This is a longer one so if you decide to wade through it, I’ve broken it up with some sub-titles.
K-12 Context
The schools I have worked in recently have had various policies regarding the use of personal mobile devices in the classroom. As for mobile devices in general, I am seeing them increasingly use of laptops, tablets and, on occasion smart phones, being used by both teachers and students (the former often being provided by the school, and the latter being personal devices (BYOD) and more often at the secondary level. I have permitted students to use their personal smart phones, but see this as rarer as many teachers are concerned that the phones might be being used for purposes (I.e. social networking and texting for non-educational purposes). Where I see less use of mobile devices, it is usually as the result of teachers not yet comfortable with their own level of knowledge about how to use them for educational purposes, or teachers being in schools with limited tech resources or support
Generally, the use of tablets has been seen as supporting educational purposes for some of the very reasons cited in the Ciampa (2013) article; they support some individualized learning in the form of students being able to access information at their own rate, they are used for educational games, or for providing teachers with targeted feedback in large group discussions (i.e. students answering multiple choice questions or indicating levels of understanding about a concept. In addition, I have also seen more mobile technology used to support students who need to access written information differently (i.e. audio).
In some case, I have had colleagues suggest that if just information is needed, it is more helpful to let students use mobile technology. The teacher can then spend more time helping students apply their learning, make connections to other learning, and develop deeper understandings. I think that this is one way that the increased use of tech is changing the way we teach.
However, I have also seen teachers who are resistant to the increased use of tech for a variety of pedagogical reasons. One of these is the fear that students do not know how to think critically about the information they are so easily able to access. This has led to an increased focus on helping students develop their critical thinking skills by teaching them ask critical questions about information they access on-line.
In addition, I have had colleagues who resist the integration of mobile devices because they do not feel comfortable with their use, or just do not see their use as enhancing the learning environment. In some of these cases, I hope the these teachers think about the opportunity for reciprocal teaching to occur in their classrooms (such as is also mentioned in Ciampa (2013), but in other situations, what is being done in the classroom already achieves the same benefits that Ciampa indicates were possible with the tablet use in the study such as differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, timely and effective feedback, encouraging students to measure their progress against their themselves (and not against peers).
Adult Learning
In adult courses I have taught, the use of mobile devices was widespread, but usually limited to students using their laptops or tablets to access readings, makes notes, or create written assignments.
In the workshops and sessions I facilitate, there is regular use of mobile technology. Participants frequently use tablets of laptops to takes notes, or use tablets of smart phones to take pictures of parts of presentations to save for future reference. In addition, these devices are frequently used to tweet out information or idea they want to share with their on-line communities.
Re Ciampa’s “Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation” (2013)
On another note, I think it important to share some thinking about this week’s reading. I have some concerns with some elements of Malone and Lepper’s (1987) taxonomy of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for leaning (as outlined in the article) and I think linking these couple of elements to the use of mobile devise actually detracts from any argument that mobile devices might be helpful in some learning environments. Supporting the element of “recognition” as a motivator for learning speaks to an understanding of learning that detracts from supporting students to become self-motivated, life-long learners. Yes, there is a desire that many people have for others recognize their achievements (and for some people it is a prime motivator). However, to include this as a positive motivator for students in K-12 can be significantly problematic. We run the very real risk of endorsing recognition as a reason for learning, and if that I internalized, then when the recognition is absent, the learning desire is diminished.
I have seen the use of competition in games situations be beneficial for some students; however, emphasizing competition as a positive motivator seems to be a product of a highly individualistic perspective that does not foster cooperative or collaborative learning. I do need to clarify that my issue is with an emphasis on direct competition – not with indirect competition. It was a relief to see that anecdotally, the students seemed to value indirect completion with themselves, rather than direct competition with each other.
We need to be careful about some motivators, even ones that some people see as effective at changing student behaviours. At one time, corporal punishment was used in Canadian schools because it was seen as an effective motivator for student behaviour . But of course, we have learned since then that there are better ways to help students learn how to manage their behaviours.
Our Class Blog
I am wondering if it is the emphasis on “recognition” that spurred the inclusion on the class blog of the “leaderboard”. When I saw that element on the blog, I was surprised. It seems to run counter to a constructivist, collaborative learning environment. Yes, I know that there are no nefarious intentions with rating people’s posts, but if the goal is to learn with and from each other, then I wonder if that that should be our focus – not providing ratings. To me it is akin to a classroom teacher putting a summative mark (“A”, “B”, etc.) on a student’s paper without providing any real substantive feedback. Unfortunately, when things like this are included in learning environments, they resonate (to me) of an emphasis on individuality and competition – not cooperative learning.
Now, having said all this, I also understand that other people will have different perspectives, and will be able to articulate benefits to such interactions. Yes, there are benefits; I do not argue this. But with every decision we make for our learning environment, there are also potential disadvantages. I can imagine that as we create on-line learning environments for our students we will have weigh these decisions carefully.
Jo
Hi Jo,
Thanks for a well-written and thoughtful post!
I have also been thinking about recognition recently, but I have been considering it less in the form of public or private recognition (“You have mastered 3 digit addition!”) and looking more at it from a validation perspective (“You are working so hard at 3 digit addition!”). As a student and a teacher and a fiance and a friend, I like to know I’m on the right track. As humans I believe that we naturally seek validation, as a form of support, a motivation to begin or continue or pick ourselves up, particularly in processes where we are vulnerable. Validation is feedback and learning is exactly that: vulnerable. This line of thinking is born through exposure to components of Carol Dweck’s mindset theory and Brené Brown’s vulnerability research over the past few months, and working with teachers who are trying to integrate technology. First of all, they usually want to know that they’re doing something – anything – right. It’s terrifying to not know if your perceived strengths are actually strengths in the eyes of others. I’m wondering if recognition shouldn’t be updated to be validation in the Malone & Lepper framework. Less of a “You did it!” which suggests you are done with that learning completely, and more of a “You’re doing it, and you’re doing it well!”, which suggests continual work and growth at that topic.
Obviously this is thinking that can be applied with or without mobile devices in a context, and is certainly overlapped with many existing theorems. Certainly, mobile devices may make communication easier and more subtle in nature from instructor to student, or those validations can happen between students. But I’m wondering if there isn’t something to the ‘recognition’ factor that is fitting within a motivational framework, even if it’s the wrong word.
Hi Victoria,
What you had said rings true – especially the need for validation in so many contexts, and how it supports continued learning. And I appreciate the link with Carol Dweck’s work (which I love). I agree with you that a shift from “recognition” to “validation” makes perfect sense. I think then that the focus would need to be complemented with an understanding that the validation is not as effective when paired with a system that provides for comparison of learners. It would however, work when in conjunction with what Malone and Lepper (1987) describe as indirect competition.
Perhaps this is the genesis of what might eventually become and new set of motivators.
Great insight!
Thanks,
Jo
Hi Jo,
Thanks for sharing your workplace use of mobile devices. The topic of recognition is very interesting. It reminded me of an article I recently read:
http://www.parentingscience.com/praise-and-intelligence.html
With regards to the component of “curiosity” mentioned by Ciampa I wonder if educators will endlessly be chasing what students deem as novel and interesting when it comes to technology simply to maintain engagement. The teachers you mention that may not particularly be comfortable using technology perhaps have considered that the mobile device does not add that much to the learning experience overall.
Edwin
HI Jo,
Yes, the connection to competition is a great addition to this as well. When you beat your own times, scores, or improve your competency at a task, sometimes that is validation in itself; for some, there is no need for human to human validation in those cases. With students though, I find that they often like to share those victorious moments with another person, which is also fine. The challenge lies in how we respond to it, and as you said, also taking into account the comparison issue.
Victoria
Hi Jo,
thanks for a great post. I know I already gave some responses to the issue of rating and leaderboard in Connect, but I would like to return to it here. I can understand the reaction to leaderboar (even though I didn’t expect it to that degree, I have to admit), so I will focus on other elements. Do you think that rating is demotivating in this particular context, as it can lead to a more competitive than collaborative environment, as you say, or you find it generally not useful? I believe it all depends. I obviously didn’t do a good job in explaining why and how I wanted it to happen in this course.
A few years ago, I was participating in a serious game, where the people’s contributions (done on a blog) were rated by others. I didn’t write a lot, but I read most of it. There was a similar rating system and I didn’t feel anything wrong with rating someone high for something I liked and not rating someone else at all. We may argue that because it was a game, every game needed a winner, and so on. But if we put that aside, what do you think how would the rating here be useful? What I had in mind was an instantaneous feedback. I hoped that the “rater” would explain in the response why he/she find something inspirational. Maybe there would have been more sense if a reader could have chosen one of those five categories, instead of rating each category from 1-5? Or if I asked to explain the feedback in more detail in the comments that follow the rating?
Do you find the badges equally irrelevant as motivators? One thing here is that they won’t work perfectly, but even if they had, are they more distraction than serving a purpose? Personally, I am not a gamer and none of those could make me change my usual behaviour, but I have spent a lot of time studying games.
Finally a note on the discussion about validation and recognition. What about parents who give “awards” (in any form, financial or other) for every good grade? Does that motivate students to learn more because of the reward, or because of the knowledge they gain?
Natasha
Hi Natasha,
I think much of my concern has to do with ensuring that in creating educational environments that support all learners, I do not want to encourage an activity or type of interaction that can actually demotivate some learners. Proving thoughtful, timely feedback is of course necessary for an effective learning environment, and peer feedback can be quite effective when those peers are supported in developing their abilities to be able to do this. When working with both high-school and adult learners, I usually help students learn how to provide constructive feedback for their peers in writing workshops. But it is all done within a specific context that includes structured detailed criteria for the feedback – and is part of an iterative learning process. The main reason for this is that when done effectively, the student providing the feedback is also learning through that process.
The kind of rating that is left up to student will (and is not guided or structured) can result in a very different experience for students. It can result in some learners not receive any feedback at all, and in that case can begin to affect the social-emotional aspect of the learner. To me this is especially worrisome when I think about vulnerable learners, or learners who are not confident (or strong) in their abilities, yet are still learning and progressing.
There is also and potential for students to place more emphasis on the recognition than on their own learning. I have seen students in K-12 significantly affected by their perception of what their peers might think and not participate in activities rather than participate and open themselves up to negative response.
I work with an educational philosophy that does not place emphasis on competition between students and is supported by the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FPPL). This is definitely not common place in post-secondary learning environments, but has grown in application in the K-12 system in BC as educators are beginning to understand that this approach for supporting learning that can be more effective for more students. Even though BC curriculum does not dictate pedagogical approaches, the curriculum revisions that are occurring in K-12 right now are all incorporating the First Peoples Principles of Learning in the curriculum documents as a way to help educators further develop their approaches to learning.
I cannot imagine a rating system for students that works within that philosophy. I do appreciate and support encouraging students to provide feedback to their peers about posts that that were inspirational or provoked deep thinking, but to me that is different than just rating (when more detailed feedback is not present) and especially when that rating is connected to anything like a leaderboard.
Regarding the badges as motivators? To be honest, I haven’t paid too much attention to them. When I received the badge, it did feel positive in the sense that I could feel like I accomplished something (after having to very quickly try to reorganize in my mind the structure of this course as it changed in the second week). I could imagine using something similar to badges with learners, but I would hope that the badge in and of itself would never be a reason a students accomplished something. The same applies for parents who provide awards (in any form, financial or other) for every good grade. I think the issue that underlies that discussion is inextricably tied to the debate about grades and how grades themselves have often become disconnected from learning. I have witnessed incredible classes in secondary where teachers have been able to shift the focus if students from “what grade did I receive?” on an assignment to “What did I learn and where does my learning go next?”
But that is a whole other conversation.
Thanks,
Jo