Leveraging SMS for Interactive Classroom Engagement

1. pls txt ur thoughts: using short message service to lower the bar to interactivity in the classroom Carina Markett, Inmaculada Arnedillo Sánchez, Stefan Weber, & Brendan Tangney Center for Research in IT in Education tangney@tcd.ie www.cs.tcd.ie/crite/mobile/ The University of DublinTrinity College

2. Background • Classrooms are currently awash with under-utilised technology; a challenge for educators is to harness this available technology while building a pedagogically sound learning environment. • Key concerns in ICT implementation in education: • technology is in the foreground, • pedagogy is neglected, • costs remain high • student-to-computer ratios remain low. • Over 90% of Irish 15-to 24-year-olds own a mobile phone and use SMS extensively. (Hegarty, 2004).

3. Interactivity & ICT • In student-instructor interaction the concepts are set in context, allowing students’ development of cognitive structures (Moore, 1989; Liu et al., 2002) • Allows students to build their learning environment and influence the learning process, leading to more active learning while providing instructors with ongoing feedback (Anderson, 2002; Muirhead and Juwah, 2003) • The student’s interest and motivation can be stimulated and maintained (Prammanee, 2003) • In distance-learning interactivity has been shown to reduce student isolation, positively effecting performance and enrolment (Hirumi, 2002) • ICT can play a significant role in supporting interactivity in class and after class via email, chat, bulletin boards, classroom Response Systems, among others.

4. Defining Interactivity • By the participants of the interaction: • learner-content (central), learner-instructor, and learner-learner(Moore, 1989) • learner-interface, instructor-interface, instructor-content, instructor-instructor and content-content (Muirhead and Juwah, 2003) • By the medium of communication: • face-to-face interaction (traditional classroom-based interaction) • Computer-mediated interaction (in any physical space or time) • Human-computer interaction (a program providing individual, customised instruction) • Simultaneous group interaction (the use of personal devices to support i.e. student communication mediated by the lecturer and technology) (Liu et al., 2002) • By the structure in relation to: • Loops • Coherance • Originator ( Yacci 2000) A Completed Message Loop Between Two Entities

5. Student-centred Interactivity • Learners transforming information and constructing knowledge (Dewey, 1916) • Interactivity is complete message loop originating from the student and returning to the student. The reciprocating participant can be instructor or fellow student/s. This loop occurs irrespective of the technology or medium of communication.

6. Pls Turn Ur Mobiles Off • Allowing the use of primarily social technology such as instant messaging or mobile phones can distract student attention away from the classroom (Roschelle, 2003) • They can act as an ‘intruders’ removing the teacher’s centrality in communication (Mifsud, 2002) • If the school provides handhelds, policies regarding proper use (game downloading pornography) and care (theft/accidental damage) are essential for a safe and lasting implementation (Roschelle, 2003; Savill-Smith and Kent, 2003) • If the school relies on students’ personal devices, issues and tensions can arise if not all students are similarly equipped and able to access the full communication systems (Iles, Glaser, Kam and Canny, 2002) • Mobile phones are banned in many schools, leading to some implementation with simulated mobile phones on PDAs (Bollen, Eimler and Hoppe, 2004) • A recent study found most implementations of handhelds do not involve connectivity outside the classroom or the ability for students to pass notes via a back-channel (Roschelle, 2003).

7. The Txting Technology 1 2 3 4

8. Txting: In-class & after-class A B C In-class After-class After-class • In-class, using a modem interfacing with customised software to produce text and spreadsheet files of SMS, the lecturer can view the messages and develop the interaction further. • After-class the SMS are available in a website to allow the development of the interaction by lecturer & students via online threaded comments.

10. “Tsting” Bed: Implementation • Undergraduate (Computers and Society course) & Postgraduate Classes (MSc in Ubiquitous Computing) • Undergraduate couse at the end of the academic year – the class dynamic was already set; i.e. students had determined their role in class (i.e. participatory or not) • Postgraduate class: In general, more enthusiastic response from post-graduates • 20 students • Data from 3 sessions. Students presenting work to their peers.

11. Sample LogsMasters Class – Ubiquetous Computing

12. Postgrad Sessions 1-2“Tsting” findings Before Project • 70% of students were already frequent texters • Interaction in class was, for most students, occasional; with greatest satisfaction stemming from lecturer contact During Project • 70% participation • 1 – 4 texts sent per student • 90% use of website, 80% felt it helped understanding of concepts • 35% of messages on website had additions to threads

13. Txt in the Classroom: Limitations • Texting can be slow and divert students’ attention • Texting can be awkward • Anonymity could encourage ‘flaming’ • Provides link to outside • Students read other messages received during class (although limited number sent other messages) • Outsiders can send in texts (not closed to classroom)

14. References • 1. Anderson, T. (2002). An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved 25 April, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm • 2.Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2003). Interactivity in Computer-Mediated College and University Education A Recent Review of the Literature. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society. Retrieved 7 December, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_november2003.html • 3. Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding Participation in Online Courses: A Case Study of Perceptions of Online Interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved 29 Feb 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper68/paper68.html • 4. Muhlhauser, M., & Trompler, C. (2002). Learning in the Digital Age: Paving a Smooth Path with Digital Lecture Halls. Paper presented at the IEEE 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. • 5. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books. • 6. Mitchell, A., & Doherty, M. (2003). M-Learning Support for Disadvantaged Youth: A Mid-Stage Review. Anglia: Ultralab. • 7. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. • 8. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity Demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16. • 9. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest Editorial: Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255-259. • 10. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A Walk on the WILD Side: How Wireless Handhelds May Change CSCL. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, Colorado.