resources and websites. Within the actual class structure, students commented that the class was too long and too early in the morning (n=4). A couple of the students mentioned that there needs to be less PowerPoint (n=3), less in class discussions (n=1), and more time in class to work on projects, homework, and assignments (n=4). Additionally these lectures needed more consistency from week to week (n=2), more explanations/instruction (n=1), and a great focus on projects not on in-class examples (n=1).
There were three students who commented that the instructor was doing alright. Another two students mentioned that student not be graded as stringently. Lastly, one student commented that “the instructor could assist the students in a less sarcastic manner.” These two points are aspects that I feel I have the greatest control in changing and will work diligently in the coming weeks to explain my grading manner and appear less sarcastic.

When students were asked to list things that they did not want to change they discusses the general content and diversity of technology introduced (n=9), the benefits of the projects, particularly the digital story (n=2), the real-world application of the teacher websites and ePortfoilo (n=2), and the scaffold nature of the course (n=1). Moreover the students did not want to see changes in the structure, content, or method by which the PowerPoint were displayed (n=4). As far as the instructor specific embellishments the students liked the text reminders (n=1), the ease and timely manner of receiving feedback (n=2), and that I do not allow my students to procrastinate on projects (n=2). Additionally a student appreciated the structure of the course that allowed students to choose independent and group projects.

Most meaningful aspects of the course were identified as the creation of the teacher and ePortfolio websites (n=8), introduction of the tools, such as Google drive, Skype and Google docs (n=6), and the utilization and discussion of the 3Es (4 in my class, engagement, enhancement, effectiveness, efficiency) (n=5). Students also noted that the content exploration tools/tasks (n=1) and production tools/tasks (n=2), as well as class projects, such as the digital stories (n=2), case analysis (n=1), webquests (n=1) as meaningful activities.
Least meaningful aspects of the course were claimed to be the digital story project (n=2), and all the video editing that accompanied the project (n=8), along with the case analysis (n=5) and webquests (n=2), commenting particularly on the lack of application of early education teachers. Lastly students noted that the teacher and ePortfolio websites (n=1), “busy work” and “time wasters” in class (n=1), demonstrations in class (n=1), the Go Animate (n=1) and voki (n=1) clips, and the use of Google documents (n=1) were not useful to the class.

And for the random student who suggested a picnic: let’s have one when the weather gets a little warmer!