Learning Technology Research Project

Darren Gash. Student ID: 07058076. MA Education Module: Applying Learning Technologies

Student Name: Darren Gash
Student ID: 07058076
MA Education
Module code: EDP085N
Module Name: Applying Learning Technologies
Date: 2nd February 2009

Title

An investigation into students’ use of laptops in the classroom as tools for
learning a software application for the design of sound for interactive
applications: Final summative scholarly paper.

Abstract

This paper investigates students’ use of laptops as tools for learning a
software application in the classroom.

The study, based on the author’s observations, teacher and student
perspectives, indicates that there are significant advantages to learning a
software application when students are able to actively experiment with the
application in the classroom. It also finds that laptops are beneficial for
learning as long as they are purposefully employed in support of clearly
defined educational aims.

Recommendations are made for embedding the use of laptops into the lesson
plan in order to create a suitable balance between teacher/talk and
student/laptop centred activities.

Page 1 of 16


Table of Contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………….page 3

2. Rationale……………………………………………….page 3

3. Theoretical Perspectives……………………………..page 5

4. Methodology…………………………………………...page 7

5. Observations and Evaluations

5.1. Session One………………………………………page 8

5.2. Session Two………………………………………page 9

5.3. Session Three…………………………………….page 9

5.4. Session Four……………...………………………page 10

6. Student Perspectives…………...………………….…page 10

7. Conclusions……………………………………………page 12

8. References…………………………………………….page 15

9. Appendix……………………………………………….page 16

Page 2 of 16


1. Introduction

"Laptops are no different from any other technology in that it is the
teaching they allow rather than their mere presence that improves
student learning" (Granberg & Witte, 2005, p.58)

The twofold aim of this technology intervention project is to investigate:
 students’ use of laptops in the classroom as tools for learning the
theory and practice of sound design for interactive applications; and
 how the use of laptops may be best managed in order to optimise the
learning experience.

The students are studying a final year module entitled Sound Design for
Interactive Applications (SDIA) as part of the BA (Hons) Recording Arts
degree. This is an undergraduate programme specialising in audio production
designed and taught by SAE Institute1. By the end of the module students are
expected to have acquired knowledge and understanding of audio in
interactive and non-linear environments such as games, and acquire skills in
programming sound applications suitable for such environments.

All students who enroll on courses at SAE are supplied with an Apple
Macbook laptop and all premises are wifi enabled. Since laptops are
ubiquitous, and the development platform used for sound design programming
is a free open source software application called Pure Data (PD)2, students
are able to install PD onto their laptops thus allowing them the opportunity to
use the application in class.

2. Rationale

Use of laptops in the classroom can be both beneficial and detrimental to

1
See http://london.sae.edu/en-gb/courses/42/Audio_Engineering_Degree for further
information
2
See http://puredata.info/ for further information

Page 3 of 16


learning. Levin et al (2005) discuss how their use in music appreciation
classes encouraged group work, resulted in increased engagement and
deeper understanding of the subject matter. Ohland and Stephan (2005)
describe the use of laptops for real-time data collection and analysis in an
engineering syllabus (an activity outside the scope of a standard lecture)
leading to benefits such as more active learning, improved attendance,
deeper questioning and higher grades.

Conversely, Fried (2008) reminds us that although laptops have the potential
to increase student motivation they may also result in cognitive overload due
to the distractions offered by their presence. Such distractions include email
and instant messaging, although Granberg and Witte (2005, p.53) observe
such applications as enabling students to “communicate [with each other]
“silently” during class” as a valid classroom activity.

Nilson and Weaver (2005, p.4) note that behavioural problems such as
inattentiveness and disruption are less likely when laptop activities are
designed into the lesson plans to purposefully engage students, commenting
on the versatility of laptops to facilitate "studio, master-apprentice, interactive,
hands-on, discovery-based, experiential, or collaborative models of teaching
and learning” (p.12). Wurst et al (2008) and Fried (2008) also highlight the
need for planned integration of laptops into the classroom and establishing
appropriate boundaries for their use.

With this in mind, my project is based on the assumption that the ability of
students to engage directly with PD on their laptops during class time will be
beneficial to their learning as long as their use is managed in a way that is
informed by the intended learning outcomes of the module. More specifically,
it is expected that laptops will be beneficial in this context since:
a) students will gain hands on experience whilst the teacher is
available to support their learning;
b) learning of the practical application can be divided into smaller
manageable chunks within the two hour time frame of each lesson; and

Page 4 of 16


c) students can take work in progress away with them for further
development.

3. Theoretical perspectives

Effective sound design requires the application of higher order skills. The
designer must first conceptualise a sound (that may or may not exist in reality,
such as the noise made by an alien spaceship), break the sound down into
constituent elements (e.g. pitch, tone and loudness), assign values to them
(e.g. high pitched, bright, quiet) and model the sound and its behaviour within
the interactive environment. Students must therefore develop their abilities to
analyse, synthesise and evaluate as well as to think abstractly, logically and
systematically.

The process of sound design is reiterative3 in a way that is analogous to
constructivist models of learning, which see the learner as actively
constructing their own understanding by relating existing knowledge and
experience to new knowledge and skills being taught. Bruner (2003) for
example applies this to his concept of a spiral curriculum, in which the learner
revisits a subject at more advanced levels with the knowledge and
experienced gained feeding into the next stage.

Kolb’s experiential learning theory (1984) conceptualises this as a cyclical
process where the learner’s understanding is continually transformed by
engaging with the four stages of concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation that, as a whole, form
an experience on which to base further reflection, understanding and
experimentation. Kolb’s model provides a useful framework for the delivery of
the SDIA module as students have the software application to hand and can
therefore not only observe and reflect on the material in class, as per the
traditional lecture, but also actively experiment with the material of learning,
as per the traditional laboratory.

3
As opposed to the behaviourist process of repetition, or rote learning, in order to
establish a reflexive behaviour based on a given response

Page 5 of 16


One advantage for students having access to PD on their laptops during class
is the possibility of presenting the curriculum in manageable chunks - an
important consideration given the level of complexity involved in sound design
at this level. This means that the teacher can explain and demonstrate a
theoretical concept or practical application over a short period of time relative
to the length of the lesson (the SDIA module lessons are two hours in length)
with students then actively experimenting with the application either alone or
in groups. The extent of the students’ understanding can subsequently be
assessed through, for example, questioning by the teacher, group discussion
and the presentation of work for peer review4 prior to further reiterations of the
learning cycle in class.

Without computers students would be unable to engage with the technology
and thus assess their understanding until after the lecture, by which time they
may already be overloaded by the amount and level of knowledge delivered.
Thus within the context of a lesson it would not be possible to complete a
whole experiential cycle. The students’ limited attention span may also affect
their ability to concentrate and remain attentive since, according to research
by Penner (1984, as cited in Gross Davis, 1993), a student’s attention varies
between 10 and 20 minutes, the implication being that some variation of
focus, for example between teacher and student centred activity, is required
for students to remain engaged. Students may have access to computers
later on but their readiness to learn may be diminished and they may not have
access to the support of the teacher.5 Having said that, as has already seen,

4 The transfer of files to the teacher’s workstation for playback through the
classroom’s A/V facility is possible through SAE’s existing wifi network.

5 Such an approach has been adopted in the past at SAE Institute for logistical
reasons and as an attempt to compensate for a lack of teacher support, students
were given elaborate step-by-step instructions on a handout to use during their self-
directed practice sessions. From experience this tended to foster a surface approach
to learning, where students simply learn to carry out a procedure without acquiring

Page 6 of 16


laptops can also impact on attention to learning during class, a consideration
when designing a strategy to manage them.

4. Methodology

To evaluate the use of laptops and their impact on learning during the SDIA
classes, data was collected from four perspectives:
 the lecturer;
 students (with a class size of 18 students);
 video footage; and
 myself.
Although the SDIA module comprises 13 two-hour lessons, only the first four
lessons were evaluated due to time limitations.

After each session the lecturer and I compared notes and made
recommendations for adjusting the teaching method for subsequent lectures.
After the fourth and final session a semi-structured discussion with the
students was held to ascertain their views about the use of laptops in the
context of the SDIA module and in general. The video footage provided
documentary evidence and enabled my own observations from the rear of the
classroom to be cross-referenced with the camera’s view from the front of the
classroom6.

The aim of the observations was to determine when laptops appeared to
enhance or hinder learning, their effect on student engagement, their
influence on the pace and direction of the lessons and the relationship

understanding of the underlying concepts and were thus unable to transfer the
procedural skill to other contexts.

6
During my sessions I used a laptop running Ecove, a bespoke application for
classroom observations that time stamps any observations noted. This is useful for
finding the corresponding video footage. For further information visit
http://www.ecove.net

Page 7 of 16


between their use and teaching method. Recommendations for managing the
use of laptops to optimise learning are made on the basis of the data
gathered.

5. Observations and evaluations

5.1 Session one

The first session introduced the module, key concepts and basic functions of
PD to the class. Students were generally attentive throughout and their use of
laptops was self-regulated. From my perspective only one student was
observed using the laptop for purposes outside the scope of the lecture,
although this was intermittent and not in any way disruptive to the class.

Since students had never used PD before it was decided to adopt a “step-by-
step” approach, whereby students would follow along and repeat each
keystroke and mouse click as the lecturer demonstrated how to build a simple
tone generator. The pace of the lecture slowed down noticeably as some
students were unable to keep up with the pace of instruction. Some asked the
lecturer to repeat instructions, others took longer for each step as they were
writing down the instruction as well as carrying it out, others got lost as they
switched their attention between their laptop screens and the lecturer’s screen
projected at the front of the classroom.

Although all students eventually succeeded in producing their first sound, the
scenario does illustrate potential disadvantages of the “step-by-step”
approach for learning. Because students can take varying amounts of time to
assimilate each step, and because all students must assimilate one step
before the lecturer can move onto the next one, the gaps between each step
can widen to the extent that the connection between them may be lost.
Consequently, students may have difficulty not only in reconstructing the
procedure but also achieving a deeper understanding of its wider context and
use.

Page 8 of 16


5.2 Session two

In contrast with the previous session, an “observe then experiment” method
was adopted based on Kolb’s learning cycle. This meant that students would
first observe the lecturer construct an application and explain the rationale
behind its construction. Students would then attempt to reconstruct it by
themselves, with the lecturer on hand to assist. In this way, students can see
the whole procedure uninterrupted and understand its context. In practice this
session was overly weighted towards the observation stage due to the time
needed to cover the procedure to the desired depth of understanding, leaving
insufficient time for students to complete the task during the experimentation
phase.

Although it can be argued that such an approach is more likely to result in
deep learning, the length and balance of the observation/experimentation
cycle clearly needs careful consideration. There was clearly insufficient time
allocated to allow students to actively experiment with their laptops.
Furthermore, the observation stage was too long with possible consequences
for students’ attention span as discussed earlier.

5.3 Session three

The plan for this session was to revise concepts and procedures previously
covered, introduce additional ones and demonstrate their learning by building
an “arpeggiator” application7. To avoid the issues of the previous session
students were provided with pre-configured PD components (modules),
requiring less time to explain the individual components and build the
application. To gain a deeper understanding at their own pace, students were
given homework which required them to unpack and analyse the discreet
components of each block and modify the parameters.

7
An application that produces a sequence of notes to repeatedly rise and fall at a
specified tempo. It comes from the musical term arpeggio which refers to the notes of
a chord played in succession.

Page 9 of 16


This strategy allowed more time for the students to engage in
experimentation, which resulted in a highly productive and student centred
session. Students worked by themselves or in pairs, with some pairs
snowballing into groups as they exchanged ideas. The noise level in the room
got progressively louder due to increased interaction and the sound of laptops
completing their arpeggiators.

The laptops had evidently facilitated student engagement and interaction in a
problem solving exercise. Unfortunately the time allowed for completion was
impacted by technical problems at the beginning of the session that prevented
some students from logging onto the college’s server and downloading the
files required for the task. To counteract this in future students would be
instructed to download files the day before the session.

5.4 Session four

Session four’s task was to model the sound of fire. This involved analysing the
acoustic characteristics of the three main components of fire (“crackle”, “hiss”
and “roar”), building each component and combining them into a cohesive
working model. Since the task was beyond the scope of the two-hour session,
students were split into groups with each one allocated a component to build.
Each group would then upload their component for others to download and
complete the model. This both encouraged collaboration and also allowed
time for students to engage at a deeper level. Finally, students would have the
opportunity to compare and contrast each others approach to constructing the
components.

Although the elements of the fire could be built in parallel the concepts and
procedural knowledge required to create them had to be explained by the
lecturer sequentially. Again, this left insufficient time for students to complete
and evaluate the exercise in class, although since students have remote
access to the college server they were able to continue the exercise
afterwards. On reflection it was decided in future to break similar tasks down
into several smaller “observe then experiment” cycles during class.

Page 10 of 16


6. Student perspectives

The discussion held with the students after the fourth and final session
supported my own assumptions and conclusions so far. To begin with the
students felt strongly that the laptops had made a significant contribution to
their learning of PD during class time since it allowed them, as one student
said, to “try things out during class and get feedback”.

There was a mixed response regarding the perceived effectiveness or
otherwise of the “step by step” and the "observe then experiment" approaches
to teaching and learning the application. Students saw the advantages and
disadvantages of both. One student preferred the former since he found each
step easier to assimilate by “doing each step actively before the next”.
Another found it problematic since “[the lecturer] would show us something
and I would try and do it ... by the time I lift my head up it’s like…where the
hell are we?”

Another student noted that the “observe then experiment” approach was more
likely to lead to deeper learning, since it required them to construct their own
understanding from what they had observed: “if you watch first [you] focus on
the big parts … you [then] gotta figure out your own way of doing things … it’s
more difficult, but if you can do it this way, for sure you can do it again the
next day or the day after”. This method was also viewed as more conducive to
collaborative learning, since by first observing a procedure in full students
were “engaged as a group; everyone is looking [towards the projector screen]
… when using the laptops [i.e. during step-by-step] we are engaged
individually. Learning is better as a group as you are discussing how to do
things together”.

Although the overall consensus was a preference for the “observe then
experiment” approach, it was suggested that the single reiteration applied so
far be broken down into smaller and thus more frequent
observation/experimentation cycles during class.

As one student put it: “a combination of both, doing step by step … step one,
close your laptops, (then watch), OK 10 minutes, now open your laptops [and]
do the practical". Such a view aligned with our own conclusions as a result of

Page 11 of 16


the timing issues that occurred in the second and fourth sessions.

Significantly, students saw no great advantage in bringing their laptops with
them to college unless they were to be used for some planned activity other
than general note taking. As had been observed, although students had
laptops with them the majority did not use them for taking notes. When asked
why they appeared to prefer pen and paper they responded that it was “just
quicker”, “easier to structure something”, “brainstorm stuff and put it into
something visual” and “I think you remember things better if you physically
write them out”.

One student also remarked that using a notepad enabled him to keep PD as
the active window on his laptop, rather than switching between a document
editor and the application being learned. Although one student did see the
advantage for touch typists who could simultaneously take notes and keep an
eye on the lecturer, he also remarked that with a pen “you can [also] draw and
do stuff” and if there is no use for the laptops in class beyond its function as
an electronic notepad, he “might as well bring a little piece of paper”.

7. Conclusions

This research has shown that there are significant advantages to learning an
application when students are able to actively experiment with the application
in class. As Levine (2002, as cited in Granberg and Witte, 2005, p.53) states,
the true benefit of laptop technology is its ability to create “two classrooms in
one”, in this context a combination of lecture theatre and laboratory. The
opportunity to actively experiment can be seen to engage students, and
learning can be presented in more manageable chunks.

That said, defining what constitutes a “manageable chunk” is problematic and
requires further research. Although the “step-by-step” approach has
advantages in terms of immediacy of engagement and feedback with positive
consequences for student motivation, the method has clear limitations. It
requires students to remain in sync and in practice, students do not assimilate
steps at the same pace and interruptions can occur. This can lead to a
procedure being atomised to an extent that students focus on each individual

Page 12 of 16


part out of context of the whole. Such an approach can result in surface
learning (Ramsden, 2003, p.44).

Although the “observe and experiment” approach is more likely to result in
deeper learning since it allows students to see each step in context and
construct their own understanding through experimentation, the length of the
observation stage needs careful consideration.

If the procedure to be learned is complex and takes too long to demonstrate,
students are more likely to become demotivated and less attentive. Although
not an issue here, with other less mature students the laptops are more likely
to become a gateway to undesirable extra-curricular activities. In such a
situation, it is recommended that learning be broken down into smaller and
thus more manageable “observe then experiment” cycles.

Another strategy is to divide a procedure into several smaller functions and
allocate each one to a group. This not only encourages collaborative learning
but is also a more efficient use of time as sub tasks are achieved in parallel.
The importance of making allowances for the inevitable technical problems
that occur in a technology rich environment is also highlighted, and it is
recommended that whenever possible assets are made available to student
prior to classes.

On the whole, the “observe and experiment” is recommended as the preferred
long term strategy as it appears more likely to result in collaborative and
constructivist learning that the students themselves recognised as beneficial8.
The length of such cycles is, however, dynamic and depends on the
complexity of the task and the ability of the students, meaning more research

8
It is worth noting here that sound produced from laptops is relatively quiet and
localised, enabling students to play sound through the laptops’ speakers rather than
through headphones, which allowed for group interaction.

Page 13 of 16


is required in this regard9.

Finally, this research supports Fried and others’ assertion in this paper’s
introduction of the need to employ laptops in a structured way. As the
students who took part in this research themselves recognised, laptops are
not intrinsically beneficial to their learning. They are valuable tools for learning
as long as they are embedded in a managed and purposeful way in support of
clearly defined educational aims.

Word count: 3249

9
Since then, the lecturer has continued to optimise the “observe then experiment”
cycle and has reported that cycles of approximately half hour in duration, with 15
minutes observation followed by 15 minutes experimentation, appear to work best
with this particular class. This allows for several reiterations during the two-hour
lesson format.

Page 14 of 16


8. References

Bruner, J. (2003) The Process of Education. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.

Davis, B.G. (1993) Tools for Teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.

Fried, C.B. (2008) 'In-class Laptop Use and its Effects on Student Learning'.
Computers and Education, 50, pp. 906-914.

Granberg, E. & Witte, j. (2005) 'Teaching with Laptops for the First Time:
Lessons from a Social Science Classroom'. In Enhancing Learning with
Laptops in the Classroom: Spring 2005 (JB TL Single Issue Teaching and
Learning), (Eds, Nilson, L.B. & Weaver, B.E.) Jossey Bass, San Francisco,
pp. 51-59.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of
Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Levin, A.R., Pargas, R.P. & Austin, J. (2005) 'Appreciating Music: An Active
Approach'. In Enhancing Learning with Laptops in the Classroom: Spring
2005 (JB TL Single Issue Teaching and Learning), (Eds, Nilson, L.B. &
Weaver, B.E.) Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 27-35.

Nilson, L.B. & Weaver, B.E. (2005) 'Laptops in Class: What Are They Good
For? What Can You Do with Them?'. In Enhancing Learning with Laptops in
the Classroom: Spring 2005 (JB TL Single Issue Teaching and Learning),
(Eds, Nilson, L.B. & Weaver, B.E.) Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3-13.

Ohland, M.W. & Stephan, E.A. (2005) 'Using Laptops in Engineering Courses
for Real-Time Data Collection and Analysis'. In Enhancing Learning with
Laptops in the Classroom: Spring 2005 (JB TL Single Issue Teaching and
Learning), (Eds, Nilson, L.B. & Weaver, B.E.) Jossey Bass, San Francisco,
pp. 67-80.

Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education.
RoutledgeFalmer, London.

Wurst, c., Smarkola, C. & Gaffney, M.A. (2008) 'Ubiquitous laptop usage in
higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and
constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms'. Computers &
Education, 51, pp. 1766-1783.

Page 15 of 16


9. Appendix: Applying Learning Technologies Peer Assessment Grading
Sheet. Comments and grades for (name withheld) Formative
Presentation of 4th December 2008

After the demonstration by your colleague, did you understand fully the following?

Objective/Criteria Performance Indicators
Needs Meet Exceptional
Improvement Expectations
1. What worked Well? (2 points) (3 points) (5 points)
2. What did not work so (2 points) (3 points) (5 points)
well?
3. Was the experience (3 points) (5 points) (8 points)
successful one for the
learner, and why?
4. What challenges were (3 points) (8 points) (12 points)
encountered?
5. How the presenter went (3 points) (10 points) (15 points)
about resolving these
challenges?
6. What the presenter will (3 points) (18 points) (25 points)
do better and why?
7. How the presenter is (5 points) (22 points) (30 points)
going to incorporate the
lessons learned from the
experience of
implementing the
technology in future
practice

Total Score: 42

Comments:
• As per my own presentation, criteria 6 and 7 score low since the intervention
is still ongoing.
• The presentation was approximately double the stipulated time allowed;
therefore some fine-tuning is required. Theoretical perspectives in particular
need summarising more briefly. A lot of theory presented was general, so I
suggest focussing on two educational theories specifically relevant to dyslexia
• I also suggest that the main body of the presentation be structured in a way
which demonstrates how the student with dyslexia would solve a given
problem using OneNote. This would help personalise the research and help
the audience see the benefits of the application more clearly.

Page 16 of 16

Learning Technology Research Project

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (8)

Semelhante a Learning Technology Research Project

Semelhante a Learning Technology Research Project (20)

Learning Technology Research Project