by
Patricia Hendricks
Many educators believe that technology cannot impact student achievement until students have convenient and sustained technology access. However, price prohibits most schools from achieving 1:1 ratios between students and machines. Consequently, some educators believe that handheld devices are the answer because of their cost, size, and functionality. This chapter of the MAR*TEC Technology Coordinators’ Handbook considers four evaluation reports of handheld initiatives. Specifically, this chapter investigates the question, “Are handheld devices proving effective in meeting educational goals?”
Palm Education Pioneers (PEP) Program
During the 2001–2002 school year, Palm awarded classroom sets of palm pilots to 102 K–12 educators. Teachers submitted grant proposals, and Palm selected 23 elementary teachers, 45 middle school teachers, and 49 high school teachers. Handheld devices were available to students through classroom use, personal use during the school day (returned to the pool at the end of the day), and unlimited personal use. The evaluation of PEP was conducted by SRI International, and the data consisted of teacher surveys, some student surveys, and limited classroom observations. PEP teachers were required to evaluate the effectiveness of their projects. SRI also analyzed these teacher self-evaluations.
PEP findings include considerable teacher enthusiasm for the handheld devices, particularly among elementary teachers. Teachers using handheld devices for science activities or extended writing activities reported the highest satisfaction. Probes, keyboards, and digital cameras were the top three peripherals recommended by PEP teachers. The teachers reported incorporating more cooperative activities and more self-paced and independent work into their curriculum. Important considerations were inappropriate use (e.g., beaming—using infrared light to transmit documents and communications from one handheld device to another), technology management issues (particularly synchronization), tracking, collecting and reviewing students’ work, and usability issues (especially building skill by using Graffiti input, which means teaching students to write letters that the device can recognize). Solutions included establishing clear policies and consequences for inappropriate use, implementing a synchronization schedule or management team, and using a combination of the following four strategies for collecting student work: beaming files to a teacher’s handheld, synchronizing to a specific computer, printing work, and reviewing work directly from a student’s handheld. Finally, teachers were required to accept significant responsibility in maximizing the technology. Despite the extra work, the PEP teachers indicated that they would use handheld devices again in subsequent years (Vahey & Crawford, 2002).
Graphing Calculators
Graphing calculators are subject-specific handheld devices. Texas Instruments commissioned a review of scientifically based research with handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics classes. Five of the 43 published evaluations met the standards defined in No Child Left Behind (NCLB); however, three of the studies were conducted outside the United States, and one was conducted on college students enrolled in an Algebra 2 equivalent class.
The study focused on high school students in the United States and matched students from two different Algebra 2 courses within the same school. One group participated in a problem-solving reform curriculum using graphing handheld devices. The second group participated in traditional courses. Posttests showed that the students using the handheld devices scored significantly higher than their matched peers. The studies conducted in Holland, Israel, and England reveal that students’ understanding of Cartesian graphs improves when using handheld devices, even when the teachers are inexperienced with the technology. Additionally, an investigative approach that employs handheld devices allows students to develop significantly more ideas in their justifications of answers when explaining functions, which correlates with more correct responses (Interactive Educational Systems Designs, 2003).
Detroit Public Schools
Detroit Public Schools and the University of Michigan developed a middle school science curriculum that is project-based and founded on rich science content. The evaluation report follows three teachers familiar with the curriculum and teaching in a project-based learning environment. Students in these teachers’ classrooms received palm pilot devices and used them in their science classrooms on a daily basis. Seven customized software programs were installed on each handheld device. The evaluation sought to answer the question, “In what ways does 1:1 student access to handheld technology affect teacher practice in inquiry-based science curricula?” The researchers collected information by observing each classroom at least four times during each unit. Additionally, the researchers collected notes and documentation from the biweekly professional development sessions. The research was conducted over two school years.
The evaluation concluded that technology-related challenges diminished during the second year as teachers became better at troubleshooting the technology problems and more competent using the technology to support academic inquiry. Additionally, teachers experienced frustration establishing appropriate discipline for students who misused the equipment. Support from the biweekly staff meetings helped develop functional solutions. Technology and management demands sapped teachers’ energy and focus during most of the first year. During the second year, teachers were able to focus on instructional issues; they effectively provided students more personalized time and better feedback on their academic work (Vath, 2005).
University of Michigan Center for Highly Interactive Computing in Education
Researchers from University of Michigan investigated the types of activities that engaged third-, sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students in Michigan and Texas. They followed four schools to determine how students with unlimited access used their handheld devices (both at home and at school). In each of these schools, students had less than one hour per week of access to desktop computers. Researchers used observation, artifact analysis, and log file analysis to determine usage. Each of the handheld devices contained software that recorded actions and then date/time stamped the actions, thus allowing researchers to determine what sort of use occurred at home or at school. They found that students mostly used their handheld devices to conduct research, manage word processing (e.g., taking notes, writing essays, answering questions posed by the teacher, completing virtual worksheets), and create animations to illustrate science concepts. Students also used their devices for playing games. This was the third most common activity of sixth-grade students (particularly boys) and the fifth most common activity for seventh-grade students (Curtis, Luchini, Bobrowsky, Quintana, & Soloway, 2002). However, students demonstrated significant educational use, and researchers found that students were more productive—producing more than 100 documents during 180 days of school. Students revisited their notes, revised their work multiple times, and collaborated with peers about their academic work (Norris & Solloway, 2003).
Conclusion
Handheld devices were developed primarily as organizational tools for business users. Educational software packages allow students and teachers the opportunity to change an organizational tool into a rich educational tool. For instance, the Concord Consortium has developed a vast library of software for handheld devices. This software library is founded on open source licenses, meaning teachers can download the software free. If teachers improve or customize the software, they are encouraged to share their improvements. The library includes a molecular workbench—a model exploring the interactions between atoms and molecules. The molecular workbench contains over 100 learning activities and includes a special word processing tool so that teachers can build their own learning activities. Algebra Interactives are simple software packages containing key mathematical concepts and investigations. Three software packages invite environmental investigations. The What-If Builder is a writing tool that allows students to create stories with different outcomes. The Community Planner is a spatial modeling and visualization tool that allows students to create and explore maps. The Ecological Footprint Calculator allows users to understand how much land is needed to sustain their lifestyle. Biologica is a model of genetics, and Dynamic is a model of classical Newtonian mechanics inspired by tinker toys (Tinker, 2004).
These four evaluation reports show that good quantitative research has not been conducted in K–12 educational settings. However, software is being developed that will allow significant academic inquiry. Although teachers need time and sustained professional development support to effectively use the devices in the classroom, significant benefits are eventually realized. Students use the devices for appropriate educational activities. Educators, however, need proof of the efficacy of handheld devices in order to justify the expense of the machines and professional development. Additionally, NCLB requires experimental or quasi-experimental research designs as the means for proving efficacy. The educational research community has not yet provided this kind of proof for handheld devices.
References
Curtis, M., Luchini, K., Bobrowsky, W., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2002). Handheld use in K-12: A descriptive account. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. Retrieved June 2005, from http://java.cs.vt.edu
Interactive Educational Systems Designs (2003). Using handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: What scientifically based research has to say. Retrieved June 2005, from http://education.ti.com/downloads/pdf/us/execsumm.pdf
Norris, C. & Solloway, N. (2003). The viable alternative: Handhelds why the personal computer of choice in K-12 ought to fit in a student’s palm. Retrieved June 2005, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2003_04/soloway.htm
Tinker, B. (2004). Free computer based learning resources. Concord Consortium Newsletter Fall 2004. Retrieved June 2005, from lhttp://www.concord.org
Vahey, P. & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm education pioneers program: Final evaluation report. Retrieved June 2005, from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/PEP_Final_Report.pdf
Vath, R. (2005). Supporting teachers using palm computers: Examining classroom practice over time. Retrieved June 2005, from http://hice.org/PDFs/Vath_etal_NECC2005.pdf
