Case Study

Designing the activity

At the outset, I must choose an appropriate learning theory to judge whether the learning and teaching processes adopted will really achieve the intended learning outcomes (Mayes & De Freitas, 2007, p14). I have decided to use the Instructional Systems Design of Robert Gagné (in Mayes & De Freitas, 2007), in which the subject domain is recursively decomposed into a hierarchy of units. Each unit is composed of a small number of simpler units. The learner is then taught the simplest units of knowledge/skill and then units composed of those already learnt. This is the natural approach as SMART Board use is easily deconstructed into component skills that build upon each other.

To ensure that I have considered all aspects of the learning activity, I will use the LeMKE framework (Boettcher, 2007). This splits the design considerations into the learner, the mentor, the knowledge and the environment. I have also considered Laurillard's template for designing teaching (1997), which suggests:

1. outlining the knowledge to be taught
2. highlighting student misconceptions
3. redescribing the misconceived ideas
4. have students explore the misconception
5. then design the next learning activity to further understanding

Laurillard's approach is more suited for teaching concepts, but I will be mainly teaching skills. That said, I want to make teachers aware of how to link the SMART Board to their pedagogy and not solely teach skills in a vacuum.

Activity

The activity I have designed consists of an iPad app for use either by learners in their own context or by Advisers in the Teaching Grid training them. The app consists of a series of skill explanations, including video examples and text that can be worked through in a non-linear fashion. Below I have outlined the design decisions based on the LeKME model.

Learner

The learners will be PGRs who teach and academic teaching staff. They will be from diverse departments with a spectrum of technical skill levels. They may need to learn a specific SMART Board skill for immediate use in teaching or be interested in finding out what SMART Boards can do for them. Ownership of personal technologies is pervasive, flexible access to resources is considered essential, and it is important to be able to extend communication beyond the Teaching Grid environment (JISC, 2009).

Therefore the activity will:

• include optional support (both real-time and asynchronous)
• include options for learning a specific skill or free-roaming
• be accessible at a place and time of their choosing.

Mentor

The activity will be designed to be completed alone or with a Teaching Grid Adviser. The learner can also contact an adviser through an embedded e-mail form in the app or find their phone number. It is important to blend the learning in this way as the experience of others has shown that online media used alone falls short (Macdonald, 2008). One of the reasons for this is that simply delivering content becomes the end of the educational transaction rather than the beginning (Knox, 2012, p32). This is because teaching and learning is inescapably and essentially a dialogue (Laurillard, 1997, p97).

Knowledge

Pulling together my knowledge of what can be done on SMART Boards and the inbuilt training material, I identified the distinct skills that make up SMART Board use in teaching. I then analysed each of these to determine which were prerequisites to learning others. This resulted in the below tree structure where the root is the most basic skill, and each node relies on the skill it branches from. Students need not learn all these skills but direct and customize their learning according to their own respective needs and priorities (Boettcher, 2007).

It is important to not only provide the learner with the skills but also to provide the context and motivation for learning them. This can be furthered by highlighting each skill's relation to others, including what the learner needs to know already (Laurillard, 1997).

Environment

The learner will either be in the Teaching Grid or their own context (office, departmental space or classroom) and will either be using a Teaching Grid provided iPad or their own. They will have internet access available, and ideally, they will have a SMART Board to hand.

Selection of appropriate technology

I have chosen to implement this activity using an electronic resource because it can (adapted from Macdonald, 2008):

• be used even when a mentor is not available
• be easily updated
• be interactive
• provide greater differentiation
• provide multimedia stimulus
• be easily copied, transported and organised

I have chosen to implement this activity as an iPad app. My reasons for choosing to use iPads are:

• they are available for use in the Teaching Grid
• a significant number of target learners have their own or work-provided iPads allowing learners the
• flexibility to learn in their own location and at their chosen time
• they are mobile enough to be held while using a SMART Board
• they can easily be shared collaboratively between the mentor (if present) and learner due to their mobility, screen size and multitouch interface
• they allow easy access to the internet to supplement the provided materials
• they allow easy access to their social networks through text, voice and video to allow learners to collaborate, seek further help and share their successes (an important part of maintaining learner motivation and engagement)
• they can provide multimedia content such as videos, audio and animations.

I have chosen to use a native app instead of a web resource because in future versions the touch interface could be used to mimic a SMART Board, aiding learning without the presence of a SMART Board. Kuhlmann claims screens only allow you to click, hover, and drag (2012) — which is true of webpages on iPads — but native apps also allow you to use gestures such as swipes, pinches, pans and multiple touch points.

Actual motivation

I gave testers a questionnaire to complete after using the app (Appendix C) to analyse their motivation for the activity.

• Testers struggled to discern the user interface with a divide between those who had used iPad apps and those who had not (those with previous experience fairing better). Learners using this app are more likely to be in the latter camp, so the interface must be adjusted to accommodate this.
• Testers generally felt the app benefited them, but this was not universal. From verbal feedback, this seems to be skewed by testers who already knew SMART Boards well and therefore did not feel they learnt much.
• Many testers felt that, regardless of their own gain, their students would benefit from them using the app. Those reporting little personal gain explained this by the app raising their awareness of how the SMART Boards could be used effectively for teaching.
• Testers said there were things they knew could be done on a SMART Board missing from the app - they wanted the app to cover all features. When showing the SMART Board screen, strobing video effects were distracting, so higher quality versions should be made. They report that a more goal-oriented design would improve motivation — I think implementing my planned screen C would help here.

Actual learning

I tested participants immediately before and after using the app to measure their short-term learning. I did this by observing the testers attempting progressively challenging tasks and rating their performance (Appendix D).

In my analysis, the results were skewed by testers who already knew SMART Boards well. Disregarding testers who scored 100% on the pre-test, there was measurable learning across all tasks. I disregarded these testers as they could not demonstrate any learning, and my evaluation failed to account for this possibility. There were higher gains with the more complex tasks compared to the simpler ones, especially in the area of using SMART Boards for formative assessment. This is a positive sign that the learning was not just superficial but would impact the testers' students.

Breaking down the results by task and disregarding testers who had “fully completed” that particular pre-test task highlighted that they demonstrated dramatic gains in areas they lacked. This was even if a tester did not demonstrate significant gains overall. Except for one tester in one task, every tester in this situation made progress — with a skew towards the simpler tasks.

This demonstrates that the learners this is aimed at will make significant learning gains in using the app. How this would compare to a 1-2-1 tutorial has not been tested. However, the app will open up the possibility of learning in their own space, time and pace compared to 1-2-1 tuition.

Actual performance

It is too early to say if actual performance in the classroom has improved. I plan to survey testers in one term to see if they have embedded their learning in their teaching.

Actual result

Again, it is too early to say if actual results have been achieved. I plan to survey participants in one term to see if the testers' students' experience has improved.

Choice of technology

Using Walker's Evaluation Rubric For iPod/iPad Apps (2011), the app scores the following:

• Curriculum Connection = 4/4 (Skill(s) reinforced are strongly connected to the targeted skill or concept)
• Authenticity = N/A (The nature of the app means it could be used in authentic or non-authentic scenarios)
• Feedback = N/A (The app cannot provide feedback on what the learner is doing on a SMART Board)
• Differentiation = 1/4 (App offers no flexibility to adjust settings to meet student needs (settings cannot be altered))
• User Friendliness = 3/4 (Students need to have the teacher review how to use the app)
• Student Motivation = N/A (The app is not available for general use yet, and this aspect is more aimed at school use evaluation)
• Reporting = N/A (The app is not designed to assess learners summatively)

This gives an overall score of 8/12 (67%). I could increase this score by adding differentiation through a self-evaluation screen (see Screen C). The learner would be presented with a list of skills and could mark them as either already learnt or goals to achieve. The app would then only present skills that are not already known but are required to learn the goal skills. This is similar to the custom quizzes described by Ryan, Scott, Freeman and Patel (2000), where the next question presented to learners is chosen based on their previous performance. It is difficult to do anything but self-assess skill competency as it is not possible to demonstrate the thought processes that lie behind an answer, and there is no opportunity for partial marks (Jacobson & Kremer, in BECTA, 2007, p23). Ideally, the app will be used with a mentor. I could also improve the score by improving user-friendliness by graphically displaying the skills tree in navigation. Many testers said that it was not clear that the skills were structured like this. It would be helpful to have an overview of what skills were included and to be able to navigate to them quickly.

(by request)

1. Appendix A: Learning Objects
2. Appendix B: Code
3. Appendix C: Post test questionnaire
4. Appendix D: Assessment of learning