Development and evaluation of an interactive mobile learning environment with Shared Display Groupware.
IntroductionVarious mobile devices have been used in mobile learning, such as wrist-worn devices, mobile phones, handheld computers, web pads, pen tablet computers and laptop computers (Sharples & Beale, 2003). Many studies have reported achievements in the investigation of learning interests and the effectiveness of mobile learning (Rieger & Gay, 1997; Roschelle, 2003; Tatar, Roschelle, Vahey & Penuel, 2003; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). For an effective integration of mobile learning into a digital classroom environment, it is important for all students in a group to have their own computing device equipped with wireless communication capability to conduct learning tasks (Chan et al., 2006; Liang et al., 2005; Soloway et al., 2001). However, through the observation of learning activities with students using mobile devices for collaborative learning, some problems exist. For example, the experience of using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) as learning tools shows that it was difficult while sharing information with group members using mobile devices during the learning activity. When learners discuss and share information in a collaborative learning setting using mobile devices such as PDAs, screen size may have a negative influence on the learning activity due to the limitation of the screen size of the PDA (Magerkurth & Tandler, 2002). It is difficult to let all group members look at the same screen on a PDA simultaneously. To help other group members get access to the information simultaneously during the discussion, the learner may interrupt the task which still in progress, wait for other group members until they finished watching, and then continue the learner's own original task. Therefore, a shared display is needed, which group members can access, thus creating a common focus, facilitating group discussion and sharing of information without interruption.
The concept for supporting collaborative work between people via a shared computer with a single shared display was proposed by Stewart, Bederson, & Druin (1999). Subsequently, many studies followed this concept to develop environments or tools which support face-to-face collaboration, working with a shared display, in which all participants have their own input device (Ryall, Forlines, Shen, & Morris, 2004; Tse & Greenberg, 2004; Zanella & Greenberg, 2001). Most of the above-mentioned studies focused on the issues of the system interface design, such as the design of the screen size, transparent interface components, or support of multiple input devices. However, little attention focused on the integration of the shared display with mobile devices in order to design a learning activity in the mobile learning environment.
The aim of this study, based on the above considerations, was three-fold. Firstly, a learning activity was designed with the integration of the concept of Shared Display Groupware (SDG) to support mobile learning. Secondly, a mobile learning environment was developed under the design of a learning activity. The learning environment permits students to share and exchange information from individual and public spaces and allows each group member to continue with individual tasks in this environment without interruption of other simultaneous group tasks. The learning activity was integrated into a course based on the observation of plants which includes descriptions of plants and the creation of conditions for the classification of plants through the support of the SDG together with mobile devices. Finally, an empirical study was conducted to evaluate students' overall perceptions and the learning effectiveness on the use of the SDG in the support of mobile learning.
Literature review
Mobile learning
With the rapid development of network communication technologies, more and more wireless and mobile technology applications are integrated into classrooms to support teaching and learning. A study integrated wireless network technology with mobile devices including an e-whiteboard to build a Wireless Technology Enhanced Classroom (WiTEC) which provides various features for supporting teaching and learning in the classroom (Liu et al., 2003). For example, the feature reducing the time for tedious work allows the teacher to readily select materials and present or broadcast them to students, as well as mark and revise students' tasks through the use of e-whiteboard and mobile devices that enable numerous tedious tasks to be completed instantly. Another feature is engaging students in learning activities which indicates students engaging in learning activities such as exploring and organizing online course-related resources, as well as answering quizzes by means of group discussion using their mobile devices. In addition, students are not only able to discuss course work with each other face-to-face, but are also able to exchange personal materials through the mobile devices and the process of interaction can be recorded, thus facilitating group collaborative learning. Another feature is empowering the teacher to monitor students' learning progress which means a number-signal is provided to each mobile device that represents different statuses in using a mobile device such as disconnected to the server or request for help, therefore the teacher can monitor students' learning progress and determine how to implement the subsequent activities. Moreover, the recording teaching and learning processes as portfolios feature means the establishment of teaching records and learning portfolios and then promotes teachers' reflection on teaching as well as learners' portfolio assessment. Finally, the user-friendly interface by providing a handwriting function and the interactive classroom server effectively coordinate all system works to allow the teacher and students benefit from technology easily for implementing technology-supported activities smoothly.
In a Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning activity, students engaged in collaborative learning through face-to-face communication on a social network with the support of handheld devices by a wireless network (Cortez et al., 2004; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). Many studies have demonstrated successful experiments which help students exchange information through PDAs as well as providing opportunities to interact with each other by using the PDAs as handheld devices for supporting learning. For example, ad hoc networks and mobile classrooms using PDAs in a wireless environment (Chang, Sheu & Chan, 2003), mobile learning systems for supporting outdoor learning about bird and butterfly watching (Chen, Kao & Sheu, 2003; Chen et al., 2004), and improving knowledge creation during experiential learning by mobile technologies (Lai, Yang, Chen, Ho & Chan, 2007).
Although the above-mentioned studies demonstrate positive results on the integration of mobile devices in support of collaborative learning, it is difficult to share information through mobile devices for group discussion. When two learners discuss and share information in a collaborative learning setting, they may not encounter any problems as they can transmit data using the built-in infrared light. However, this does not apply to multi-user transmissions among groups with three or more members (Danesh, Inkpen, Lau, Shu & Booth, 2001). In addition, students usually adopt an attitude of watching information displayed on the horizontal PDA which held by sharing the screen with other students who stand shoulder to shoulder or stand facing from the opposite direction (Chang, Sheu & Chan, 2003; Chen et al., 2004; Danesh et al., 2001). Students can also reverse the PDA screen to point the screen toward to the people who wants to see. Although the above-mentioned solutions can solve the problem of difficulties in sharing information on mobile devices, the action of information sharing may interfere with the learner's original task. While the learner is sharing information via his mobile device, showing data to group members for discussion for example, he is unable to use his own mobile device to continue the task and has to wait until the process has been completed. Limitations due to the small screen size of mobile devices, make it necessary to provide group members with a shared display to facilitate group discussion with a common focus.
Shared Display Groupware
In the development of SDG, originally SDG meant Single Display Groupware, where the purpose was to design a computer system that can support face-to-face collaborative interactions on a single display (Stewart, Bederson & Druin, 1999). Afterwards, the definition of SDG was extended to denote Shared Display Groupware (Ryall et al., 2004). Because of the popularization of the hardware, a class can be divided into several groups, each of which has its own SDG. The SDG can be seen as a groupware system, where one screen receives input from multiple devices, such as the mouse and keyboard, or adopts a touch screen environment to permit multi-user operation concurrently (Nicol & MacLeod, 2005; Scott, Mandryk & Inkpen, 2003). Another extended application is a multi-screen environment, which is called Distributed Display Environments (DDEs) (Inkpen & Mandryk, 2005). DDEs can be defined as one computer system which can have more than one physical display, such as applications of multiple-monitor desktop systems, rooms with networked projectors and displays, or campus-wide connected information display systems (Hutchings, Stasko, & Czerwinski, 2005).
In previous studies on the SDG, task arrangement was only available for the group's task, thus that all group members are working at the same time through the SDG to complete the common task of the group (Myers, Stiel & Gargiulo, 1998; Scott, Grant & Mandryk, 2003). Even though both the individual task and the group task were taken into consideration, the design was that after the individual task was completed in the private space of the SDG, the learner then worked in the public space of the SDG on the group task (Baudisch, Good, Bellotti, & Schraedley, 2002). This design is limited because the individual task affects the group task, as they are working on the same display simultaneously. Thus, the individual task was not genuinely performed on a personal device. The mobile device is better complemented with the SDG, thus the individual tasks should be completed on the mobile device, and the related group tasks should be completed on the SDG. Solutions to this problem were investigated to find out how people move from individual to group work through the use of both mobile devices and a shared public display (Greenberg, Boyle, & LaBerge, 1999; Kitamura, Osawa, Yamaguchi, Takemura, & Kishino, 2005; Liu & Kao, 2007). It indicated that users not only use shared display space as public space, but also they have their own personal display space as individual space. Therefore, such a system supports both group tasks such as discussions and individual tasks such as personal operations. Consequently, the individual tasks should not interfere with the group tasks and then could co-exist.
Learning activity design and system implementation
Design of learning activity
This study adopted a two-phase learning activity design. The first phase focuses on the observation of plants, in which students have to investigate various plants through characteristics of plants that assigned as clues to students. The second phase focuses on the classification of plants, in which students have to create specific conditions and then use those conditions to classify the plants. There are seven steps in the two phases, as shown in Table 1. The group members in the second phase differ from those in the first phase, which were formed by dividing original group members into newly formed groups.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
During the learning activity, there are two types of tasks--individual tasks and group tasks. The individual task is mainly performed on each student's PDA. Students work on their own PDA to investigate plants that matched the assigned clues. The group task is performed on the SDG. Group members work together sharing information or discussing assigned tasks. The individual task is also performed on the SDG because the SDG is designed as a tool to promote information sharing and discussion but not limited as to interrupt individual tasks. Detailed explanations for each step of the learning activity are described as follows:
* Step 1: Grouping and login
Individual task: Students login to the system using their PDAs (left side of Figure 1).
Group task: Students find out their login messages on the SDG to confirm which group they belong to (right side of Figure 1), and meet all members in their group.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
* Step 2: Get clues
Individual task: All students get individual clues on their PDAs (left side of Figure 2). Clues were created from different parts of plants for representing the characteristics of plants, such as "spiral shaped leaves" or "white flowers".
Group task: Every clue is different for all group members. The information of the clues of the group is shown on the SDG.
* Step 3: Investigate and collect
Individual task. Students use their clues to investigate and observe different characteristics of plants. During the process, students take photos of the plants that fit the description found in the clues. They also take notes on their PDAs about the plants, as well as the locations and names of the plants observed (right side of Figure 2).
Group task: Group members collect information about various plants according to their clues. The task is achieved by either individually or collaboratively working with group members.
* Steps 4. Compare and integrate clues
Individual task. Students use their PDAs to interact with the group's SDG to share individual collected data on the shared display through the wireless network.
Group task: The left side of Figure 3 shows a screenshot of the SDG for comparing clues. The six blocks on the two sides represent individual spaces of six students in a group, whereas the two blocks in the middle represent public spaces of the group. Students can look all clues of their group members on the SDG. They can compare these clues with their collected data (annotation 1 and 2), and select one answer for uploading to the public space (annotation 3).Group members can explain their views on their answers to other group members for further discussion. They can also refer to materials on various plants (annotation 4). Group members should agree upon the final answer of the group by using the "vote function" which is provided in the system (right side of Figure 3, annotation 5).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
* Steps 5. Second phase grouping
Individual task. During the second phase, new groups were formed, different from the group of the first phase. Thus, each group member has the all clues of the plants from the first phase.
Group task: The task in the second phase is prompted in the SDG environment on completion of the second phase grouping.
* Step 6. Create conditions for classification
Individual task: Group members explain details of the plants that they are familiar with to their new group members. On completion of the tasks in the first phase, the students have a certain degree of understanding of all clues that they possess. Therefore, students can filter and choose clues that help the classification of plants which are worth sharing to all group members in creating conditions for classifying plants.
Group task: Group members should use the characteristics of plants to collaboratively create conditions for the classification of plants (left side of Figure 4), and use these created conditions to classify plants by using the method of Linnaeus' Binominal Nomenclature (Linnaeus, 1753) (middle and right sides of Figure 4, annotation 1 and 2). These plants are the target plants from the first phase. Group members should also vote on the created conditions, and determine which condition is better for classifying plants.
* Step 7. Demonstrate results of classification
Individual task: All students explain why they created the conditions for classifying the plants.
Group task: Students view the achievements made by other groups (Figure 5), as well as listening to teacher comments.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
System implementation
The system can be divided into three parts from the viewpoint of the different hardware used. the server, the SDG, and the client (PDA). A system diagram is shown in Figure 6. The system functional modules are developed according to the three parts of the system. The server consists of a login module and a learning portfolio module. The SDG consists of a command receiving module and a transfer module. The client consists of a transfer module and a learning flow control module.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Login module
The login module includes two functions: the login judgment and user information response functions. When the server receives a login request from a client, it checks the authorization for login to the system. If the authorization is approved, then user information containing the students' clues, group information, and IP address of the shared display will be transferred to the client. The user information can be used for indentifying groups for transmitting data among the server, clients and SDGs.
Learning portfolio module
The learning portfolio module includes two functions: an individual learning portfolio, and a group learning portfolio. For example, the students' notes in the first phase and created conditions for classifying plants in the second phase are recorded as an individual learning portfolio, whereas the answers of group decision in the first phase and the results of plant classifications in the second phase are recorded as a group learning portfolio.
Command receiving module
The command receiving module includes three functions: command receiving and responding, command interpretation, and command execution. The command receiving and responding function is responsible for receiving commands from clients, such as commands for enlarging photos, displaying notes, and voting for group decisions.
The types of commands are judged by the command interpretation function. Corresponding functions are executed on the SDG after receiving commands from clients by the command execution function.
Transfer module
The transfer module belongs to both the SDG and the client, and includes three functions: command transfer, user information receiving, and learning portfolio transfer functions. The command transfer function is responsible for the transmission of commands to the SDG from clients, such as uploading answers to the SDG. The user information receiving functions are responsible for receiving information from the server to the client, and from the client to the SDG, such as students' clues and group information. The learning portfolio transfer function is responsible for transferring the learning portfolio from SDGs to the server which contains individual and group learning portfolios.
Learning flow control module
The Learning flow control module includes two functions: prompting instructions for the learning activity, and judging the completeness of tasks. Clients are prompted with instructions on the tasks for each step of the learning activity. Students can refer to these instructions to complete the tasks. When a student has completed a task, this module is responsible for judging whether the student has completed the task well enough to begin the next step. If the task has not been satisfactorily completed, the student may not proceed to the next step.
The study
Based on the learning activity design with the support of the SDG and mobile devices, the objective of the empirical study was conducted to examine students' learning effectiveness on plant observations in terms of descriptions of plants and the creation of conditions for the classification of plants. Students' perceptions on the use of the SDG in the learning activity were also evaluated through a questionnaire survey.
Methods
The subjects of this study were fourth-grade students from an elementary school located in northern Taiwan. There were 34 subjects--18 boys and 16 girls who participated in the study. Equipment used in the study included the PDAs, embedded mobile cameras and laptop computers as SDGs. The elementary school classroom was not equipped with any large screens for the participant groups to use, thus the screen of a laptop computer was used as the SDG.
Taking the subjects' former experience on PDA, mobile camera, and SDG environment usage into account, some training courses were given to the participants before the main experiment took place to avoid the "novelty effect" while facing a new form of media (Clark, 1983, 1994). The subjects were trained on the basic system functions for operating the PDA, mobile camera, as well as how to operate the PDA within the SDG environment. They were also familiarized with collaboration skills in the SDG environment. After the training courses, the main experiment took place and was comprised of four sessions, in total 180 minutes of the learning activity.
The instruments used in this study included a questionnaire and a learning achievement test. The questionnaire was designed to comprise nine categories, which included SDG function, reference materials, system message response, SDG equipment, collaboration, clue design, plant classification, learning attitude, and impression of the learning activity. The questionnaire consisted of 33 questions. Each question was evaluated on a five-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement and 1 indicating strong disagreement).
The learning achievement test was conducted to examine the student's understanding of the description of plants and the creation of conditions for classifying plants through the support of the SDG with mobile devices. The test questions were designed by referring to the teacher's manual for the "Natural and Living Technology" course. The type of test questions consisted of two parts, being the descriptions of the plants and the creation of conditions for classifying the plants. The test on descriptions of the plants asked students to describe plants which cannot be found on the campus. Students had five minutes to answer the test. The test on the creation of conditions for classifying plants asked students to create conditions for classifying plants and classify the plants by Linnaean Binomial Nomenclature. Students had ten minutes to answer the test. The learning achievement test was designed as pretest and posttest, and the test questions used in the posttest were the same as in the pretest.
In the test on the descriptions of plants, the students answers were evaluated from four aspects, which included the use of the plant's six parts (roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds), adjective words (for describing the appearance of plants such as color, size, quantity, shape), perceptual words (depending on personal affinity, for example, beautiful, ugly, good and bad), and the number of answered words (the total number of words in the answers). In the test on the creation of conditions for classifying plants, students answers were evaluated on five aspects, which included the use of the plant's parts, adjective words, perceptual words, successful classification (clearly classifying the plant into the A class and the non-A class successfully), and the number of created conditions for classifying plants.
Results of the questionnaire
Thirty-one valid copies of the questionnaire were collected after the experiment. Table 2 shows the results of the questionnaire with the mean scores for all questions in the nine categories. The results show that students evaluated high scores in each category of the questionnaire.
The results of the questionnaire show that SDG functions, such as information sharing, photos enlargement, individual and public spaces, and vote function were highly rated by the students. Students also positively rated the use of reference materials as well as the system message responses. Although the screen size of the laptop computer was small, most of the students stated that the screen size of the laptop computer was large enough for viewing information. In regards to collaboration supported by the SDG, students agreed that the SDG supported information sharing and group discussion, which they shared on the SDG including items such as photos and notes on the description of plants, as well as conditions for classifying plants from other group members. During the discussion, students did not interrupt the process of sharing information with group members while they completed individual tasks. In addition, students also highly rated the design of the clues and plant classifications, even though some students did not match plants with the clues or correctly classify plants with their group members. Moreover, the findings on students' learning attitude and impressions of the learning activity show that most students agreed that the learning activity is designed with the support of the SDG, and were willing to participate in the learning activity again.
Results of learning achievement test
Description of plants
In comparing the difference between the pretest and posttest, only a valid sample of twenty-seven students, who participated in both the pretest and posttest were used in the final analysis. A paired-samples t test was the statistical method adopted for use in the study. Table 3 shows the results of the test for the descriptions of plants. The results show that there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest in all aspects of the test on the descriptions of plants.
Creation of conditions for classifying plants
To compare the difference between the pretest and the posttest, only the valid sample of twenty-five students whose answers appeared in both the pretest and posttest were used in the analysis. A paired-samples t test was the statistical method adopted for use in the study. Table 4 shows the results of the test on the creation of conditions for classifying plants.
The results show that there were significant differences between pretest and posttest in most aspects of the test on the creation of conditions for classifying plants, except for the successful classification aspect. The number of created conditions improved from 4.20 (84%) in the pretest to 4.92 (98%) in the posttest, showing a significant difference (p=0.023). The number of plant's parts used in creating conditions had also greatly improved, from 1.80 (43%) in the pretest to 3.12 (63%) in the posttest, showing a significant difference (p=0.000). Regarding the number of adjective words used to create conditions for classifying plants, the number had increased from 1.76 (42%) in the pretest to 2.60 (53%) in the posttest, showing a significant difference (p=0.002). In contrast, the number of perceptual words used decreased from 1.04 (25%) in the pretest to 0.72 (13%) in the posttest, showing a significant difference (p=0.043).
Discussions
The results of the questionnaire show that most students rated high scores in each category. Although some questions of the questionnaire were rated a little lower than the rest of the questions, they were still higher than the average score. The question that got the lowest score is the question asking students if they can clearly look at the information on the SDG in the category of "SDG equipment". A reasonable explanation for this result could be found from the observation of students' behaviors during the learning activity. Some students answered that they cannot clearly see information from certain viewpoints due to light reflections. However, it was found that students could easily adjust the position of the laptop to give them a better view of the screen. This indicates that the screen of laptop computer could be adapted as the SDG in the absence of a large-scale screen. This also demonstrates the feasibility of integrating the SDG into the classroom.
From the results of the test on the descriptions of plants, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest in all aspects of the test. One of the possible reasons may be that the students only observed three kinds of parts of plants, such as the stems, leaves, and flowers. The other three parts of the plants (roots, fruits and seeds) were not observed due to limited time in the experiment. Therefore, students answered with few words in the test because they did not observe many parts of plants, causing no significant difference between pretest and posttest.
From the results of the test on the creation of conditions for classifying plants, there were significant differences between pretest and posttest in most aspects of the test. This indicates that students had improved their abilities to create conditions for classifying plants, and they became familiar with the plant's parts during the learning activity for observing plants and creating conditions for classifying plants. From a comparison of the pretest and the posttest, the increase in the amount of adjective words used and the reduction of subjective perceptual words used, reveal that students have learned a better way of classifying plants.
Conclusion
In this study, the authors integrated the Shared Display Groupware (SDG) concept with the use of mobile devices to design a learning activity and develop a mobile learning environment. The two-phase seven-step learning activity was designed to examine the characteristics of plants by means of observation and classification of plants. The SDG supports the simultaneous sharing and discussing of information among group members within the mobile learning environment. The system also supports the concurrent use of all individual and group tasks. Each task may be carried out without the interruption to any other ongoing tasks.
The results of the empirical study demonstrated that students positively evaluated on the questionnaire. For example, students reacted positively when surveyed on the convenience of the SDG functions for sharing information and creating a common focus during group discussions. Most students answered that they were willing to use the SDG again. In addition, the results of the learning achievement test demonstrated that students had improved their abilities to create conditions for classifying plants through the support of the SDG together with mobile devices under the learning activity design.
The empirical study described in this paper was only a small-scale study with sample consisting of one class and a one-group pretest-posttest design. This limitation may have influenced the validity of the results. Therefore, it is suggested that further studies be undertaken with a large sample, under a two-group experimental design to verify the results described in this paper. Another limitation is that the period of the study was short, which caused a lack time to observe plants and create sufficient conditions for the classification of plants. A significant amount of time was needed for students to familiarize themselves with operations of the SDG in group discussions. Therefore, a long-term experiment is required for examining students' learning effectiveness by using the SDG for the support of the learning activity. In addition, students' comments may also be gathered and analyzed for the improvement of the interface design of the SDG creating a more flexible design for use.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Aubrey Neil Leveridge for proofreading on an earlier version of this paper. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Ting Yen Lin for assisting in the system development. In addition, the authors wish to thank all the subjects who participated and cooperated in the experiment. This study was partially supported by grants (NSC 97-2628-S-008-001-MY3, NSC 97-2631-S-008-002) from the National Science Council of Taiwan.
References
Baudisch, P., Good, N., Bellotti, V., & Schraedley, P. (2002). Keeping things in context: A comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 259-266.
Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., His, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C. K., Milrad, M., & Hoope, U. (2006). One-to-one technology enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3-29.
Chang, C. Y., Sheu, J. P., & Chan, T. W. (2003). Concept and design of Ad Hoc and Mobile classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 336-346.
Chen Y. S., Kao T. C., & Sheu J. P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 347-359.
Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., Yu, G. J., & Sheu, J. P. (2004). A Mobile Butterfly-Watching Learning System for Supporting Independent Learning. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 2004). Jhongli, Taiwan. 11-18.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R. A., Rodriguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M., Cautivo, R. (2004). Teaching Science with Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (MCSCL). Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 2004). Jhongli, Taiwan. 67-74.
Danesh, A., Inkpen, K., Lau, F., Shu, K., & Booth. K. S. (2001). Geney: Designing a collaborative activity for the Palm handheld computer. Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle, Washington, USA. 388-395.
Greenberg, S., Boyle, M., & LaBerge, J. (1999). PDAs and Shared Public Displays: Making Personal Information Public, and Public Information Personal. Personal Technologies, 3(1), 54-64.
Hutchings, D. R., Stasko, J., & Czerwinski, M. (2005). Distributed display environments. Interactions, 12(6), 50-53. Inkpen, K., & Mandryk, R. L. (2005). Multi-Display Environment for Co-located Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2005 Workshop on Distributed Display Environments. Portland, Oregon, USA.
Kitamura, Y., Osawa, W., Yamaguchi, T., Takemura, H., & Kishino, F. (2005). A display table for strategic collaboration preserving private and public information. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Entertainment Computing, 3711, 167-179.
Lai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of Mobile Technologies for Experiential Learning: The Interplay of Technology and Pedagogical Practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337.
Liang, J. K., Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Chang, L. J., Deng, Y. C., Yang, J. C., Chou, C. Y., Ko, H. W., Yang, S., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A Few Design Perspectives on One-on-one Digital Classroom Environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 181-189.
Linnaeus, C. (1753). Species Plantarum. Stockholm, Sweden.
Liu, C. C., & Kao, L. C. (2007). Do handheld devices facilitate face-to-face collaboration? Handheld devices with large shared display groupware to facilitate group interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 285-299.
Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Liang, J. K., Chan, T. W., Ko, H. W., & Yang, J. C. (2003). Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 371-382.
Magerkurth, C., & Tandler, P. (2002). Interactive Walls and Handheld Devices--Applications for a Smart Environment. Proceedings of the UbiComp'02 Workshop on Collaboration with Interactive Walls and Tables. Goteborg, Sweden.
Myers, B. A., Stiel, H., & Gargiulo, R. (1998). Collaboration Using Multiple PDAs Connected to a PC. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'98). Seattle, Washington, USA. 285-294.
Nicol, D. J., & MacLeod, I. A. (2005).Using a Shared Workspace and Wireless Laptops to Improve Collaborative Project Learning in an Engineering Design Class. Computers & Education, 44(4), 459-475.
Rieger, R., & Gay, G. (1997). Using Mobile Computing to Enhance Field Study. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL'97). Toronto, Canada, 215-223.
Roschelle J. (2003) Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272.
Ryall, K., Forlines, C., Shen, C., Morris, M. R. (2004). Exploring the Effects of Group Size and Table Size on Interactions with Tabletop Shared-Display Groupware. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chicago, Illinois, USA. 284-293.
Scott, S. D., Mandryk, R. L., & Inkpen, K. (2003). Understanding Children's Collaborative Interactions in Shared Environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 220-228.
Scott, S. D., Grant, K., & Mandryk, R. L. (2003). System Guidelines for Co-located Collaborative Work on a Tabletop Display. Proceedings of Eighth Conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2003). Helsinki, Finland. 159-178.
Sharples, M., & Beale, R. (2003). A Technical Review of Mobile Computational Devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 392-395.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Log on Education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communication of the ACM, 44(6), 15-20.
Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Drum, A. (1999). Single Display Groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: the CHI is the limit. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 286-293.
Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds Go to School. IEEE Computer, 36(9), 30-37.
Tse, E., & Greenberg, E. (2004). Rapidly prototyping Single Display Groupware through the SDGToolkit. Proceedings of the fifth conference on Australasian user interface. Dunedin, New Zealand. 101-110.
Zanella, A., & Greenberg, S. (2001). Reducing interference in single display groupware through transparency. Proceedings of the seventh conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Bonn, Germany. 339-358.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Using Wirelessly Interconnected Handheld Computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289-314.
Jie Chi Yang and Yi Lung Lin
Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Jhongli City 320, Taiwan//
yang@cl.ncu.edu.tw//nigel@cl.ncu.edu.tw
Table 1. Learning activity design
Phase Step Learning activity
1 1 Grouping and login
2 Get clues
3 Investigate and collect
4 Compare and integrate clues
2 5 Second phase grouping
6 Create conditions for classification
7 Demonstrate results of classification
Table 2. Results of the questionnaire
Questions M
SDG function 4.32
Sharing information with group members through the SDG
was convenient. 4.32
Sharing photos and notes on the SDG facilitated group
discussion. 4.29
The enlarged photos were clearly seen on the SDG. 4.16
Group discussions were aided through the individual and
public spaces on the SDG. 4.29
The vote function on the SDG was useful for forming group
decisions and agreements. 4.52
Reference materials 4.23
It was helpful to find the target plant by referring the
materials on the SDG. 4.65
I referred to materials on the SDG to look up plants
information during group discussion. 4.42
I referred to materials on the SDG for proof of my
explanation to group members. 4.26
I referred to materials on the SDG to contradict group
members' ideas. 3.58
System message response 4.37
I knew how to get to the next step by looking the system
messages. 4.10
I understood the meaning of the system messages. 4.48
I carefully read the system messages. 4.52
SDG equipment 3.80
I think the screen size of the SDG was large enough for
viewing information. 4.23
I can clearly watch information on the SDG. 3.36
Collaboration 4.19
I understood the group members' explanation during the
process of group discussion. 4.16
I could work on my individual task without interrupting
the process of the group task. 4.10
Group discussions were facilitated with a common focus
on the SDG. 4.42
I collaborated with group members to observe plants using
different clues. 4.03
I collaborated with group members to create and discuss
conditions for classifying plants. 4.26
Clue design 4.20
I found many plants by using the assigned clue. 4.42
I collected plant information which matched the assigned
clue. 4.32
The clue was clearly described for finding plants that 3.87
matched the clue.
Plant classification 4.08
The clue used in the first phase was helpful for creating
conditions for the classification of plants. 4.48
Group members working together to create conditions for
classifying plants was meaningful. 4.00
Classifying plants with group members was an easy task. 3.77
Learning attitude 4.38
Group discussions were interesting through the use of
the SDG. 4.52
Controlling both the PDA and the SDG were convenient. 4.25
The learning activity was fun like a game with clues to
find plants. 4.51
I carefully read group members' data on the SDG. 4.25
Impression of the learning activity 4.29
I am willing to participate in the learning activity again. 4.28
I am willing to use the SDG again to share information
with group members. 4.23
I am willing to use the SDG again to discuss information
with group members. 4.42
I am willing to use the SDG again to create more
conditions for classifying plants. 4.23
Table 3. Results of the test on the descriptions of plants
Aspect Average p-value
pretest posttest
Number of answered words 22.46 23.44 .721
Use of plant's parts 2.83 2.74 .183
Adjective words 3.42 3.56 .185
Perceptual words 0.70 0.52 .449
Table 4. Results of the test on creation of conditions for
classifying plants
Aspect Average p-value
pretest posttest
Created conditions 4.20 4.92 0.023 *
Use of plant's parts 1.80 3.12 0.000 ***
Adjective words 1.76 2.60 0.002 **
Perceptual words 1.04 0.72 0.043 *
Successful classification 1.12 1.48 0.095
*: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Yang, Jie Chi; Lin, Yi Lung |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Educational Technology & Society |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Geographic Code: | 1USA |
| Date: | Jan 1, 2010 |
| Words: | 6633 |
| Previous Article: | Divergence of digital world of teachers. |
| Next Article: | Athens 2004 team leaders' attitudes toward the educational multimedia application "Leonidas". |
| Topics: | |