2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 35
2.4 R esults of the Review
One can claim that the research on flipped-inverted classroom has been growing in
recent years. Based on our analysis, we can verify this assumption, as we can see
from Table 2.1 the number of papers published during the last 4 years has increased
significantly, especially compared to the few and scattered papers before 2012. This
is in perfect alignment with the results from Google trends of the term “flipped
classroom” (Fig. 2.1). Following in this section, we present the results of our analy-
sis, as they arose from the reviewed articles.
2.4.1 Sample Used
The categories related to the sample of the articles, include the number of students
participated in the identified studies (size) and their educational level (i.e., under-
graduate, graduate). The majority of the studies involve undergraduate students
(30), with few studies at the graduate level (2) and at a mixed graduate and under-
graduate course (3). In addition, we identified one study in K-12 education and one
in graduate training (medical residency). Regarding the sample size (Fig. 2.4), most
of the studies (25) have been conducted with less than 100 students, and few (6) can
be considered large-scale studies (more than 200 students). The average sample size
of the studies is 120 and the median 55.
2.4.2 S ubject Area
With respect to subject area, it is clear that Computer Science (CS) and Information
Technology (IT) subjects are dominant in flipped-learning research, with nearly half
of the collected studies (16) being in CS/IT subject area. Research has also been
Sample Size
600
400
200
0
sample size of each paper
Fig. 2.4 Graph visualizing the sample distribution of the 37 research papers (sorted by sample
size), mean value is faded
36 M. N. Giannakos et al.
conducted in subjects such as Mathematics (4), medicine (3), history (2), combina-
tion of subjects (2), and management (1). Specifically, in the CS/IT subjects, many
studies (7) have been focused on introductory courses like IT, ICT, CS0, CS1, prob-
lem solving, and introductory programming. Nevertheless, studies have also been
conducted in less generic subjects like Human-Computer Interaction, Software
Engineering, Information System, Web Design, and Digital Engineering.
2.4.3 T ype of Research
One of the most important aspects in educational research is the type of methodol-
ogy. By “type of methodology,” we refer to the distinction among quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed research. In addition to the type of methodology, our catego-
rization includes the type of experimental design, referring to the distinction among
the following experimental designs: within-groups, between-groups, non-design
(which in most of the cases includes simple post measurements), and a combination
of within-between research designs. In a between-groups (or between-subjects)
research design, we have more than one group, named control and experimental
group(s), and the subject is observed only one time, followed by a comparison
between the control and experimental groups. In a within-groups (or subjects)
design, a subject is observed at the beginning and end of the treatment; then a pre-
post comparison follows. Based on this categorization, we can see from Table 2.2
that the majority of the papers are quantitative (19) and mixed (15) with few studies
(2) being totally qualitative. Regarding the type of experimental design, most of the
studies followed a between-groups design (14) and fewer within-groups design
(10). Many of the studies (10) did not follow any of these designs, but simply mea-
sured the results after the respective treatment (post measurements). A very small
number of studies (3) implemented a more sophisticated experimental design by
combining between and within-group designs.
2.4.4 T echnology Used to Flip and Measures Used
Concerning the technology used, most of the studies used video lectures (30); some
studies also used animated readings (4) and simulations (3); many times animated
readings and simulations were used on the top of the video lectures combined with
Table 2.2 Type of the research papers
Type of methodology Quantitative Qualitative Mixed
No of studies 19 2 15
Type of experimental design Between Within Between and within Non (only post)
10 3 10
No of studies 14
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 37
Table 2.3 Measures used and instruments
Measure Attitudes Attendance Learning Skills Biometrical (EEG)
Type 31 5 performance 1 1
No of 20
studies
Instruments Survey Open-ended Learning Interviews Observations Data from
questions performance focus
tests groups
8
No of 32 19 43 4
studies
learning management systems (LMS). Only one study used more complex Intelligent
Tutoring System (ITS) technology. Regarding the measures used on the studies,
most of the studies used attitudinal (31) and learning performance (20) measures
(Table 2.3). On top of the aforementioned measures, some studies also captured
students’ attendance (4), skills (1), fail rate (1), and biometrical data using EEG (1).
In order to be able to capture this information, researchers used different instru-
ments and many times a combination of them. In particular, 32 studies used surveys,
19 performance tests, 8 open-ended questions, 4 interviews, 4 data from focus
groups, 3 studies used observations, and one study used EEG (Table 2.3).
2.4.5 Summary of Benefits Identified in the Reviewed Studies
Most of the literature review studies agree in six key benefits regarding the use of
the flipped classroom instructional strategy. First, most of the studies while measur-
ing students’ learning performance identified that flipping the class is a way to
improve learning performance. Second, more than half the studies analyzed suggest
that students have very positive attitudes toward the flipped classroom approach,
describing the approach as useful, helpful, and flexible. Alongside with the positive
attitudinal measurements, students particularly welcomed the fact that they had
access to materials like video lectures, and they were able to prepare themselves and
even learn when, where, and at the pace they wanted; students welcomed their abil-
ity to learn independently. Third, a number of papers indicated high levels of
engagement. Based mostly on qualitative data like interviews with the students and
instructors’ observations, it is stated that even if the performance is sometimes not
as high as expected, student engagement remains at a high level. Fourth, it is found
that there is a measurable increase in the quantity of discussions, although the qual-
ity of discussions was not assessed in the collected studies. Fifth, flipped classroom
force students to work collaboratively, and qualitative evidences indicate that stu-
dents improved their cooperative skills. Finally, a number of articles indicate that
learning habits change as a result of this approach and the availability of the extra
learning materials increased self-regulated learning as well as critical thinking and
self-judgment, especially when those materials were revisited prior to a revision or
38 M. N. Giannakos et al.
examination. In summary, most of the studies agree in the six following benefits of
flipped classroom:
• Flipped classroom instructional strategy has found to increases learning performance.
• Students who participated in a flipped classroom instruction indicated positive
attitudes.
• Students’ engagement with the flipped classroom instruction was found very high.
• In flipped classroom instructions, students have more discussions (qualitatively
measured).
• Flipped classroom instruction was found to enforce cooperative learning.
• Flipped classroom instruction improves students’ learning habits.
2.4.6 Summary of Challenges Identified in the Reviewed
Studies
Most of the literature review studies agree in three key challenges on putting flipped
classroom into practice. First, most of the studies mention the high initial cost in
terms of preparation time and for the development of the inverted materials; however,
this is reduced after the first year of a flipped class since the instructor is better pre-
pared and some of the materials can be reused. Second, students sometimes struggled
with the new format and were occasionally unreceptive to follow the structure of the
course; they might sometimes adapt quickly and in most of the cases students ulti-
mately found the inverted classroom format to be satisfactory and effective (also
exhibited with students’ positive attitudes); however, the initial unreceptive behavior
was observed in most of the studies. Finally, a number of articles indicated that by
using the flipped classroom approach, you might encounter a decrease in attendance,
especially in large introductory courses. In summary, most of the studies agree in the
three following challenges on putting flipped classroom into practice:
• Implementing flipped classroom instruction entails high initial cost and is very
time consuming for the instructor.
• Instructors might encounter students’ initial unreceptive behavior with the course
structure.
• Flipped classroom instruction might decrease students’ attendance.
2.4.7 S ummary of Flipped Classroom Research
This chapter reviews the status and trend of flipped classroom research based on the
papers published in the last years. In summary, this chapter identified that:
• The number of papers has significantly increased during the last years, especially
after 2012.
• The focus of the recent studies is on empirical quantitative and mixed studies.
• There is a lack of focus on qualitative oriented studies.
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 39
• There is a lack of focus on the pedagogical strategies in the current flipped class-
room research studies.
• There is a high emphasis on CS/IT domains with particular focus on introductory
courses like introductory programing and problem-solving courses (e.g., CS0, CS1).
• Researchers focused on measuring students’ attitudes and learning performance.
• There are certain benefits and challenges of using a flipped class approach in
your course (see Sections “Summary of benefits identified in the reviewed stud-
ies” and “Summary of challenges identified in the reviewed studies”).
2.5 Discussion and Conclusions
We identified 37 articles to describe research studies of acceptable rigor, credibility,
and relevance. After reviewing the identified studies on flipped classroom approach,
we can agree on the offered affordances and the positive effects on students’ perfor-
mance, attitudes, and engagement. Flipped learning can provide the students’
opportunities to learn in a more differentiated manner than in traditional linear and
passive forms, which can lead to higher achievement and a better preparedness for
the twenty-first century expected competencies and needs [44]. Students have men-
tioned that they appreciate the ability to digest the content in a self-paced manner,
so long as it was done before the next class period. Though the majority of students
completed the required prerequisite tasks on a fairly regular basis, there was consis-
tently a small portion that did not [7, 32, 36], hence we need to be able to provide
additional guidance to those students and avoid dropouts or low performance stu-
dents. In the identified studies, we found a number of reported benefits and limita-
tions of flipped classroom. Unfortunately, many times clear indicators of reliability
and validity of data collection and methods are missing. In addition, sometimes the
strength of evidence is very low and even contradictive which makes it difficult to
offer specific advice to educational researchers and educators. Consequently, we
advise educators to use this article as a map of findings according to topic, which
they can use to investigate relevant studies further and compare the settings in the
studies to their own situation. Depending on the scale of their class, the technology
one want to use, subject, learning goals, and other more or less important parame-
ters, educators can guide their instruction based on the empirical studies (Table 2.1).
In terms of student engagement, flipped learning received the most positive feed-
back from students in the qualitative surveys (e.g., open-ended questions). Students
perceived the use of classroom activities that activated higher-order thinking to be
more engaging [7, 30]. In addition, the environment afforded students to remain at
higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy for longer periods of time [24]. The longer the
students remain in the higher levels of thinking and problem solving, the more they
improve their mental skills, feel engaged with authentic learning, and the perceived
quality of the learning is greater [30].
Flipped learning empowered students through more active learning [3, 16].
Rather than having the instructor’s interpretation of the material delivered explicitly
during class time where students passively take notes and possibly ask questions,
40 M. N. Giannakos et al.
the students were held more accountable for the front-loading of content. This more
active role is difficult for some students to adjust to [45] and cause frustration as
well as unreceptive behavior, but it was evident that the flipped method was success-
ful overall, especially looking at the percentage of students who prefer a flipped
environment to a traditional one [24].
Furthermore, the identified studies provide a wide variety of methods for flipping
the class. Some of the studies used quizzes outside the classroom ([6, 24]), while
others used quizzes inside the classroom [19]. Some studies emphasized the impor-
tance of these quizzes to students and counted them for low-stakes grading [45],
while others simply provided them as a resource to the students with no grading
benefit [32]. Some of the studies provided only video lectures before the class [6,
21], while others employed more sophisticated materials like interactive simula-
tions, animated readings, ITS, and so on [7, 17, 18]. Hence, this article summarizes
(Table 2.1) the wide variety of methods as well as technologies employed for flip-
ping the class.
2.5.1 I mplications for Research and Practice
The current review suggests that, while there are some challenges for students and
instructors, there is also a number of potential benefits which can lead students to
achieve higher-order cognitive skills. Flipped classroom provides opportunities for
improving instruction that might not be feasible for traditional teaching approaches.
In particular, students’ learning performance is often observed to increase or stay on
the same level (compared to traditional instructing approaches); students’ engage-
ment, group work, and critical thinking have clearly benefited from flipping the
classroom. Hence, educators who want to increase those qualities should adopt
flipped classroom approach and use this article as a springboard to select the appro-
priate settings, methods, technologies, and other more or less important elements
identified in the review.
The studies identified through the literature review agree on certain benefits of
flipped classroom teaching strategy; however, there are also a number of challenges
where instructors, curriculum designers, and policy makers have to be aware of.
Most of the studies agree for the high initial cost for the instructor and other
resources (e.g., teaching assistants, technicians) in order to be able to appropriately
prepare the needed materials as well as flip the class. Another challenge is related
with the fact that higher education students sometimes seem unreceptive to the
flipped structure and stop attending the at-class part; hence, during the first weeks,
instructors should employ techniques attractive to the students’ practices in order to
give them the appropriate time needed to change their learning habits and recognize
the advantages of flipped classroom instructional strategy.
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 41
2.5.2 Limitations
The main limitations of the review are related with the bias in the selection of pub-
lications and inaccuracy in data extraction. To reduce the publications selection and
data extraction biases, we defined the research questions in advance, the keywords
and search terms that would enable us to identify the relevant literature, as well as
developed a protocol for the systematic publication selection and data extraction (as
described in Section “Methodology”). However, it is important to mention that
flipped classroom is a young area; hence, keywords are not very standardized.
Therefore, due to our choice of keywords, there is a risk that some studies might be
omitted. In order to reduce this bias as much as possible, we also checked the refer-
ence section of each article found as well as searched manually the key learning
technology journals.
Furthermore, some of the articles lacked sufficient information for us to be able
to evaluate the quality of them satisfactorily. More specifically, we frequently found
that some methodological aspects and indicators of reliability and validity were not
always described adequately, and that pedagogical theoretical principles and educa-
tional settings were not described well (if at all); however, sampling, measurements,
and data analysis were explained with sufficient detail. There is, therefore, a possi-
bility that the extraction process may have resulted in some inaccuracy in the data,
due to insufficient information reported in the identified articles; in order to reduce
this bias as much as possible, we devised a number of quality criteria (see Fig. 2.3).
2.6 F uture Directions for the Flipped Classroom
A number of suggestions for further research have emerged from reviewing prior
and ongoing work on flipping the classroom. One recommendation for future
researchers is to clearly describe the flipped classroom approach by providing
detailed information for the materials used, as well as the pedagogical strategies,
especially in subjects like IT/CS where technology sometimes has both the role of
the content and the medium. This will allow us to identify which aspects, technolo-
gies, and concepts of the flipped classroom work better than others and to form best
practices, providing a springboard for other scholars. It is also advisable for future
research to provide clear indicators of reliability and validity of data collection tools
and methods. This will allow us to compare studies and provide rigorous meta-
analysis studies. Another suggestion is to expand the sample population to primary
and secondary education students, since most of the studies are focusing to graduate
or undergraduate level. Studies in K-12 education will provide knowledge directed
to a stricter context with various differences like subject areas, instructors’ abilities,
technological comfort level, and so on.
Another recommendation is to focus more on the in-class part of the flipped
classroom approach; limited research has been conducted on how instructors can
42 M. N. Giannakos et al.
motivate and engage students in active participation and critical discussions, as well
as how technology can assist in that direction. Future work should also focus on
collecting and triangulating different types of data from different sources. Although
the reviewed studies have been conducted using a wide range of collected data,
ranging from students’ attitudes and learning performance to even biometric char-
acteristics, the interpretations and triangulation between the different types of the
collected data were limited. For example, issues referring to any potential effect of
students’ attitudes on their learning performance or attendance have not yet been
explored. In-depth qualitative investigation on low performers and adopters is also
yet to be conducted. Finally, a promising area of research involves the role and
impact of flipped classroom in helping students with special needs. It is important
to highlight that we did not identify any study in our literature review on this area;
this is of particular interest since other active learning instruction strategies have
been fundamental in helping students with special needs. These future research
efforts will allow us to understand which aspects of flipping the classroom work
better and under which circumstances and with what type of students.
Acknowledgments The first and second author’s contribution in this work has been funded by
the Research Council of Norway under the project FUTURE LEARNING (number: 255129/H20)
and the Centre for Excellent IT Education (Excited—http://www.ntnu.edu/excited). The third
author’s contribution in this work is part of Curtin’s contribution to the “STORIES—Stories of
Tomorrow: Students Visions on the Future of Space Exploration” project under the European
Commission’s Horizon 2020 Program, H2020-ICT-22-2016-2017 “Information and
Communication Technologies: Technologies for Learning and Skills” (Project Number: 731872).
This document reflects the views only of the authors, and it does not represent the opinion of the
Research Council of Norway, the European Commission or Curtin University. The Research
Council of Norway, the European Commission, and Curtin University cannot be held responsible
for any use that might be made of its content.
References
1. Giannakos, M. N., & Chrisochoides, N. (2014). Challenges and perspectives in an under-
graduate flipped classroom experience: Looking through the lens of analytics. In the 44th
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’14).
2. Sergis, S., Vlachopoulos, P., Sampson, D., & Pelliccione, L. (2016). Implementing teaching
model templates for supporting flipped classroom-enhanced STEM education in Moodle.
In A. Marcus-Quinn & T. Hourigan (Eds.), Handbook for digital learning in K-12 schools
(pp. 191–215). Cham: Springer. Chapter 12, ISBN: 978-3-319-33808-8.
3. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating
an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.
4. Bishop, J.L. & Verleger M.A., (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In
Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Paper # 6219, Atlanta, GA.
5. Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach
software engineering. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engi-
neering, ACM Press, pp. 777–786.
6. Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an
inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435.
2 Putting Flipped Classroom into Practice… 43
7. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional tech-
nology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580.
8. Stone, B. B. (2012). Flip your classroom to increase active learning and student engagement.
In Proceedings from 28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI.
9. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
10. Little, C. (2015). The flipped classroom in further education: Literature review and case study.
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(3), 265–279.
1 1. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
12. Kitchenham, B.A. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering version 2.3. Keele University and University of Durham, EBSE Technical Report.
1 3. Gehringer, E. F., & Peddycord III, B. W. (2013). The inverted-lecture model: A case study in
computer architecture. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer
science education, ACM Press, pp. 489–494.
14. Sarawagi, N. (2014). A flipped CS0 classroom: Applying Bloom’s taxonomy to algorithmic
thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(6), 21–28.
15. Toto, R., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’09), pp. 1–4.
16. Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom”
model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
76(10), 196.
17. Bates, S., & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introduc-
tory physics course: A case study. Proceedings of the HEA STEM Learning and Teaching
Conference. https://doi.org/10.11120/stem.hea.2012.071.
18. Warter-Perez, N., & Dong, J. (2012). Flipping the classroom: How to embed inquiry and
design projects into a digital engineering lecture. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE PSW
Section Conference.
19. Papadopoulos, C., & Roman, A. S. (2010). Implementing an inverted classroom model in
engineering statics: Initial results. In proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education (ASEE).
20. Lockwood, K., & Esselstein, R. (2013). The inverted classroom and the CS curriculum. In
Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM
Press, pp. 113–118.
21. Herold, M. J., Lynch, T. D., Ramnath, R., & Ramanathan, J. (2012). Student and instructor
experiences in the inverted classroom. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference (FIE), pp. 1–6.
2 2. Thomas, M. (2014). iOS app programming using an inverted classroom in a small department.
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(5), 179–185.
2 3. McCray, G. E. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional
classroom. Information Technology and Management, 1(4), 307–327.
24. Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on
undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27.
2 5. Szafir, D., & Mutlu, B. (2013). ARTFul: Adaptive review technology for flipped learning. In
Proceedings of the 2013 ACM annual conference on Human factors in computing systems,
ACM Press, pp. 1001–1010.
26. Campbell, J., Horton, D., Craig, M., & Gries, P. (2014). Evaluating an inverted CS1. In
Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM
Press, pp. 307–312.
27. Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/homework
paradigm using eTEACH® web-based streaming video software. Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(3), 267–274.
44 M. N. Giannakos et al.
2 8. Largent, D. L. (2013). Flipping a large CS0 course: An experience report about exploring the
use of video, clickers and active learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(1),
84–91.
29. Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human–computer
interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431.
3 0. Wilson, S. (2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate
statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 193–199.
3 1. Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group
learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(1), 1–9.
32. Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. The History Teacher, 47(2),
221–244.
33. Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2013). Student learning and perceptions
in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology, 45(3), 317–324.
34. McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. (2013). Flipping calculus. Primus, 23(5), 477–486.
35. Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a prac-
tice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471–485.
36. Murphree, D. S. (2014). “Writing wasn’t really stressed, accurate historical analysis was
stressed”: Student perceptions of in-class writing in the inverted, General Education, University
History Survey Course. The History Teacher, 47(2), 209–219.
3 7. Larson, S., & Yamamoto, J. (2013). Flipping the college spreadsheet skills classroom: Initial
empirical results. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 4(10),
751–758.
38. Talbert, R. (2014). Inverting the linear algebra classroom. Primus, 24(5), 361–374.
39. Elliott, R. (2014). Do students like the flipped classroom? An investigation of student reaction
to a flipped undergraduate IT course. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2014 IEEE
(pp. 1–7), IEEE.
40. Kim, S., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an
urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22,
37–50.
4 1. Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students.
Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 356–366.
4 2. Albert, M., & Beatty, B. J. (2014). Flipping the classroom applications to curriculum rede-
sign for an introduction to management course: Impact on grades. Journal of Education for
Business, 89(8), 419–424.
4 3. Young, T. P., Bailey, C. J., Guptill, M., Thorp, A. W., & Thomas, T. L. (2014). The flipped
classroom: A modality for mixed asynchronous and synchronous learning in a residency pro-
gram. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(7), 938.
44. Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2013). Flipping your classroom without flipping out. In Proceedings
of the 41st SEFI Conference, pp. 16–20.
4 5. Bormann, J. (2014). Affordances of flipped learning and its effects on student engagement and
achievement. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Northern Iowa. Chicago.
Chapter 3
Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education
Jan Delcker, Andrea Honal, and Dirk Ifenthaler
Abstract This chapter focuses on mobile device usage of students in higher educa-
tion. While more and more students embrace mobile devices in their daily life,
institutions attempt to profit from those devices for educational purposes. It is,
therefore, crucial for institutional development to identify students’ needs and how
mobile devices may facilitate these needs. This longitudinal study with N = 172
participants compares the use of e-Readers and tablets for learning at a higher edu-
cation institution. While e-Readers offer inexpensive solutions for reading texts,
tablets provide a much wider range of applications, such as communicating with
other students, accessing learning management systems, or conducting research
online. Findings indicate that students evaluate tablets as a more useful device for
learning. Interestingly, students using tablets also start to include more and more
mobile learning technologies into their learning strategies.
3.1 I ntroduction
The use of mobile devices of higher education students has been on the rise for
years. As more and more people integrate mobile devices into their personal life
[1, 2] educational institutions are including new technologies into their learning
J. Delcker (*) 45
University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Honal
DHBW Mannheim (Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Mannheim),
Mannheim, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Ifenthaler
Learning, Design and Technology, University of Mannheim,
Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Curtin Teaching and Learning, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
D. Sampson et al. (eds.), Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for
Improving Teaching and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_3
46 J. Delcker et al.
and teaching systems to benefit from the distribution of mobile devices. This
includes advanced infrastructure such as computer rooms accessible for students,
digitalization of library systems, as well as the development and implementation of
learning management systems with the goal to maximize the use of mobile devices
while maintaining the purpose of education [3]. Aligning students’ needs with insti-
tutional offers is one of the current challenges. Gikas and Grant [4] state that stu-
dents are unlikely to involve a certain mobile device into their learning behavior, if
they do not benefit from it. Simply distributing devices to students will not facilitate
educational success of an institution. To distinguish useful devices from less useful
ones, it is, therefore, important to investigate students’ needs and compare them
with the features a mobile device can offer.
In 2015, researchers at the University of Mannheim and the Baden-Wuerttemberg
Cooperative State University Mannheim (DHBW Mannheim) conducted a longitu-
dinal study focusing on the use of e-Readers for students in higher education.
E-Readers were characterized as inexpensive tools able to widen an institution’s
range of utilized media devices. Although e-Readers proved to be useful for the
students’ task of reading texts, additional important features were missing: students
mentioned the ability to make annotations in a piece of text, search the internet for
further information, or use the learning management system of the institution as
important for their learning needs. As a result, a follow-up study comparing tablet
computers with e-Readers was conducted.
This chapter consists of three parts: In the first part, relevant theoretical consid-
erations are being made with respect to current literature and empirical work. Six
hypotheses have been constructed as a result of the literature review. The second
part outlines the survey methodology and the results of the survey. In the final part,
the results of the survey are discussed and connected with the preliminary
considerations.
3.2 L iterature Review
3.2.1 S tudents’ Tasks in Higher Education
The tasks of students at higher education institutions are manifold. Each category
requires a variety of skills, competences, and tools allowing students to be success-
ful learners in higher education. Fundamental tasks are information literacy and
academic learning skills including (1) attending classes (including preparation and
post processing), (2) preparing for/taking exams, (3) handing in written papers (or
comparable assignments) [5] which will be explained in greater detail below.
However, several skills, competences, and tools cannot be assigned to a single cat-
egory and not all of the challenges students face in higher education are included
[6]. A comprehensive review would exceed the boundary of the chapter. Therefore,
this chapter focuses on the tasks that can be supported through mobile devices.
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education 47
Attending classes refers to the actual presence time at the respective institution.
This includes taking part in mandatory lectures and tutorial groups as well as stu-
dent workgroups. Students have to provide themselves with the course material,
such as lecture notes and literature, to effectively handle the task of attending
classes. In addition, students are securing important information in the classes by
taking notes or creating audio-recordings. Securing important information helps
students to follow and post-process the current class and to prepare the upcoming
class. This often includes performing further research (e.g., searching for informa-
tion online) [7].
Scripts, notes, literature, and the ability to conduct further research can be used
in the process of preparing for exams. Time management is a necessary skill
enabling students to effectively handle the workload in the stressful time in the pre-
exam period. It is also needed to organize group work, which is a learning strategy
often and successfully used by students [8]. In regard to this popular learning strat-
egy, an important factor is the ability to communicate aspects of organization (meet-
ing date and place, agenda) and content-related topics (distribute helpful literature
in a workgroup).
When working on written papers or other non-exam reviews, students not
only rely on literature and information provided by lecturers. They have to search
for additional information in online databases, libraries, and the Internet. This
includes the ability to work with different texts and file formats. Apart from text
files, information can sometimes be found in the form of video and audio files.
These media files require further technology to be included in the student’s learn-
ing process [9, 10].
3.2.2 M obile Learning: e-Readers and Tablets in Comparison
Gikas and Grant [4] define mobile learning as a combination of three aspects. (1)
Mobile learning as more than just learning delivered on a mobile computing device,
(2) learning as both formal and informal, as well as (3) context aware and authentic
for the learner. For the presented study, points (2) and (3) are especially important,
because the curriculum of the DHBW Mannheim is based on the interaction of
theory and practice. This study system is called “dual system.” Students are spend-
ing half of the semester with theoretical studies at university and the other half of
the semester doing practical work at companies. Mobile devices do not only allow
students to have access to learning material while they are away from university,
they can also include them in their practice time at work and for authentic learning
situations [4]. Although a multitude of mobile devices for mobile learning have
been developed over the last decade, students are mostly using laptops and smart-
phones, owned by over 90% of all students [1]. Additionally, many students own
e-Readers or tablets and include them in their daily learning [1].
The basic function of e-Readers is the display of text files, such as specific
e-book-formats or PDF-files. They are equipped with a special display, which was
48 J. Delcker et al.
developed to optimize the readability of text documents. E-Readers are lightweight,
offer a wide viewing angle, and only consume a small amount of energy, therefore
combining mobility and readability [11]. E-Readers as not being capable of fulfill-
ing the demands of educational environments, such as displaying multiple columns,
detailed illustrations, and mathematical equations or symbols. Further, they often do
not support activities related to research-oriented active reading as well as note-
taking and highlighting. Technical reports, maps, and charts are difficult to read
because of graphics quality [12]. Improvements seem to be necessary to strengthen
e-Readers role in an educational context, for example, the ability of browsing the
internet [13], printing important parts of content [14], and improvements toward
processing and performance speed [15]. The shortcomings of e-Readers may be
reasons students do not see them as supportive for their study practices [16].
Nevertheless, e-Readers are characterized as “great for reading novels” [17], espe-
cially because of the eye-friendliness of the screen, weight, and size of the device,
as well as power of battery [18].
The most common e-Readers types are the Kindle (Amazon), the Kobo, Nook
(Barnes and Noble), and the Sony Reader [19] with cost from 50€ up to 250€.
Another notable product is the Tolino, a coalition of big bookstore companies,
designed especially for the European market.
In comparison to e-Readers, tablets (e.g., Apple iPad) offer a much wider range
of functions, while at the same time providing a similar mobility. Tablets can be
described as a mixture of smartphones and laptop computers, equipped with tech-
nology to use mobile data, such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and LTE, but with a much
bigger screen than the typical smartphone. Additional features such as microphones
and cameras and the ability to install software in the form of apps are paired with
intuitive usability [20]. The investigated problems of e-Readers in educational con-
text can mostly be approached with tablets, because they allow access to the Internet
(e.g., for researching further learning content). With the display keyboard, notes can
easily be added to existing documents. Tablets can show 3D-models and complex
simulations because of their advanced computing power. In terms of media files,
video and audio files can also be rendered on tablets. Furthermore, technical fea-
tures allow students to access learning management systems or use social media to
connect with other learners. Students can install additional programs or applications
on a tablet to structure and frame their personal learning process.
Tablets cost from 30€ to 1800€, with a wide variety of manufacturers and operat-
ing systems. Apple iPad, Samsung Galaxy Tab, and Microsoft Surface are the most
commonly used tablets with specific operations systems iOS (Apple), Android
(Samsung), and Windows (Microsoft Surface).
A difference in fields of application for the mobile devices can be determined
based on their technical characteristics and limitations. While e-Readers seem to be
a good tool for reading text files, tablets offer a much wider set of functions.
Table 3.1 compares e-Readers and tablets with regard to learning tasks of students.
While the e-Reader is representing a traditional learning environment in which
the student is learning through the reception of information (reading an eBook),
tablets enable students to shape their own learning process by communicating with
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education 49
Table 3.1 Features for Task e-Reader Tablet
learning of e-Readers and
tablets Reading text files Possible Possible
Taking notes Complicated/not possible Possible
Browsing the internet Not possible Possible
Library research Not possible Possible
Accessing LMS Not possible Possible
Communication Not possible Possible
Additional media Not possible Possible
others, searching information on the internet, or using other forms of media (e.g.,
watching videos, listening to a podcast). The use of tablets is shifting the learning
process from one-way communication, in which the teacher is providing the infor-
mation, to a learning environment in which the students can interact with the learn-
ing material and fellow students.
3.2.3 T he Present Study
While the tablet looks superior in theory, it is questionable if or to what extend stu-
dents are integrating the mobile device into their learning and how they rate the
usefulness of the device. Based on the theoretical assumptions of the previous sec-
tions, six hypotheses for a comparative study were created.
We assume that students are using tablets more often than e-Readers (Hypothesis
1). Students working with a tablet more often utilize technologies and features for
learning (Hypothesis 2a). The difference between tablet and e-Reader users in this
regard grows over time (Hypothesis 2b). When rating the usability of tablets for the
personal learning processes, tablets are rated higher in comparison to e-Readers
(Hypothesis 3a). The difference between tablet and e-Reader rating are growing in
the course of time (Hypothesis 3b). The technical features of tablets are rated higher
than the technical features of e-Readers (Hypothesis 4).
3.3 Method
3.3.1 Design
This study compares the use of e-Readers and tablets at the Baden-Wuerttemberg
Cooperative State University Mannheim (DHBW). The main goal was to investi-
gate in which ways bachelor students integrate the mobile devices into their learn-
ing behavior and if there are significant differences between different mobile
devices. Out of a group of 172 students, two groups were chosen randomly and
50 J. Delcker et al.
provided with an e-Reader or a tablet. Data was collected through an online survey
at three different measurement points (start of semester, mid-semester, and end of
semester). At the first measurement point, students received their devices. They
were asked to provide their email address, which was later used to invite them to the
online survey using the LimeSurvey tool.
3.3.2 Participants
In total, N = 172 students from 3 different classes (real-estate management, mechan-
ical engineering, and business informatics) took part in the survey. 72.7% were male
and 27.3% were female students, with an average age of 20.23 years (SD = 2.21).
26% of the students attended the real-estate management class, 35% studied
mechanical engineering, and 39% were business informatics students.
3.3.3 Instrument
At three measurement points (t1, t2, t3), standardized questionnaires were used,
consisting of 31 (t1), 19 (t2), and 41 (t3) items. In most cases, a seven-point Likert
scale (7 = I totally agree; 6 = I agree; 5 = I agree partially; 4 = I don’t know; 3 = I
disagree partially; 2 = I disagree; 1 = I totally disagree) was used to evaluate the
students’ perceptions toward the devices. In addition, open questions were used to
collect information about positive and negative aspects of the devices. The factors
have been successfully tested for reliability with Cronbach’s alpha ranging
0.775 ≤ r ≤ 0.904.
3.3.4 Data Analysis
The collected data was anonymized, exported, and analyzed using SPSS V.23.
Initial data checks showed that the distributions of ratings and scores satisfied the
assumptions underlying the analysis procedures. Out of the initial 172 students, 127
datasets could be used for analysis. All effects were assessed at the 0.05 level.
3.4 R esults
Hypothesis 1: Frequency of Mobile Device Use
Students were asked at measurement three (t3) to provide the frequency with which
they used the mobile device on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 = multiple times a day,
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education 51
2 = daily, 3 = multiple times a week, 4 = once a week, 5 = multiple times a month,
6 = once a month, 7 = less than once a month). An independent-samples t-test was
used to compare the amount of time students spent using the mobile devices. The
t-test showed a significant difference between the time spent on using the mobile
device between students with e-Readers (M = 6.40, SD = 1.24) and students with
tablets (M = 2.58, SD = 1.73), t(127) = 14.48, p < 0.01, d = 2.53. The results suggest
that there is a difference between the amount of time students spend on using
e-Readers and tablets. Specifically, the results suggest that tablets are used more
often than e-Readers. E-Readers are approximately used once a month, while the
tablets are used multiple times a week. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 is accepted.
Hypothesis 2a: Use of Technologies and Features for Learning
Students were asked which technologies and features they use as part of their learn-
ing on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = no use; 7 = very high usage intensity). Thirteen
different features and technologies were chosen, for example, online research,
online library, online database, communication application, video platforms, social
media platforms, and learning management systems (LMS). For analysis, a variable
was created, grouping the specific intensity variables together into a single intensity
variable for each measurement point. A high value represents a high use of tech-
nologies and features while a low value represents a low use of technologies and
features. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the use of tech-
nologies and features between the two mobile device groups at measurement points
t1 and t3. There was no significant difference between e-Readers (M = 42.58,
SD = 12.12) and tablets (M = 41.64, SD = 11.31) at measurement point t1,
t(127) = 0.0457, p = 0.648. Similar, no significant difference between e-Readers
(M = 43.68, SD = 13.25) and tablets (M = 47.09, SD = 11.34) was found at measure-
ment point t3, t(127) = −1.57, p = 0.118. Thus, Hypothesis 2a has to be rejected.
The results suggest that students using tablets and e-Readers do not vary in the
intensity of technologies and features used for their personal learning behavior.
Hypothesis 2b: Increased Difference over Time
Although we could not find a significant difference in the intensity of used technolo-
gies and features between e-Readers and tablets, a change in intensity over time
might be observable. A paired-samples t-test was used to compare the usage inten-
sity of technologies and features in the course of time within the two device groups.
For the tablets, there was a significant difference between t1 (M = 41.64, SD = 11.31)
and t3 (M = 47.09, SD = 11.34), t(63) = −3.76, p < 0.01, d = 0.48. For the e-Readers,
there was no significant difference between t1 (M = 42.58, SD = 12.12) and t3
(M = 43.68, SD = 13.25), t(64) = −0.582, p = 0.56. The results suggest that while
there is no significant change in the intensity of used technologies and features for
e-Reader users over time, the tablet group uses technologies and features more fre-
quently after working with the devices for some time. Hence, Hypothesis 2b is
accepted.
52 J. Delcker et al.
Hypothesis 3a: Rating the Usability for Learning
Students were asked to rate the usefulness of the device they were equipped with.
Four items were used to determine the perceived usefulness (“Using the device for
learning is a good idea,” “Using the device for learning makes learning more inter-
esting,” “Using the device for learning is fun,” and “I like working with the device”)
on a seven-point Likert scale (7 = I totally agree; 6 = I agree; 5 = I agree partially;
4 = I don’t know; 3 = I disagree partially; 2 = I disagree; 1 = I totally disagree).
Those four items were computed into a group variable for further analysis. An inde-
pendent t-test was conducted to compare the perceived usefulness for personal
learning between the two devices. There was no significant difference between the
rating of e-Readers (M = 20.52, SD = 5.18) and tablets (M = 21.64, SD = 3.74) at t1,
t(127) = −1.401, p = 0.164. The results suggest that the use of e-Readers and tablets
was not perceived different at the beginning of the study. At the end of the study,
there was a significant difference between the rating of e-Readers (M = 15.00,
SD = 7.23) and tablets (M = 21.00, SD = 5.23); t(127) = −5.392, p < 0.01, d = 0.95.
The results show that there is a difference between the perceived usefulness between
e-Readers and tablets at the end of the term. Hence, Hypothesis 3a is accepted.
More specifically, e-Readers are perceived as less useful in contrast to tablets.
Hypothesis 3b: Increased Difference over Time
While there was not a significant difference between the perceived usefulness
between e-Readers and tablets at the beginning of the study (Hypothesis 3a), there
was a significant difference at the end of the study. Because of the observed values
from the statistical tests, we assume that the usefulness of tablets is not changing
much from t1 to t2. In comparison, the perceived usefulness of e-Readers differs
significantly between t1 (M = 20.52, SD = 5.18) and t3 (M = 15.00, SD = 7.23),
t(64) = 6.54, p < 0.01, d = 0.81 The results suggest that e-Readers are perceived
much less useful after working with them for a term. Hence, Hypothesis 3b is
accepted.
Hypothesis 4: Technical Features of Tablets
Students were asked to evaluate the technical features the devices provide, namely,
“access to the Internet,” “access to a literature platform,” “good readability,” “long
lasting battery,” “access to additional lecture material,” “flexibility to use content on
multiple devices,” “costs of books and lecture material,” “adding notes to docu-
ments,” “adding bookmarks,” and “lecture coverage with the provided scripts and
books.” On a seven-point Likert scale, the students could rate the features from
1 = “totally not relevant” to 7 = “totally relevant.” The items were grouped into a
new variable to measure the frequency of ratings. 22% of the students rated the total
features as relevant and 56.6% as very relevant. The majority (79%) of students
evaluated the features of the tablet as relevant for their learning strategies. Hence,
results support Hypothesis 4.
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education 53
3.5 C onclusion
The findings of this study identified differences between e-Readers and tablets. This
underlines the importance of a planned mobile device usage for mobile learning at
higher education institutions. The amount of time spent with a device is suggesting
the usefulness of the mobile device. Previous research clearly identified limitations
of e-Readers [12–16]. The limited applications and sole purpose as a reading device
for non-colored, pure text files does not make it a useful mobile device for students.
In Hypothesis 4, the technical features of tablets could be identified as very relevant
to students’ learning processes. In reverse, a lack of those features can be described
as not supportive for the students’ learning strategies in higher education [9].
Hypotheses 2a and 2b suggest an important feature of tablets: The integration of
technologies and features such as online research, library access, or accessing the
learning management system facilitate learning at higher education institutions.
Tablet users tend to utilize the available technologies significantly more often after
working with the mobile devices for some time, while the e-Reader users do not
change their behavior significantly. It might be possible that the further use of tab-
lets leads to an observable significant difference between the two mobile devices.
This could mean that the tablets do enable and motivate students to use more of the
available mobile learning features. As a result, tablets can be interpreted as catalyst
for further engaging with mobile learning. It is important to note that the feature and
technologies students rated in the survey might not be used because they do not fit
to the needs of the student. In the theoretical part, we already hinted at the fact that
students do not use technology that is not useful for them [4]. As an example, stu-
dents might not use the learning management system because they do not profit
from it, be it through the lack of content or usability. Such a phenomenon could blur
the measurement of students’ technology and feature usage, because, in return, a
learning management system that is perceived as effective by students would have a
bigger impact on the rating.
The attitudes of students towards technology and features at the beginning of the
term (the first measurement point) are indications for the quality of the sample. No
bias between the two groups can be found at the start of the survey. The same
assumption can be made with regards to Hypothesis 3a, where no differences
between the groups could be found. This can be interpreted as both groups are hav-
ing the same overall attitude towards the devices and especially trying to integrate
devices into their learning strategy at the beginning of the study [3]. The statements
made by the students at a later point in time were therefore mainly influenced by the
use of the mobile devices.
One of the most interesting aspects of the data analysis is the fact that tablets do
not achieve higher ratings after the usage. The difference between the devices is
based on a decreased rating of the e-Readers. This can probably be caused by a
disappointing user experience with the e-Reader. At the start of the survey, the par-
ticipants were most likely happy and excited about the opportunity to work with a
new mobile device without having to worry about financial issues or if they would
54 J. Delcker et al.
really need to have the device. The limitations of the e-Reader have been mentioned
in previous parts of the chapter [12–16]. It is very likely that students were disap-
pointed by the e-Readers because of its limited features and usability. The disap-
pointment could have been enhanced by the fact that the other group of students
learned with a “superior” mobile device.
The functionality of e-Readers as a mere reading device is not only limiting stu-
dents’ learning process. It is also restricting teachers from using a multitude of
teaching methods such as interactive group work or the usage of an online learning
management system. The key to successfully designing new instructional methods
is not to integrate traditional media in new ways, but rather to be able to use modern
media and technology and integrate it into the learning process [20, 21]. Although
reading a book on a mobile device gives the impression of being innovative, it is still
a very traditional form of learning. Tablets on the other hand can be used as a power-
ful tool to unlock modern forms of learning and bringing a multitude of media to the
learner [22]. They enable stakeholders to interact with the learning material and
each other.
This interaction and collaboration are important factors especially in regard to
the implementation of learning analytic systems [23]. In return, learning analytic
systems only benefit teachers and students, if they are able to access the information
created by those systems with their mobile devices [24].
The assumptions derived from the data analysis can be transferred to students
from other higher educational institutions offering similar features and technologies
that can be accessed with a mobile device. The observed differences between the
mobile devices will most likely become more apparent at institutions providing
more and better features of mobile learning, such as well-engineered learning man-
agement systems or when lectures include mobile learning into their classes [25].
It is important to notice that lecturers did not use more special content (e.g., more
online materials, higher use of audio or video files) during the survey. This probably
has a big impact of the perceived usefulness of the mobile devices. The survey pre-
sented in this chapter will be extended for another term to collect data towards this
assumption. More materials and more features being accessed via tablets will be
implemented at the DHBW Mannheim soon. This will increase the amount of data
available for analysis, which is especially interesting for the assumptions made
towards Hypotheses 3a and 3b. It will be interesting to see if the assumed catalyst
effect will lead to a measurable significant difference between the two devices.
Although the survey was conducted at a single university which is using the dual
education system, the students learning situation or the implementation of mobile
devices at their workplaces was not analyzed. It is likely that students with access to
the local wireless network use their tablets at the workplace as well, because the
curricula at the DHBW demands written reports in connection with workplace-
related tasks. On the other hand, security restrictions at the workplace might forbid
the usage of mobile devices at the partner company.
As a limiting factor, the high costs of effective tablets must be seen. It is rather
difficult to provide a bigger group of students with those devices. It is important to
enable all students to profit from technology and to avoid discriminating students
3 Mobile Device Usage in Higher Education 55
because they cannot afford an own device or work with it due to a disability.
Additionally, stakeholders must be taught how to use ICT in general and how to use
ICT for learning. If institutions of higher education want to include mobile devices
into their media portfolio, they will most likely have to equip research teams with
additional funding to purchase those devices [4]. Although 127 participants offer a
good basis for the quantitative research for this paper, further research must be con-
ducted to enhance the view on mobile devices in the context of mobile learning [26].
Apart from the aspects already mentioned, it would be interesting to see if there are
differences between advanced students and first-year students. Tablets could help
freshmen to overcome the gap that is often mentioned when changing from high
school to university [27]. On the one hand, tablets could enable them to cope with
the new challenges higher education institutions posses, for example, finding effec-
tive learning strategies and getting easy access to course material. On the other
hand, advanced students might use other aspects of the mobile device more fre-
quently, including research work or the organization of work groups.
References
1. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C., Grajek, S., & Reeves, J. (2015). ECAR study of students and
information technology 2015. Louisville, CO. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/
resources/2015/8/~/media/24ddc1aa35a5490389baf28b6ddb3693.ashx.
2. Poll, H. (2015). Pearson student mobile device survey 2015 National Report: College stu-
dents. Retrieved from http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson-Student-
Mobile-Device-Survey-College.pdf.
3. Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of
mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033
4. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student per-
spectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher
Education, 19, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
5. Stagg, A., & Kimmins, L. (2014). First year in higher education (FYHE) and the coursework
post-graduate student. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 142–151. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.005
6. Fook, C. Y., & Sidhu, G. K. (2015). Investigating learning challenges faced by students in
higher education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 604–612. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.001
7. Cohen, D., Kim, E., Tan, J., & Winkelmes, M.-A. (2013). A note-restructuring intervention
increases students’ exam scores. College Teaching, 61(3), 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/875
67555.2013.793168
8. LaBossiere, M. D., Dell, K. A., Sunjic, K., & Wantuch, G. A. (2016). Student perceptions
of group examinations as a method of exam review in pharmacotherapeutics. Currents in
Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 8(3), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.02.002
9. Gosper, M., Malfroy, J., McKenzie, J. & Rankine, L. (2011). Students’ engagement with
technologies: Implications for university practice. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2011
(pp. 504–508). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education
56 J. Delcker et al.
1 0. Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engage-
ment and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior,
63, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
1 1. Lin, H., Wu, F.-G., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013). Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direc-
tion, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays, 34(1), 49–58. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.11.006
12. Clark, D. T. G., Susan, P., Samuelson, T., & Coker, C. (2008). A qualitative assessment of
the Kindle e-book reader: Results from initial focus groups. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, 9(2), 118–129.
1 3. Hahto, J. (2012). The e-Reader—An educational or an entertainment tool? e-Readers in
an academic setting. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 21(2),
249–261.
14. Miltenoff, P. (2012). Challenges to E-Reader adoption in academic libraries. The Reference
Librarian, 53(3), 270–283.
1 5. Shurtz, S., Gonzalez, A., & Clark, D. (2012). Assessing an e-reader lending program: From
pilot to mainstream service. Library Review, 61(1), 8–17.
1 6. Mallett, E. (2010). A screen too far? Findings from an e-book reader pilot. Serials, 23(2),
140–144. https://doi.org/10.1629/23140
17. Mannonen, P., Nieminen, S., & Nieminen, M. (2011). Usability and compatibility of e-book
readers in an academic environment: A collaborative study. IFLA Journal, 37(1), 16–27.
1 8. Marmarelli, T. R., & Martin. (2010). Ereaders in academic libraries—A literature review.
Australian Library Journal, 59(4), 180–186.
19. Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcel, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of
e-r eading. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/
the-rise-of-e-reading/.
20. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruc-
tion: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.004
2 1. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2016). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs in the classroom.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(4), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/153
91523.2016.1215172
22. Bonds-Raacke, J. M., & Raacke, J. D. (2008). Using Tablet PCs in the classroom. An inves-
tigation of students’ expectations and reactions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3),
235–239.
23. Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning
learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439–1459.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479367
2 5. Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Learning analytics design. In L. Lin & J. M. Spector (Eds.), The sci-
ences of learning and instructional design. Constructive articulation between communities
(pp. 202–211). New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Murphy, A., Farley, H., Dyson, L. E., & Jones, H. (Eds.). (2017). Mobile learning in higher
education in the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore: Springer.
2 7. Mah, D.-K. (2016). Learning analytics and digital badges: Potential impact on student reten-
tion in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(3), 285–305. h ttps://doi.
org/10.1007/s10758-016-9286-8
Chapter 4
Digital Learning Technologies
in Chemistry Education: A Review
Ioanna Bellou, Nikiforos M. Papachristos, and Tassos A. Mikropoulos
Abstract This study is a systematic review of empirical research on digital learn-
ing technologies and their educational applications in primary and secondary
Chemistry Education, during the period 2002–2016. Despite the importance of digi-
tal learning technologies in Chemistry Education, this review comes to light because
of the current lack of similar works, in that it outlines and organizes the existing
literature highlighting the technologies and pedagogical approaches adopted. Forty-
three related studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals were identified
and reviewed. Results show that most researchers are interested in chemistry topics
related to the particulate nature of matter and use digital learning technologies, to
mainly create and present visualizations of simulations and models of structural
elements of matter and their phenomena. Researchers are interested overall in
assessing digital technologies’ contribution to learning and the main technologies
used include multimedia and simulations. Most studies are designed as quasi-
experiments, and the assessment of learning outcomes is mostly done through ques-
tionnaires. The review emphasizes the pedagogical value of digital learning
technologies in Chemistry Education. Meta-analyses of the empirical studies could
contribute to further understand the pedagogical added value digital learning tech-
nologies offer in Chemistry Education.
4.1 I ntroduction
Digital technologies are powerful tools to support learning. Main contributing fac-
tors include their technological characteristics, namely their capacity to record,
manage, represent, and communicate data and information. However, the essential
I. Bellou
Directorate for Secondary Education, Ioannina, GR, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
N. M. Papachristos · T. A. Mikropoulos (*)
University of Ioannina, Educational Approaches to Virtual Reality Lab, GR, Ioannina, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 57
D. Sampson et al. (eds.), Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for
Improving Teaching and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_4
58 I. Bellou et al.
contribution of digital technologies to the learning process comes, indirectly,
through their pedagogical exploitation. As Dalgarno & Lee state, “technologies
themselves do not directly cause learning to occur but can afford certain tasks that
themselves may result in learning” [1]. Digital technologies have been used in edu-
cation since the 1950s, at all educational levels, from primary to higher and adult
education and in all disciplines, from science to humanities and social sciences, in
various ways. A substantial contribution of digital technologies in teaching and
learning processes, especially in science education, is that they create meaningful
digital educational environments that in turn contribute to the creation of mental
models and provide incentives for learner engagement. The prevailing approach to
the pedagogical use of digital technologies, regardless of the technology used, is
that of cognitive tools [2], based on the constructivist theories of knowledge [3].
Until the early 1990s, computer technology was used in Chemistry Education
mainly to support teachers in delivering recurring educational activities and as a
means of transferring “traditional” teaching and learning activities onto the com-
puter. In the early 1990s, although a behavioristic approach was still evident and
digital learning technologies were mainly used to provide tutorials and “drill and
practice” environments, new approaches would later surface, such as “Computer-
Assisted Instruction,” “virtual experiments,” or “modeling-based learning” [4].
O’Haver [5] states that digital learning technologies are mainly used in secondary
Chemistry Education and concludes that the real value of using digital technologies
in teaching and learning is to tackle impossible or extremely difficult issues in a
different way, as opposed to paper or laboratory work. He also identifies the peda-
gogical value of digital technologies in the active participation of students through
interactive and dynamic models, simulations, and analytical tools. In the 2000s, web
applications would emerge and the behavioristic approach would gradually trans-
form into a constructivist approach promoting open-ended digital learning activi-
ties. In the early 2000s, a report on science education and the role of digital learning
technologies from Futurelab acknowledges the potential of digital technologies in
teaching and learning [6]. The report, however, notes that it is not enough to inte-
grate digital technologies into the teaching process, but emphasizes the role of the
teacher in creating the right conditions by selecting appropriate technologies and
designing learning activities.
Research in chemistry teaching with the support of digital technologies is par-
ticularly important to identify trends in theoretical approaches as well as in tech-
nologies used at the educational practice level. Despite the importance of digital
learning technologies in Chemistry Education, there seems to be a lack of reviews
on the literature regarding digital learning technologies in primary and secondary
Chemistry Education. Such reviews outline and organize the existing literature,
highlight the technologies used, and the pedagogical approaches followed in both
primary and secondary Chemistry Education. Therefore, they can provide valuable
insights into the current state of art in the field to help researchers identify research
topics of continuing importance.
The purpose of the present work is to review empirical research studies and con-
tribute toward an understanding of the scope of use of digital technologies in
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 59
primary and secondary Chemistry Education. This systematic review of the relevant
scientific literature provides conclusions on how digital technologies integrate into
Chemistry Education, highlights trends for future research, and can be used as a
basis for researchers in the field.
In the next sections of this chapter, we describe the methodology used to conduct
the review; next we present the results of our work and finally discuss the main
conclusion that can be drawn.
4.2 M ethodology
This chapter reviews peer-reviewed empirical research studies on the use of digital
learning technologies in primary and secondary Chemistry Education published as
full-length articles and written in English in scientific journals during the period
2002–2016.
The relevant literature was found through searches in digital academic databases,
organizations, and publishers, including ERIC, JSTOR, MIT press, WilsonWeb,
InformaWorld, Scopus, SpringerLink, Web of Science, and Wiley Interscience. We
also searched journals such as Chemistry Education Research and Practice and the
Journal of Chemical Education. Moreover, the search was further extended to jour-
nals such as the Journal of Educational Technology & Society and Themes in
Science & Technology Education that are published by nonprofit organizations.
As a first step, we used the following combination of keywords: “chemistry”
ΑΝD “education” AND “ICT,” “chemical” AND “education” AND “ICT,” “chem-
istry” AND “education” AND “computer,” “chemical” AND “education” AND
“computer.” As a second step, we searched for articles cited in the papers we read.
Finally, we identified the papers referring to primary and secondary education. In
our review, we only included studies that follow an explicit research methodology
and present empirical results. Theoretical proposals or opinion articles are not
included.
Finally, 43 studies referring to primary and secondary Chemistry Education pub-
lished during 2002–2016 are included in the review. Articles published in confer-
ence proceedings are not included. It is important to note that in other areas, such as
computer science education, studies show that there is a validity match between
works published in scientific journals and conferences [7]; however, similar find-
ings were not identified for Chemistry Education. Moreover, the review refers to
general education. Thus, papers that refer to Chemistry Education in special catego-
ries such as special needs education are not included.
To our knowledge, there is no other review regarding digital learning technolo-
gies in primary and secondary education. For this reason, we decided to conduct an
analysis of existing studies according to basic axes, including educational and tech-
nological context and content, research characteristics, and results. In other words,
the axes used to analyze the studies were the educational context in which research-
ers use digital learning technologies in Chemistry Education, the Chemistry topics
60 I. Bellou et al.
(educational content), the technological and pedagogical approaches used, the
research methodology used, the demographics of participants, the research objec-
tives, and finally the results of the studies under review. In particular, our research
questions were:
What is the educational context in which researchers used digital learning tech-
nologies in Chemistry Education and what Chemistry Education topics did they
select?
• What digital learning technologies did researchers use?
• What research axes and related pedagogical approaches did researchers follow?
• What were the research methods, sample characteristics, and assessment tools
and research objectives the existing studies employed in Chemistry Education?
• What kind of learning outcomes and/or attitudes/perceptions of participants do
researchers refer to?
4.3 R esults
4.3.1 Educational Context
The 43 papers included in this review refer to empirical studies that have been con-
ducted in 14 different countries. The majority of them were conducted in Europe;
however, there are also papers referring to studies carried out in North and South
America as well as Asia. All papers refer to secondary education, as a minimum,
and five articles refer to or also include primary education [8–12]. Most of the sec-
ondary education papers focus on students while five center on secondary education
teachers [13–15] and two refer to preservice secondary science teachers [8, 15].
4.3.2 Chemistry Topics
Most of the papers are about topics in Inorganic Chemistry. Topics in primary edu-
cation refer mainly to the structure of matter, which is a basic topic of science edu-
cation at that level. Table 4.1 presents the topics used in the papers reviewed.
More than one-third of the studies under review refer to representations of the
structure of matter. Representations are mentioned sometimes as modeling pro-
cesses with their resulting models and sometimes as simulations. The distinction
between a model and a simulation is evident in the studies, as the term “model”
usually refers to the representation and the study of molecules, while the term “sim-
ulation” includes the use of models and simulations in the study of dynamic pro-
cesses. In any case, models and simulations of the building blocks of matter and the
study of physical and chemical phenomena are mainly presented through visualiza-
tions, a term that appears also in the title of relevant articles [11, 12, 36].
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 61
Table 4.1 Chemistry topics in the papers reviewed References
[3, 8, 11, 12, 15–23]
Chemistry topic [9, 10, 24]
[16, 17, 25]
Structure of matter, molecules, and atoms [26–28, 49]
Structure of matter and solutions [29–32]
Chemical changes [33–35]
Acids, bases and salts, diffusion, osmosis, and energy [36, 37]
Gas laws and the kinetic theory of gases [38–40]
Le Chatelier’s principle [14, 41]
Virtual experiments [42]
Chemical bonds [43, 50]
Chemical measurements
Environmental problems [40]
Experiments and simulations of chemical phenomena in the [44]
microcosm [45]
States of matter [46]
Nanochemistry and nanotechnology [47]
Biochemistry [48]
Electrochemistry
Standardization of solutions
Chemical nomenclature issues
Table 4.2 Technological approaches in the papers reviewed
Technological approach References
Microcomputer-Based Laboratory (MBL) or Computerized [14, 26, 29, 49]
Chemistry Laboratory (CCl) (4)
Symbolic Representations (1) [17]
Multimedia (12) [16, 18, 22, 36, 38–41, 44,
46, 50]
Modeling (8) [8, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 31,
45]
Simulations (12) [9–11, 18, 19, 22, 30,
32–34, 42, 43]
Electronic tests (2) [27, 35]
Virtual Lab (7) [12, 24, 25, 28, 35, 37, 47]
Response systems (1) [48]
Tablets (1) [20]
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the number of the corresponding articles
4.3.3 Technological Approach
Table 4.2 presents the technological approach of the studies reviewed. As shown,
simulations are an important approach for researchers. They mainly regard the
microcosm level, as there is no direct experience of that level for students and teach-
ers. Simulations are designed to support the creation of mental models for the
62 I. Bellou et al.
phenomena under study. Multimedia follow in frequency of use. Similarly to simu-
lations and modeling, multimedia combine different types of representations, in
particular for the micro-level.
4.3.4 R esearch Axes and Pedagogical Approach
Table 4.3 presents the research axes and pedagogical approaches of the 43 empirical
studies reviewed. Most of the authors follow cognitive theories and constructivist
approaches. The potential of technologies for the dynamic presentation of informa-
tion through different types of representations at all three representational levels
(symbolic, microscopic and macroscopic) is used in many cases from a cognitive
theory perspective, based on the theoretical approaches of dual coding presented by
Paivio [51] and the subsequent multimedia theory of learning proposed by Mayer
[52]. Thirty-one of the 43 papers refer to constructivist learning theories, either
explicitly or implicitly through the instructional design or pedagogical principles
they mention. Seven papers mention cognitive theories as their approach. Ferk et al.
[8] base their work on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences regarding spatial
intelligence and the human ability to perceive visual and spatial information. The
rest of the papers do not study learning outcomes through digital learning technol-
ogy interventions and do not refer to specific learning theories or teaching models.
Their objectives are directed to the technologies themselves and the attitudes of
students and teachers towards them [13–15, 20, 27, 48, 50].
4.3.5 R esearch Method, Sample Characteristics
and Assessment Tools and Research Objectives
The research method is a significant factor in educational empirical studies, particu-
larly when they regard teaching interventions with the support of digital technolo-
gies. The choice of the method and its strict implementation are of particular
importance when the empirical study aims to investigate the learning outcomes
resulting from the intervention compared with results from traditional or other
instructional practices.
Table 4.4 presents the research method followed by each study reviewed, infor-
mation on the characteristics of the sample, as well as the assessment tools used to
assess the learning outcomes. Most of the studies (32) use experimental methods in
the broad sense. Twenty-three are quasi-experimental design studies that try to esti-
mate the impact of interventions with digital learning technologies on their target
population without the random assignment of participants in groups, while only
nine are purely experimental involving an experimental group and a control group
to test hypotheses with certain interventions. Only eight studies follow the
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 63
Table 4.3 Research axes and pedagogical approach to empirical studies
References Research axes Pedagogical approach
[14] Friendliness of the MBL system aiming at Not applicable
improvement
[8] Understanding of various types of 3D Cognitive theory
representations of molecular structures
[42] Solving a problem through simulation Authentic activity, problem
[16] Understanding chemical changes with Dual coding theory, Mayer’s
representations in a multimedia environment Cognitive Theory of Multimedia
Learning
[27] Comparative evaluation of printed and Not applicable
electronic tests
[17] Effectiveness of molecular representations Dual coding theory, Mayer’s
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia
Learning
[29] Effectiveness of laboratory exercises Constructivism
enhanced by simulations
[15] Investigation on the importance of using Not applicable
molecular and crystal models
[43] Comparative study of two types of Constructivism
simulations
[26] Comprehension and expression through text Constructivism
and image
[13] Utilization of molecular models by teachers Not applicable
[33] Dynamic digital ratios in understanding Constructivism
principles
[44] Strengthening of student social skills Constructivism
[30] Collaborative differentiated learning using Constructivism
simulations
[38] Computer-assisted instruction for conceptual Constructivism
understanding
[11] Dynamic virtual visualizations for Constructivism
understanding the quantum atom
[36] Visualizations of different types in Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of
Chemistry Education Multimedia Learning
[18] Multiple representations in conceptual Constructivism
understanding
[31] Learning with representations of the Constructivism
macrocosm, microcosm, and symbolic levels
[49] Metacognitive skills in understanding using Constructivism
MBL
[19] Effectiveness of three-dimensional Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of
simulations Multimedia Learning
[39] Dynamic representations in conceptual Constructivism
change
[34] Targeted navigation for educational software Constructivism
effectiveness
(continued)
64 I. Bellou et al.
Table 4.3 (continued)
References Research axes Pedagogical approach
Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of
[9] Comparison of dynamic representations, Multimedia Learning
manuals, and discussion Constructivism, Mayer’s Cognitive
Theory of Multimedia Learning
[10] Comparison of dynamic representations, Constructivism
manuals, and discussion
Constructivism
[40] Dynamic representations in conceptual
change Not applicable
Not mentioned
[22] Simulations in improving representation Not mentioned
skills Constructivism
Constructivism
[50] Attention while using simulations Constructivism
[48] Response systems in learning Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of
Multimedia Learning
[20] Tablets in teaching and learning Constructivism
Constructivism
[21] Impact of MBL in modeling skills
Constructivism
[24] Educational games in learning
Constructivism
[35] Problem-solving processes in a digital Direct instruction
learning environment and metacognitive
skills Constructivism
[32] Simulations in understanding complex Constructivism
concepts
Constructivism
[25] The learning process in a real and virtual lab
Direct instruction
[37] Effect of simulations on problem-solving
abilities
[45] Effectiveness of model-based learning and
animations
[41] Effectiveness of online simulations
[46] Students’ understanding and motivation in
learning electrochemistry
[28] Effectiveness of an educational virtual
laboratory
[23] Effect of creating dynamic models in
conceptual understanding
[12] Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory
compared to classrooms without dynamic
visualizations
[47] Effects of procedural guidance on students’
learning in a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory
d escriptive research design which depicts conditions as they exist in a particular
setting. Two studies are case studies and one is a cross-sectional study.
The vast majority of the papers (35) studied the comprehension of concepts and
phenomena with the use of different types of digital technologies [8–12, 16–19,
21–26, 28–35, 37–47, 49]. Thirty-two of the above 35 studies used some kind of
questionnaire to assess the contribution of digital technologies in Chemistry teach-
ing and learning. Some researchers used standard questionnaires developed by state
organizations or themselves for the purposes of their research [8–10, 18, 32, 38–40].
In most of the other studies, researchers used a small number of questions which
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 65
Table 4.4 Research method, sample characteristics, and assessment tools of the empirical studies
References Sample Method Assessment tools
Descriptive Questionnaire, teacher’s opinion
[14] 51 secondary school Descriptive
teachers Chemistry Visualization Test.
Case study Perception, perception and rotation,
[8] 42 elementary school Experimental perception and reflection, perception
students, 55 high school rotation and reflection, perception and
students, 27 preservice mental transfer of information
teacher education Systematic observation, interview, log
students files
[42] 8 secondary school Pencil and paper test, structured
students (14–17 years interview
old) Solving exercises on paper and in
electronic form, word matching
[16] 49 high school students Solving paper exercises on conceptual
understanding before and after, 10
[27] 143 secondary school Experimental open-ended topics
students Three open-ended comprehension
questions before and after.
[17] 52 secondary school Quasi- Understanding models with the Treagust
tool, 27 questions
students (14–15 years experimental Multiple-choice test and open-ended
questions
old)
Pairs of students, “loud thinking,”
[29] 33 high school students Quasi- interview
experimental
Questionnaire
[15] 54 high school teachers, Descriptive
21 pre-service teacher Closed-ended and open-ended
education students questionnaire
Open-ended questionnaire
[43] Pilot study: 3 high Descriptive Right–wrong questions, collaborative
school students evaluation of the project, open-
(15–16 years old) knowledge questions
Test for scientific reasoning, logical
Main study: 21 high thinking, conceptual understanding,
school students cooperation questionnaire
(14–15 years old) Five-point Chemistry Attitude Scale,
Chemical Bonding Achievement Test,
[26] 857 high school students Quasi- Multiple-choice questionnaire/before
experimental and after
[13] 19 secondary school Case study (continued)
teachers
[33] 15 high school students Experimental
[44] One high school class Descriptive
(17 years old)
[30] 301 high school students Quasi-
(16.4 years old) experimental
[38] 50 high school students Quasi-
experimental
66 I. Bellou et al.
Table 4.4 (continued)
References Sample Method Assessment tools
Questionnaire, before and after
[11] 38 preservice teacher Quasi-
Multiple-choice and fill-in test, visual
education students experimental questions
Nature of Matter questionnaire,
[36] 212 high school students Quasi- drawings, interviews
Knowledge questionnaire with 19
(13–14 years old) experimental multiple-choice questions about model
comprehension, 27 selection questions,
[18] 42 high school students Quasi- 24 questions integrated into activities
experimental Semi-structured interviews,
questionnaire
[31] 250–746 high school Quasi- Knowledge and visuospatial skills
questionnaire, before and after
students experimental Chemical Bonding Achievement test
before and after, 18 multiple-choice test
[49] 793 high school students Quasi- Test, observation, recording
(18 years old) experimental TEKS, Examview, TAKS multiple
choice before and after
[19] 155 high school students Quasi- TEKS, Examview, TAKS multiple
choice before and after
(16.2 years old) experimental ParNoMaC, ToMaSaT, multiple choice
[39] 58 high school students Quasi- Mainly design of microcosmic
representations
(17.6 years old) experimental Video recording, structured interview
[34] 54 high school students Quasi- Multiple-choice questions
(15 years old) experimental Questions, modeling
Questionnaire on cognitive skills before
[9] 61 elementary students, Experimental & after, model design, molecular and
20 high school students structural formula
Attitude questionnaires, evaluation
[10] 61 elementary students, Experimental sheets
20 high school students Problem solving, electronic tests,
noninteractive and interactive activities
[40] 51 high school students Quasi- New York State Chemistry Regents
Examination, multiple-choice
(12–13 years old) experimental comprehension questionnaire, open-
ended questions
[22] 460 high school students Quasi- Questionnaire, semi-structured interview,
experimental observation
[50] 21 high school students Descriptive (continued)
(14–15 years old)
[48] 43–66 high school Quasi-
students experimental
[20] 65 high school students Descriptive
[21] 614 high school students Descriptive
[24] 78 high school students Experimental
(13–14 years)
[35] 162 high school students Cross
(16.4 years old) sectional
[32] 718 high school students Quasi-
experimental
[25] 90 high school students Quasi-
(15 years old) experimental
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 67
Table 4.4 (continued)
References Sample Method Assessment tools
Lawson paper-pencil test
[37] 175 students (16 years Experimental
old) Pre- and post-questionnaires, class
observations
[45] 175 high school students Experimental Multiple-choice and open-ended
questions test, journal entries
[41] 351 high school students Quasi- Achievement tests and student’s
experimental drawings, motivation questionnaire
Multiple-choice tests (before–after)
[46] 127 high school students Quasi- Draw an Atom Test, Interview,
experimental Storyboard an Atom Test (before–after)
Paper & pencil exam
[28] 100 high school students Experimental
Questionnaire, task completion time,
[23] 523 high school students Quasi- number of errors during task execution,
experimental asking questions
[12] 109 students (12– Experimental
13 years old)
[47] 57 high school students Quasi-
(16–19 years old) experimental
focused on their research aims. The questions are mostly open-ended to record the
reasoning of students or consist of solving exercises. Some of these studies, along-
side questionnaires, also use other evaluation methods.
4.3.6 Learning Outcomes, Attitudes and Perceptions
The learning outcomes are a very important part of the empirical studies, as they
highlight the contribution of digital technologies in teaching practice and the learn-
ing process. Table 4.5 summarizes the learning outcomes of the empirical studies
and/or the attitudes and perceptions of students and teachers.
Thirty-eight out of the 43 studies reviewed focus and report on learning out-
comes, 13 studies report on issues related to how digital learning technologies affect
learners’ motivation, and five studies report on teachers’ perception and attitudes
towards digital learning technologies.
4.4 D iscussion and Conclusions
This study is a review of empirical research on the use of digital technologies in
primary and secondary Chemistry Education based on studies published during the
period 2002–2016. According to the selection criteria, 43 papers were identified.
As far as the educational context is concerned, it is important to notice that in
three cases [26, 38, 45] Chemistry Education research is used as a means for
Table 4.5 Learning outcomes, attitudes, and perceptions of students and teachers 68 I. Bellou et al.
References Learning outcomes Attitudes & perceptions (students) Attitudes & perceptions (teachers)
[14] 1. Easy and friendly MBL system
2. Suggestions for improvement
[8] 1. Comprehension improvement for all students with the use
of physical models 1. Acknowledgment of the
importance of models
2. Higher scores in secondary school and university students
having used images and digital models 2. There are difficulties in
integrating digital technologies
[42] 1. Causal relationships between concepts detected New approaches to environmental in teaching practices
2. Ability to solve problems in complex ways issues: economic, legal, scientific
[16] Highlights the contribution of molecular representations, the Particularly enthusiastic
macroscopic approach, and multimedia presentations experimental group
Improved knowledge retention
[27] No differences in the performance of students between the
two ways the tests were conducted
[17] Significantly higher performance with dynamic visualizations
[29] 1. The combination of real and virtual laboratories
contribute to understanding
2. Understanding of the scientific model concept
[15]
[43] Prior knowledge plays an important role in understanding
Assessment using symbolic representations should emphasize
knowledge and not skills
[26] MBL contributed to an improvement in comprehensions and
graphing skills
[13] 1. Training in pedagogical and 4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education
technical issues needed
2. Suitable educational material
needed
[33] Dynamic digital analogies more effective than static text and
analogies
[44] 1. Students–Teachers created clear presentations Positive attitude towards the
2. Students retained knowledge project
[30] A collaborative approach, especially between strangers,
contributed to scientific thinking and conceptual
understanding
[38] Computer-assisted instruction contributes to conceptual Positive attitude towards
understanding computer-assisted instruction
[11] The stereoscopic interactive virtual environment contributes
to the understanding of the quantum atom
[36] No significant difference recorded between 3D images, 1. Dynamic visualizations
passive, and interactive dynamic visualizations increase interest
2. 3D images reduce cognitive
load
[18] Activities with multiple representations of the microcosm
contribute to understanding
[31] Activities with multiple representations of the microcosm and
integrated evaluation contribute to understanding
[49] MBL contributes to the development of metacognitive skills
[19] 3D simulations are more efficient than two-dimensional
images
[39] The multimedia material contributes to positive learning
outcomes and knowledge retention
(continued)
69
Table 4.5 (continued) Attitudes & perceptions (students) Attitudes & perceptions (teachers) 70 I. Bellou et al.
References Learning outcomes
[34] The learning outcomes depend on the way the software is Positive attitude towards
simulations
used
[9] 1. Positive learning outcomes regardless of the use of Dynamic representations act as an
incentive for learning
technology
2. Simulations deliver more positive results Attracting the attention of students The response system caused the
[10] Simulations contribute to improved performance for low depends on the type of simulation teacher to reflect on the teaching
cognitive level students used and instructions strategies
[40] Dynamic representations contribute to positive learning
outcomes 1. Handling models on the tablet Positive attitude from the teacher
[22] Dynamic representations contribute to positive learning act as an incentive for learning
outcomes
[50] 2. Teamwork contributes
positively
[48] Response systems are satisfactory in conceptual topics
They are not effective in topics that require calculations The game acted as motivation for
learning and critical thinking
[20] about the content of the book
[21] 1. Molecular modeling contributes positively to
comprehension
2. 3D models contribute especially
[24] The exploratory nature of the goal-oriented game contributes
to conceptual understanding
[35] 1. The virtual laboratory contributes to knowledge 4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education
construction
2. Prior knowledge and experience with games has an effect
on problem solving
[32] The simulations in the macroscopic, microscopic, and
symbolic level contribute to understanding
[25] The virtual lab is as effective as the real one Pupils felt safe in the virtual
laboratory
Contributes to the implementation of the constructivist Correlation of virtual experiments
approach with everyday activities
[37] The use of computer simulations can be helpful in improving
problem-solving scores
[45] 3D web-based models enhance conceptual understanding,
learning, and students’ ability to transfer knowledge
[41] Students who use the online laboratory score higher than
students who only have access to traditional forms of
instruction
[46] The multimedia module with the pedagogical agent was able Student motivation was not
to increase students’ scores in the achievement test on affected
Electrochemistry
[28] Higher marks for students that used the virtual chemical Positive effect on student
laboratory with the Kinect interface involvement
[23] Students modified their mental models towards a more
refined and accurate representation of the atomic structure
after having created animations
[12] Virtual laboratory is better than science classes without
dynamic visualization elements
[47] 1. Procedural guidance enhances students’ performance in a
virtual lab exercise
2. Exposure to a virtual lab experience results in better 71
performance than in a traditional laboratory setting
72 I. Bellou et al.
curriculum reformation. Dori & Sasson study the contribution of MBL in the frame-
work of curriculum reform in Israel as Barak & Hussein-Farraj do with 3D web-
based models, and Özmen investigates computer-assisted instruction in a framework
directly related to secondary education in Turkey.
Regarding Chemistry topics, the majority of studies refer to topics related to the
particulate nature of matter which is considered as important knowledge in science
and science education, forming a key part of curricula worldwide [53]. Nobel laure-
ate Richard Feynman notes the contribution of the microcosm in understanding the
macrocosm [54], while Bouwma-Gearhart, Stewart, & Brown [55] note the impor-
tance of the particulate nature of matter to understand many scientific issues.
Tsaparlis & Sevian [53] distinguish the terms “particulate” and “structural.” They
note that many authors use the term “particulate nature of matter” when referring to
structural elements of matter such as atoms and molecules, while they use the term
“structure” when referring to the spatial distribution of the components of a system
such as the atomic and molecular structures. Our review shows that educational
research in the field considers both of these approaches, with most studies referring
to the structure of matter. For example, on the nature of matter, Kontogeorgiou,
Bellou & Mikropoulos [11] study the hydrogen atom by presenting a quantum
physics approach, while Adadan, Irving & Trundle [18] investigate the contribution
of different types of representations on secondary school students’ understanding of
the structural elements of matter. Regarding the structure of matter, examples vary
from molecular structure representations (e.g., Ferk et al. [8]; Ardac & Akaygun
[16]), nanochemistry issues (Ambrogi et al. [44]), chemical bonds [38], and atomic
structure [19]. As mentioned above, the interest of researchers in the particulate
nature of matter is consistent. The Kalkanis [56] study notes the difficulty of the
subject for primary and secondary school students and uses Monte Carlo simula-
tions in an exploratory approach to science education.
While the technological approaches used in the reviewed papers vary, represen-
tations are predominant. The representations refer to structural elements of matter
and its structure, as well as to the presentation of phenomena. They are mainly
visualizations of simulations that mimic to a certain level of abstraction the scien-
tific worldview. They are implemented with two-dimensional multimedia elements,
as well as three-dimensional virtual reality technologies.
Most of the researchers evaluate the learning effectiveness of digital learning
technologies and especially the various types of representations in Chemistry
Education. Only few studies record student and teacher attitudes and perceptions
towards digital learning technologies. Additionally, the motivation provided by the
pedagogical use of digital technologies as well as the attitudes and perceptions of
students highlight some other parameters that provide arguments for the use of digi-
tal technologies in the teaching and learning process. For example, alternative stu-
dent approaches (economic, legal, and scientific) to an environmental game [42]
show that digital learning technologies also support an interdisciplinary approach to
teaching and learning. Another interesting point is that students’ attention, while
using digital learning technologies, also depends on the type of instructions given to
them [50]. Finally, particularly interesting is that teachers seem to acknowledge that
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 73
new technological tools such as response systems motivate them to reflect and pos-
sibly to improve the teaching techniques they use [48].
Thirty-eight of the 43 papers in the review, explicitly or implicitly, refer to a
learning theory. The approaches mainly endorse constructivism and cognitive the-
ory. Twenty studies adopt constructivism. Several of them clearly refer to the term,
while some use constructivist teaching interventions and techniques. The five stud-
ies based on dual coding theory and cognitive multimedia theory do not report on a
learning theory, but imply cognitive theory. It seems that researchers in the field of
Chemistry Education are more interested in the effectiveness of various representa-
tions based on Johnstone’s [57] learning levels and less in the implementation in a
particular teaching context.
Regarding the research method, most of the studies (32) adopt an experimental
design. Twenty-three are quasi-experimental studies, while only nine are purely
experimental. It seems that the difficulties presented in designing pure experiments
lead to the quasi-experimental method. Only two of the papers refer to case studies
and one to a cross-sectional study, which is probably due to the practical challenges
that arise from these methods, in that they require in-depth study and a significant
time investment, usually not available in teaching conditions.
The assessment of learning outcomes and the contribution of digital learning
technology interventions are in most studies done through a questionnaire, follow-
ing the intervention. Few studies use a different technique such as systematic obser-
vations, interviews, and log files of the used software [18, 25, 34, 42, 43, 50]. In five
studies, researchers that use microcosm modeling and simulations evaluate students
through their drawings [18, 20–23].
Thirty-eight of the 43 studies implement digital technology-based teaching
interventions and assess students’ knowledge as their main research objective. It
seems that digital learning technologies and in particular representations (symbolic,
multimedia, virtual) of the microcosm are considered as “mature” and sound tech-
nologies in Chemistry Education that elicit positive learning outcomes. Only few of
the studies focus on representations per se and their specific characteristics. An
important finding is that students, with the support of digital technologies, are able
to understand the concept of the scientific model and its differentiation from the
real world [29]. Other important conclusions are that prior scientific knowledge
plays a significant role in understanding chemical phenomena [43] and that collab-
orative learning, especially between strangers, contributes to conceptual under-
standing [30].
The contribution of digital technologies and in particular of multimedia is
enhanced if these are integrated into a comprehensive educational framework,
which includes assessment activities [58]. Urhahne et al. study the type of assess-
ment activities for secondary education students as they explore knowledge acquisi-
tion in the topic of acids and bases, either with missing-word activities, matching
activities, and multiple-choice activities or with no such activities. Their results
show that activities in that order are important for acquiring knowledge. The authors
conclude that learning activities play an important role in the acquisition of knowl-
edge and should be included in digital learning environments.
74 I. Bellou et al.
Worth noting are also the findings on the use of newer digital technologies in the
classroom, such as tablets [20] and response systems [48]. Educational games also
emerge as effective tools for knowledge construction, when they include specific
learning objectives [24]. Our review also highlights some important findings from
the teachers’ perspective. In general, teachers hold a positive attitude towards the
pedagogical use of digital technologies. They emphasize the importance of three-
dimensional models in teaching, but also indicate the difficulties in classroom inte-
gration [15]. They also emphasize the need for suitable educational material and
teacher training [13].
Positive learning outcomes are also attributed to other technologies such as
MBL. Teachers in the study of Lavonen et al. [14] consider that MBL supports stu-
dents in understanding phenomena and processes and highlights the value of repre-
sentations and graphs in particular. This teacher view is later confirmed by a series
of MBL studies in teaching chemical reactions [26]. A similar issue is the compari-
son of effectiveness between real and virtual laboratories. Liu [29] shows that the
combination of activities in virtual and real laboratories contributes to the under-
standing of physical and chemical phenomena. Tatli & Ayas [25] report that the
virtual laboratory has the same effectiveness as the real lab, while Lamb & Annetta
[41] conclude that students who use online virtual laboratories score higher than
students who have access only to traditional forms of instruction. Finally, even
though only two of the relevant studies identified the use of games in Chemistry
Education, a finding worth noting is that these games elicit positive learning out-
comes in problem solving, thus playing an important role in the development of
critical thinking and knowledge construction. Eichler et al. [42] report on causal
relationships between concepts on acid rain and related problem solving using alter-
native methods. Chee & Tan [24] report that game features contribute to conceptual
understanding in topics such as mixtures and solutions.
This work presents data from empirical studies published in scientific journals
and confirms the positive contribution of multimedia systems in teaching and learn-
ing. It also highlights the important role of representations in Chemistry Education.
Representations, in addition to their contribution to positive learning outcomes,
equally contribute to a positive attitude toward computer-assisted instruction [9,
38], knowledge acquisition motivation [40], increase students’ interest [28, 36], dis-
tinction between models and reality [8, 31, 45], understanding principles through
analogies [33], knowledge retention [16] and improve performance of students with
low levels of prior knowledge [10].
The findings and the conclusions of this review suggest that:
• Most of the studies refer to secondary Chemistry Education.
• Most of the studies refer to topics related to the particulate nature of matter.
• Multimedia and simulations are the predominant technological approach.
• The most widely adopted learning theory, when using digital learning technolo-
gies, is constructivism.
• Most researchers are interested in assessing the learning effectiveness of digital
learning technologies by assessing students’ knowledge.
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 75
• Most studies follow an experimental design and are quasi-experiments.
• The assessment of learning outcomes is, in most studies, done through a ques-
tionnaire, after the intervention.
• Most studies attribute positive learning outcomes to interventions with digital
learning technologies.
Chemistry learning relies on understanding the microscopic world that is con-
nected with the macroscopic world. Both are expressed by humans using symbols.
Thus, conceptual understanding requires skills related to the ability to represent and
interpret chemical problems using macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic forms
of representation. These levels are summarized by Johnstone [57, 59] as three rep-
resentational levels. The macro-level refers to everyday experiences through the
senses, especially vision. The micro-level is the level of atoms, molecules, ions, and
associated structures. The third level is the representational—symbolic level com-
prising symbols, formulas, equations, expressions, and graphics. Johnstone argues
that switching between the three levels, considered as necessary in Chemistry
Education, causes misconceptions. The majority of researchers in Chemistry
Education follow the theoretical approach of Johnstone [57], and they seem to
emphasize the level of the microcosm for which there is no direct experience, sug-
gesting models or dynamic simulations for its representation. In 2004, Mahaffy
addressed the future of Chemistry Education in his keynote speech at the International
Conference on Chemical Education in Istanbul and proposed a fourth dimension,
beyond those of Johnstone, the dimension of the human element and in particular
that of the student, while putting the emphasis on the use of digital technologies.
Mahaffy, by integrating the human level into the three levels of Johnstone, proposed
the “tetrahedral” model for Chemistry Education [60] where the human level is
integrated as an economic, political, environmental, social, historical, and philo-
sophical factor. In this “tetrahedral” model, the student applies problem-solving
strategies, exploratory learning, conducts research projects, and integrates, in par-
ticular, the use of teaching techniques to construct knowledge, at the symbolic, mac-
roscopic, and microscopic level. In his approach, Mahaffy refers to the important
role of digital technologies and visualizations in particular. Thus, he proposes to use
digital technologies to enhance the creation of mental models and to eliminate the
misconceptions of students. Visualizations in Chemistry Education also play an
important role in helping students to overcome conceptual errors resulting from
visuospatial representations [61]. This literature review confirms the prediction of
Mahaffy and verifies the conclusion of Wu & Shah. The majority of the empirical
studies utilize digital technology tools for all three levels and mainly integrate these
in cognitive and constructivist student-centered approaches. The enrichment of
Chemistry Education with digital learning environments and learning objects is
noted also in the work of [62], which reports on articles that were published in the
decade 1998–2008 in the Journal of Science Education and Technology only. The
conclusions of Wofford are consistent with those of the present study, noting the
lack of teacher training and financial resources for the effective integration of digital
learning technologies in the educational process. She also notes that, in 2008, the
76 I. Bellou et al.
need to approach teaching from the perspective of the relatively new model of
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is evident. The concept of
TPCK was introduced by [63] to describe the factors that determine the integration
of digital technologies into teaching practices. According to the TPCK model,
Content, Pedagogy, and Technology are not considered as unrelated factors but
interact in all possible ways. This is also the direction the findings of this review
point to. To teach Chemistry with digital technologies, teachers are required to
know the content (Chemistry), how to teach (pedagogy, teaching model, tech-
niques), and how to use digital technologies pedagogically. The need for the peda-
gogical use of digital technologies in Chemistry Education has been evident since
2002 by Agapova et al. [64] who propose teaching Chemistry in secondary educa-
tion in an integrated, technological, exploratory learning environment.
This paper and all the articles reviewed highlight the contribution of digital
learning technologies in Chemistry Education in that they support knowledge con-
struction and boost motivation to learn. Considering the impact of digital learning
technologies in Chemistry Education and the intensity of this impact, as evident
from the above analysis, if we consider all the vertices of the tetrahedron of
Chemistry Education [60], in order to capture and emphasize the said impact, the
tetrahedron could be enhanced by merging it with the “sphere of digital learning
technologies” (Fig. 4.1). This way, the impact digital learning technologies have
both on the human element and on the three learning levels (microscopic, macro-
scopic, symbolic), including the transitions between them, can be meaningfully
illustrated. For example, as shown in Fig. 4.1, digital technologies influence how
we assess ideas and knowledge and provide means to incorporate students’
characteristics in instructional design, provide learning tools to understand the
Fig. 4.1 The “inscribed tetrahedron of chemistry education”
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 77
macroscopic level, and support all the important aspects of microscopic and
symbolic learning.
Although this study reached its aims, the exclusion of papers published in scien-
tific conference proceedings and book chapters could be considered a limitation.
Related search shows that authors publish their first results in conferences or book
chapters while simultaneously, or later, publish papers in journals, building on the
theoretical part and providing more empirical data. Although this limitation exists,
it does not affect the generality of conclusions.
Finally, regarding future work, systematic effort and more empirical studies are
needed in order to firstly show how the affordances of digital learning technologies
can be pedagogically exploited and secondly to study their effectiveness in authen-
tic educational contexts. Further on, meta-analyses of the empirical studies in the
field could provide quantitative evidence on the actual value of digital learning tech-
nologies in Chemistry Education.
References
1. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual envi-
ronments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.
2. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
3. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2010). Senária didaskalías me ypologistí (Educational sce-
narios with ICT). Athens: Kleidarithmos.
4. Tsaparlis, G. (1991). Thémata Didaktikís Phisikís kai Khimías sti Mési Ekpaídefsi (Topics in
Physics and Chemistry didactics in secondary education). Athens: M. P. Grigori.
5. O’Haver, T. C. (1991). Applications of computers and computer software in teaching analyti-
cal chemistry. Analytical Chemistry, 63(9), 521–534.
6. Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Report 6: Literature review in science education and the
role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. Bristol: Futurelab Series.
7. Randolph, J. J., Julnes, G., Bednarik, R., & Sutinen, E. (2007). A comparison of the method-
ological quality of articles in computer science education journals and conference proceed-
ings. Computer Science Education, 17(4), 263–274.
8. Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular
structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227–1245.
9. Gregorius, R. M., Santos, R., Dano, J. B., & Gutierrez, J. J. (2010). Can animations effec-
tively substitute for traditional teaching methods? Part I: Preparation and testing of materials.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(4), 253–261.
1 0. Gregorius, R. M., Santos, R., Dano, J. B., & Gutierrez, J. J. (2010). Can animations effec-
tively substitute for traditional teaching methods? Part II: Potential for differentiated learning.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(4), 262–266.
1 1. Kontogeorgiou, Α. Μ., Bellou, J., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2008). Being inside the Quantum
Atom. PsychNology Journal, 6(1), 83–98, http://www.psychnology.org/328.php.
1 2. Rizman Herga, N., Čagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic
visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12, 593–608. https://doi.org/10.12973/
eurasia.2016.1224a
13. Aksela, M., & Lundell, J. (2008). Computer-based molecular modeling: Finnish school teachers’
experiences and views. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(4), 301–308.
78 I. Bellou et al.
14. Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., & Meisalo, V. (2003). Designing a user-friendly microcomputer-based
laboratory package through the factor analysis of teacher evaluations. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(12), 1471–1487.
1 5. Savec, V. F., Vrtačnik, M., Gilbert, J. K., & Peklaj, C. (2006). In-service and pre-service
teachers’ opinion on the use of models in teaching chemistry. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 53(3),
381–390.
16. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that empha-
sizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
1 7. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical
change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298.
1 8. Adadan, E., Irving, K. E., & Trundle, K. C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational instruc-
tion on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter.
International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1743–1775.
19. Urhahne, D., Nick, S., & Schanze, S. (2009). The effect of three-dimensional simulations on
the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education,
39(4), 495–513.
20. Lewis, M. S., Zhao, J., & Montclare, J. K. (2012). Development and implementation of high
school chemistry modules using touch-screen technologies. Journal of Chemical Education,
89, 1012–1018.
2 1. Dori, Y., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-
skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Instructional Science,
40(1), 69–91.
22. Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embed-
ded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137–1158.
23. Akaygun, S. (2016). Is the oxygen atom static or dynamic? The effect of generating animations
on students’ mental models of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
17(4), 788–807.
2 4. Chee, Y. S., & Tan, C. D. (2012). Becoming chemists through game-based inquiry learning:
The case of legends of Alkhimia. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 185–198.
25. Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2012). Virtual chemistry laboratory: Effect of constructivist learning
environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 183–199.
2 6. Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-
based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and
textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250.
2 7. Ashton, H. S., Beevers, C. E., Korabinski, A. A., & Youngson, M. A. (2005). Investigating
the medium effect in computer-aided assessment of school Chemistry and college Computing
national examinations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 771–787.
28. Jagodziński, P., & Wolski, R. (2015). Assessment of application technology of natural user
interfaces in the creation of a virtual chemical laboratory. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 24(1), 16–28.
2 9. Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on stu-
dent learning of gas laws: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 15(1), 89–100.
30. Abdullah, S., & Shariff, A. (2008). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with
cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 4(4), 387–398.
31. Levy, S., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ Learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1)
Curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.
3 2. Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., …
Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394–419.
4 Digital Learning Technologies in Chemistry Education 79
33. Trey, L., & Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena
using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 519–529.
34. Paiva, J. C., & Da Costa, L. A. (2010). Exploration guides as a strategy to improve the effec-
tiveness of educational software in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(6), 589–591.
3 5. Scherer, R., & Tiemann, R. (2012). Factors of problem-solving competency in a virtual
chemistry environment: The role of metacognitive knowledge about strategies. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1199–1214.
3 6. Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E. A., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D visualization types
in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece.
Computers & Education, 52(2), 390–401.
3 7. Avramiotis, S., & Tsaparlis, G. (2013). Using computer simulations in chemistry problem
solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 297–311.
3 8. Özmen, H. (2008). The influence of computer-assisted instruction on students’ concep-
tual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward chemistry: A case for Turkey.
Computers & Education, 51(1), 423–438.
39. Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, H., & Demircioğlu, G. (2009). The effects of conceptual change
texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students’ alternative concep-
tions of chemical bonding. Computers & Education, 52(3), 681–695.
40. Özmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade stu-
dents’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during phase
changes. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1114–1126.
41. Lamb, R. L., & Annetta, L. (2013). The use of online modules and the effect on student out-
comes in a high school chemistry class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5),
603–613.
42. Eichler, M. L., Del Pino, J. C., & da Cruz Fagundes, L. (2004). Development of cognitive
conducts during a computer simulated environmental analysis. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice, 5(2), 157–174.
43. Rodrigues, S. (2007). Factors that influence pupil engagement with science simulations: The
role of distraction, vividness, logic, instruction and prior knowledge. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 8(1), 1–12.
44. Ambrogi, P., Caselli, M., Montalti, M., & Venturi, M. (2008). Make sense of nanochemistry
and nanotechnology. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 5–10.
45. Barak, M., & Hussein-Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating model-based learning and animations for
enhancing students’ understanding of proteins structure and function. Research in Science
Education, 43(2), 619–636.
46. Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogi-
cal agents on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 395–421.
47. Ullah, S., Ali, N., & Rahman, S. U. (2016). The effect of procedural guidance on students’
skill enhancement in a virtual chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12),
2018–2025.
48. Vital, F. (2012). Creating a positive learning environment with the use of clickers in a high
school chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 470–473.
49. Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the
case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436.
5 0. Rodrigues, S. (2009). Using chemistry simulations: Attention capture, selective amnesia and
inattentional blindness. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 40–46.
5 1. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford
University Press.
5 2. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example
of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 89, 55–71.
80 I. Bellou et al.
5 3. Tsaparlis, G., & Sevian, H. (2013). Introduction: Concepts of matter—Complex to teach and
difficult to learn. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education,
innovations in science education and technology (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Springer.
54. Feynman, R. (1995). Six easy pieces. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
55. Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Stewart, J., & Brown, K. (2009). Student misapplication of a gas-like
model to explain particle movement in heated solids: Implications for curriculum and instruc-
tion towards students’ creation and revision of accurate explanatory models. International
Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1157–1174.
5 6. Kalkanis, G. (2013). From the scientific to the educational: Using monte Carlo simulations
of the microkosmos for science education by inquiry. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.),
Concepts of matter in science education, innovations in science education and technology
(pp. 301–315). Dordrecht: Springer.
5 7. Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemical education, science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical
Education, 74(3), 262–268.
58. Urhahne, D., Nick, S., Poepping, A. C., & Schulz, S. J. (2013). The effects of study tasks
in a computer-based chemistry learning environment. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(6), 993–1003.
59. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical
Education, 70(9), 701–704.
6 0. Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of Chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice, 5(3), 229–245.
6 1. Wu, H., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science
Education, 88(3), 465–492.
6 2. Wofford, J. (2009). K-16 Computationally rich science education: A Ten-Year review of the
journal of science education and technology (1998–2008). Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(1), 29–36.
6 3. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A frame-
work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
64. Agapova, O., Jones, L., Ushakov,A., Ratcliffe,A. & Varanka Martin, M. A. (2002). Encouraging
independent chemistry learning through multimedia design experiences. Chemical Education
International, 3(1). Retrieved May 2, 2014 from h ttp://www.iupac.org/publications/cei/
vol3/0301x0an8.html.
Part II
Enriching Student Learning Experiences
Chapter 5
The Work of Children: Seeking Patterns
in the Design of Educational Technology
Michael Eisenberg and Zack Jacobson-Weaver
Abstract The vast majority of research in educational technology focuses,
justifiably, on what might be described as “short-term” (or perhaps “medium-term”)
questions: how to improve an existing software system, how to assess a particular
classroom innovation, and how to teach some current subject matter in a more
e ffective fashion. From time to time, however, it is worth stepping back from such
questions and taking a longer view of children’s technology: what are the larger
p atterns by which certain technologies become associated with children’s work? In
this chapter, we examine a broad thematic pattern through which “adult” (or
“professional”) technologies become progressively associated with children’s
activities. As an example of how this analysis can be put to use for future design, we
describe early steps in an effort to adapt a particularly powerful manufacturing
technology (“pick-and-place”) for children’s crafts.
5.1 Introduction: Technologies for Children’s Work
As a general rule, when researchers write about educational (or children’s)
technology, they have a specific technology in mind (e.g., desktop computers,
h andheld devices, Arduino microprocessors, to name just a few). In the same vein,
these researchers tend to have a specific goal in mind as well: how to improve the
teaching of geometry, how to make a particular interface more usable, and how to
teach children to program. This incremental approach is a staple of educational
technology research and deservedly so: it represents the means by which steady
progress is made in the field at large.
At the same time, however, it is occasionally worthwhile to stand back and take
a longer view of children’s technology–to look at patterns that play out over a period
M. Eisenberg (*) 83
Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Z. Jacobson-Weaver
Boulder, CO, USA
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
D. Sampson et al. (eds.), Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for
Improving Teaching and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_5
84 M. Eisenberg and Z. Jacobson-Weaver
of decades or longer in the landscape of tools, techniques, and materials available to
children. From the vantage point of the present, children are often described as
“naturally drawn” to devices such as computers: there is a default assumption, in
adult discourse, that children acquire a level of comfort with novel technologies that
is unavailable to their hidebound elders. It wasn’t always so, at least in the case of
computers. In John Markoff’s [1] book What the Dormouse Said, focusing on the
early history (and prehistory) of the personal computing era, he writes about a
former aerospace engineer, Bob Albrecht, who taught Fortran programming to
children in the 1960s:
Along with his other chores, [Albrecht] began to teach a small group of high school stu-
dents how to program… The class became extremely popular, and soon the University of
Colorado was offering an extension program that involved more than one hundred high
school kids. Albrecht took his class on tour, at one point accompanying some of his students
from the original Denver school to a National Computer Conference meeting. There they
demonstrated their programming skills on the CDC 160 machine, shocking the high priests
of computing. At the general conference meeting, there were subsequent complaints that
someone had even considered turning children loose on computers! (Markoff [1], p. 181)
This anecdote is worth quoting at some length because it is remarkable to reflect
on how the conventional wisdom has been almost completely inverted in a mere half
century. The attitude of Markoff’s “high priests” was born of an assumption about
what technologies were appropriate for adults–more specifically, for adult
p rofessionals–and what technologies were “for children”. Since computers were
highly expensive instruments, programmed at the time by trained technicians, it was
unthinkable for children to use them.
Before we take too condescending an attitude toward the prejudices of the “high
priests,” we might wish to reflect on our own present-day assumptions of which
technologies belong, or do not belong, to the realm of children’s work. For the com-
puter professionals described by Markoff, setting children loose on computers was
anxiety provoking as, among other things, a matter of cost: these things are expen-
sive! What if the kids touch the wrong toggle switch and (heaven forbid) break
them? Looking at the current landscape of professional technologies, it is not hard
to ferret out similar reflexes within ourselves. Should children, for example, be per-
mitted to play with a high-speed camera? With an electron microscope? With a
supercollider? Note that in such scenarios, the immediate concern is not primarily
for the safety of the child: we don’t expect that the child will be hurt by (say) the
electron microscope toppling on her. Rather, the concern is for the safety of the
device. A child working with an electron microscope? Absolutely not: these things
are expensive.
While numerous technological devices (like electron microscopes) have not been
adapted for children’s use, it should be noted that some devices have followed the path
of the computer, in that they have evolved from “professional” or “industrial” artifacts
into child-friendly devices. The evolution of the computer from multimillion-dollar
instruments to mobile phones, iPads, and game consoles is the most prominent exam-
ple of this pattern, but the same thematic trends can be identified with other technolo-
gies. To take one example: Hewlett-Packard’s first color inkjet printer (the “Squirt”)
5 The Work of Children: Seeking Patterns in the Design of Educational Technology 85
appeared in 1987 and cost nearly $1400 (approximately e quivalent to $3000 today).
The original advertisements for the Squirt were clearly aimed at an adult audience
(“So now there’s no limit to what you can create with your business communica-
tions.”). [2] An informal perusal of color inkjet printers in the present day will quickly
show that not only has the price come down (most home versions are under $100) but
more importantly, the assumed user population has e asily encompassed young chil-
dren along with adults. Color inkjet printers are routinely advertised for K-12 class-
room use, and home color printers are used by family members of all ages. The 3D
printer, likewise, has taken a path from the highly expensive “rapid prototyping”
instruments of the late 1980s to inexpensive child-friendly tabletop devices. (A cur-
rent Google image search for “3D printing kids” retrieves dozens of stock photos of
smiling children using 3D printers; if n othing else, this plethora of images reveals the
market that the printer makers are now trying to attract.)
In short, then, the history of children’s technology suggests that many of the artifacts
that children use today had their origin in more expensive, professional, “adult-only”
forms. An examination of many of the technologies associated with “youth culture”
today–including the mobile phone, the camera, and (increasingly) robots of various
sorts–shows a pattern of migration, sometimes over a period of decades (as with the
phone) from the adult or professional world to that of the child or teenager. In many
cases, the barriers to be crossed were both economic (making the technologies cheaper)
and cultural (reimagining the potential interests and abilities of children).
The purpose of this chapter is to explore and reflect upon this recurring pattern in
children’s technology. Our goal in doing so is not only descriptive–understanding
better what has already happened–but proactive. It is our belief that by examining
these historical patterns, we can spark our imagination toward the creation of novel,
unexpected technologies for children’s expressivity. The following section of the
chapter discusses several provocative themes in the evolution of children’s
technology from ancestral forms in the adult world; many of these themes seem to
have been underexplored in the literature on educational technology. In the final
section of this chapter, we outline our own prior steps toward the creation of a novel,
child-focused version of the (hitherto industrial) pick-and-place machine. While
this machine never advanced past the stage of “early prototype,” it suggests a style
of design that consciously incorporates the notion of accelerating the transition
from purely “professional” forms of technology to children’s artifacts that expand
the creative and expressive range of young people.
5.2 The Transition from Professional to Children’s
Technology: Key Themes
The previous paragraphs sketched the foundations of a recurring pattern in the
e volution of children’s technology. In this section, we expand on that basic pattern
by finding commonalities and contrasts with the work of other researchers.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Home
Explore
Demetrios Sampson,Dirk Ifenthaler,J. Michael Spector,Pedro Isaías (eds.) - Digital Technologies_ Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning-Springer International Publishing (201
View in Fullscreen
Demetrios Sampson,Dirk Ifenthaler,J. Michael Spector,Pedro Isaías (eds.) - Digital Technologies_ Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning-Springer International Publishing (201
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search