elizabethbuckner.files.wordpress.com · open file integrating technology and pedagogy for...

1 23

PROSPECTSQuarterly Review of ComparativeEducation ISSN 0033-1538 ProspectsDOI 10.1007/s11125-013-9269-7

Integrating technology and pedagogy forinquiry-based learning: The StanfordMobile Inquiry-based LearningEnvironment (SMILE)

Elizabeth Buckner & Paul Kim

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by UNESCO

IBE. This e-offprint is for personal use only

and shall not be self-archived in electronic

repositories. If you wish to self-archive your

article, please use the accepted manuscript

version for posting on your own website. You

may further deposit the accepted manuscript

version in any repository, provided it is only

made publicly available 12 months after

official publication or later and provided

acknowledgement is given to the original

source of publication and a link is inserted

to the published article on Springer's

website. The link must be accompanied by

the following text: "The final publication is

available at link.springer.com”.

OPEN FILE

Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-basedlearning: The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based LearningEnvironment (SMILE)

Elizabeth Buckner • Paul Kim

� UNESCO IBE 2013

Abstract Despite the long-standing interest in educational technology reforms, many

researchers have found that it is difficult to incorporate advanced information and com-

munications technologies (ICT) in classrooms. Many ICT projects, particularly in the

developing world, are limited by the lack of integration between pedagogy and technology.

This article presents a framework for integrating ICT technology and inquiry-based ped-

agogies in classroom settings: the Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment

(SMILE). It then outlines findings from a series of studies that tested SMILE’s effec-

tiveness in various country contexts. SMILE successfully spurs student questioning and

changes student-teacher dynamics in class. On the other hand, school and country contexts

influence students’ initial abilities to form deep inquiries, and SMILE is more difficult to

implement in areas where rote memorization pedagogies are typical. The authors advocate

further research on the effect of long-term interventions.

Keywords Mobile devices � Mobile phones � Technology � ICT � Student-inquiry �Student-centered pedagogy

Despite the long-standing interest in educational technology reforms, many studies have

shown that it is difficult to incorporate advanced information and communications tech-

nologies (ICT) into classrooms (Schweisfurth 2011; Warschauer 2012). A key limitation of

many ICT projects, particularly in the developing world, is the lack of integration between

pedagogy and technology. Simply placing technology hardware into classrooms will not

bridge the digital divide, though a plethora of well-meaning projects are bringing com-

puters, connectivity, or other technology to rural schools (Muller, Sancho Gil, Hernandez,

Giro, and Bosco 2007).

E. Buckner (&) � P. Kim485 Lausen St., Stanford, CA 94305, USAe-mail: [email protected]

P. Kime-mail: [email protected]

123

ProspectsDOI 10.1007/s11125-013-9269-7

Author's personal copy

Indeed, around the world, multiple initiatives have placed computers in schools, linked

computers to the Internet, or given all children laptops. The dominant model presents

teachers, students, or schools with hardware, without giving them the support and training

they need to make that technology an educational tool. All too often, educational tech-

nology has not proven as revolutionary as educational development experts have hoped. A

prime example is the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, which has received substantial

media coverage, but had lackluster results in practice. In Uruguay and Rwanda, national

policymakers purchased laptops for hundreds of thousands of children, but few are being

used in classrooms. Frequently, OLPC laptops do not come with applications that are

appropriate for learning. Alternatively, many sit unused in closets because teachers fear

they will break them, or do not know how to use them (Kraemer, Dedrick, and Sharma

2009; Warschauer and Ames 2010).

A key issue in this work is considering the needs and realities of people in developing

countries. Reviewing research on OLPC, Shah (2011) says the primary reason why OLPC

failed ‘‘was its lack of consideration for and adaption to the local cultures and societies’’

(p. 94). Because hardware was developed and disseminated without a deep understanding

of local communities, it was not particularly useful to them. Shah draws on Willoughby

(1990) to argue that future initiatives that distribute technological innovations to devel-

oping countries should employ the ‘‘appropriate technology rule’’, which requires

‘‘knowledge of a diversity of technical options for given purposes, careful analysis of the

local human and natural environment, normative evaluation of alternative options, and the

exercise of political and technological choice’’ (Willoughby 1990, p. 6). Additionally, in

practice, a one-device-per-child model completely eliminates the opportunity for students

to share and collaborate within classrooms or across multiple classrooms, despite much

research on the benefits of collaborative learning. This one device per child model is also

more expensive than a shared-learning model.

To meet the development challenges of under-resourced regions, technology must be

tied to meaningful educational content and to contextualized pedagogy. This means using

technology to engage students in active roles as researchers, creators and evaluators

(Muller et al. 2007). In response to the limitations of current practice, in this article we

present a framework for integrating ICT technology and inquiry-based pedagogies in

classroom settings by exploring how mobile devices (MD) can promote students’ col-

laborative questioning. We first present a model for how mobile technologies promote

inquiry-based pedagogies in schools, and then outline findings from a series of studies that

tested the model’s effectiveness in various country contexts. Our primary interest lies in

understanding how mobile learning devices can promote inquiry-based pedagogies, and

what their specific advantages and limitations are in different countries. Our ultimate goal

is to better inform efforts by the educational development community to use technology to

advance educational outcomes and student learning, particularly in rural and under-re-

sourced areas worldwide.

The advantages of mobile technology

Interest is growing in using MD to meet educational challenges. Indeed, many researchers

have pointed out the distinct benefits they offer as educational tools (Ally 2009; Kim et al.

2011; Pietrzyk, Semich, Graham, and Cellante 2011; Thornton and Houser 2005). Today’s

MD can store and deliver a vast amount of information, including a wide variety of

curricular materials targeted to appropriate ages. The rapid innovations and advances in

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


ICT, specifically the increases in processing power, memory, and connectivity for MDs,

make them more interactive and media-rich than ever before (Pea and Maldonado 2006).

Moreover, MDs require substantially less infrastructure and electricity, offering many

advantages over traditional computers. They have already reached the most isolated

populations and had a tremendous impact on individuals’ lives (Attewell 2005). They have

the potential to widen access and supplement education in the most remote and under-

served areas of the world (Kim 2009; Zurita and Nussbaum 2004). Many have noted that,

given this potential, they are likely to have a large-scale impact (Kim, Miranda, and

Olaciregui 2008).

MDs also have an advantage over computers with respect to educational content. A key

limitation of computer-centric initiatives is the lack of varied and robust learning software

applications. The rapid growth of mobile applications (i.e., apps) on mobile phones has

greatly expanded opportunities for learning. Over 500,000 apps are ‘‘available on iTunes

and over 300,000 on Android’’ (Schuler 2012, p. 7). Having thoroughly studied educational

apps, Schuler (2012) calls them ‘‘an important and growing medium for providing edu-

cational content to children’’, as they are both widely available and popular (p. 2).

Moreover, many apps can promote learning in a game-like environment, making them far

more engaging than traditional learning pedagogies.

Because of their ubiquity, MDs have had an impact on the traditional school environ-

ment. Many students in both developed and developing regions carry mobile phones to

school, and researchers have found that students use them actively to communicate with

each other during class (Dodds and Mason 2005). Unfortunately, as mobile phones can be

distracting, many schools ask students to turn them off while in class. However, today’s

mobile phones can be powerful multimedia learning devices—by requiring students to turn

them off, schools are failing to capitalize on their computational capacity and interactive

nature. This is happening because virtually no pedagogical techniques have been designed

to utilize numerous mobile phones to support learning. In this article we address the

question of how mobile technology can take advantage of students’ natural creativity as a

basis for classroom learning. Rather than executing memorized rules (such as arithmetic

problems), we believe that the real power of MDs in classrooms is to prepare children to be

creative thinkers and active problem-solvers. In the next section we discuss the importance

of questions in learning and then present a model that uses technology to increase the

number of student inquiries in class.

Challenges to inquiry-based pedagogy

Inquiry-based learning emerged from a body of literature on constructivist approaches to

teaching. To constructivists, students learn best when they discover and unpack content for

themselves (Cole 2009; Yu, Liu, and Chan 2005). The premise is that students should

participate actively in learning; in doing so, they actually learn better, as their questions

help them comprehend and synthesize knowledge.

Questions are the core of inquiry-based learning, and central to the overall learning

process (Becker 2000). Researchers have found that asking questions while reading is

crucial to literacy development; Davey and McBride (1986) found that in posing questions,

students gained powerful meta-cognitive skills, including the ability to evaluate sources

and monitor their own comprehension. Similarly, Chin and Brown (2002) explain that

generating questions focuses students’ attention ‘‘on content, main ideas, and checking if

content is understood’’ (p. 521). They also require students to revisit and often expand

The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE)

123


upon prior curricular material. Questions can also reveal students’ thought processes as

they work through new or difficult material, as well as their gaps in knowledge or

understanding (Watts, Alsop, Gould, and Walsh 1997). Additionally, students actually

understand more as they generate questions, as they must actively monitor their reading or

pay deeper attention to what they are learning in class (Mosteller 1989; Wilson 1986). In

short, in posing deep questions themselves, students revisit previous materials and reshape

their thoughts, thereby deepening their understanding (Yu 2009).

Despite the many educational benefits associated with questioning, researchers consis-

tently find that students ask very few questions in schools, even when teachers probe for them

(Cazden 1988; Gall 1970; Nystrand 1997). In fact, only a small percentage of questions asked

in class are student-generated. For example, having observed classroom interactions, Dillon

(1988) found that students asked very few questions, and most were clarifications, rather than

efforts to gain new knowledge. Similarly, Becker (2000) observed urban American class-

rooms and found that student questions were subtly discouraged: ‘‘when elementary students

asked questions, they were shut down. Students were not gaining the kinds of critical-

thinking and literacy skills fundamental to academic enjoyment and achievement at all

levels’’ (p. 262). There are many reasons to believe that traditional learning environments and

didactic pedagogies inhibit student questioning. In fact, some teachers may have a teaching

philosophy that views their work as transmitting facts and knowledge, leaving little room for

student questions. Unfortunately, this may be particularly true in some developing countries

where memorization is often prioritized over creative thinking or creativity.

Moreover, even teachers using student-centered pedagogies that aim to engage students

in learning can fail to question students because of larger structural issues. For example,

they tend to adopt the techniques of their own teachers—and those exposed to didactic

pedagogies during their own schooling are less likely to adopt student-centered pedagogies

or invite student questions. Or, as Woodward (1992) explains, teachers who are unsure of

the material may actually prevent student questions, to avoid revealing the gaps in their

knowledge. In the developing world, many teachers lack adequate teacher training. In fact,

in some developing nations primary teachers have not attended secondary school, and

secondary teachers have not completed a four-year college degree. So their training as

teachers is often limited to content, rather than pedagogical practices. When these teachers

are expected to use new technology before they are comfortable with it, their discomfort

could lead them to stifle students’ questions.

Additionally, teachers’ need to maintain authority and control tends to reduce ques-

tioning. Dillon (1988) found that many students do not ask questions because they fear

negative reactions from classmates and teachers. Cultural norms governing relations

between adults and students, and socialization into situational authority roles, may also

inhibit student questioning (Chin and Brown 2002). In short, significant evidence shows

that most students learn in didactic environments, rather than those rich in opportunities for

inquiry, and the dominant pedagogical practices are unlikely to alter this reality.

The many advantages of mobile devices make them particularly appropriate to support

student-centered learning. Earlier studies have documented how MDs can facilitate

experimentation in real-world settings, help students collect and record information, and

allow them to share their experiences and information with peers (Looi et al. 2010; Squire

and Klopfer 2007). Looi et al. (2010, p. 156) see significant potential in ‘‘the portability

and versatility’’ of MDs to promote ‘‘a pedagogical shift from didactic teacher-centered to

participatory student-centered learning’’. Yet, few concrete technological tools or appli-

cations have been designed to support inquiry-based pedagogies. Thus the area deserves

further research; Looi et al. stress the need for academic studies to advance our

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


‘‘understanding of how students engage in inquiry-based learning, experiential learning

and knowledge building in mobile learning environments’’ (p. 167). This need is partic-

ularly strong in the developing world, which has seen little research on technologically

enhanced inquiry-based learning. In the next section, we respond to this need by exploring

how MDs can promote inquiry-based learning in classrooms, and whether they are a

practical development solution in under-resourced communities in the developing world.

Integrating technology and inquiry-based learning

Our research team has designed an educational innovation that utilizes mobile technology

to promote inquiry-based learning: the Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environ-

ment (SMILE). We believe this prototype can promote inquiry-based learning in the

developing world. SMILE combines a mobile-based question application for students with

a management application for teachers, and thus allows students to create multiple-choice

questions on mobile phones during class and share these questions with their classmates

and teacher. The classroom management software allows students to share, respond, and

rate questions on criteria such as creativity or depth of analysis. We now provide a brief

overview of SMILE.

SMILE consists of two software elements: a mobile-based application for students and a

management server application. These applications can communicate via either a local ad

hoc network or the Internet. The local ad hoc network (SMILE Ad-hoc), shown in Fig. 1, is

for developing regions without any type of network; the Internet version (SMILE Global)

is for areas with mobile networks linked to the Internet. SMILE Ad-hoc enables students to

engage in SMILE activities and exchange inquiries with peers in their classrooms or their

own school. SMILE Global enables students around the world to exchange their inquiries

regardless of their location. Both SMILE Ad-hoc and SMILE Global allow students to

incorporate multimedia components in their questions: SMILE Ad-hoc uses images, and

SMILE Global uses images, audio, and video.

When all students have finished writing and submitting their questions to the server

management application, called the Junction Quiz and shown in Fig. 2, their aggregated

questions are sent back to their student application. In a classroom of 30 students, as each

student or group generates a question, this setup gives each student the opportunity to solve

30 questions generated by their peers or peer groups.

As they respond to each question, students rate it on a five-point scale from 1 (poor) to 5

(excellent) based on such predetermined criteria as creativity or depth of analysis.

The data management software then gathers these responses and the time students take

to respond, and saves them for the teacher to analyze. Once all students have responded

and evaluated their peers’ questions, the teacher can display the results by clicking the

‘‘See Results’’ button. This lets students view a summary of their results and see which

questions they answered correctly or incorrectly. They can also view detailed information

about individual questions, including how many students answered each one correctly, and

average ratings. They can also see which student answered the most questions correctly

and whose question received the highest ratings. In addition to these student-generated

questions, teachers can enter questions using their MD, which lets them test crucial

information. Thus both students and teachers are actively involved in generating questions,

assessing student knowledge, and offering feedback.

Figure 3 is a schema of the activity management application. The activity flow window

(A) allows the teacher to activate the various stages of the questioning process (creation,


123


Fig. 1 SMILE Ad-hoc network

Fig. 2 The Junction Quiz application

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


response)—and thus maintain control over class time and ensure that students are only

creating questions at the designated time. The Student Status window (B) shows each

student’s status on the present activity: who has joined the activity, who has submitted

questions, and who has submitted answers. The Scoreboard window (C) displays individual

student responses and ratings for each question. The Question Status window (D) shows

which student created each question, the average rating for that question, and the per-

centage of students who answered it correctly. The Question Window (E) displays the

question itself and its predetermined correct answer. The Top Scorers window (F) shows

which student achieved the highest score and which question received the highest ratings.

This allows the entire class to reflect on the quality of inquiry. Finally, the Save Questions

button (G) lets the teacher save the data from a given exercise to the server to access later.

The SMILE application affords multiple benefits to teachers and students: it creates a

highly interactive learning environment, engages learners in evaluating and analyzing their

own learning, promotes inquiry and critical reasoning, and allows students to synthesize

acquired concepts. It also allows students to generate, share, and evaluate multimedia-rich

inquiries. Given its mobile platform, students can learn, study, and inquire anytime and

anywhere. And, because SMILE allows for both teamwork and competition when students

are asking and answering questions, teachers can use it to promote a classroom environ-

ment that is either collaborative or competitive, depending what will motivate students.

The cost of implementing a SMILE activity depends on the infrastructure available in

the school, at minimum the mobile phones, one laptop, and a router. The workshops

described below cost $300 for a notebook laptop computer, $100 for a local router, and an

estimated $80 each for mobile phones, one for every 2 to 3 students.

Fig. 3 The activity management software


123


Methodology

To assess SMILE’s effectiveness as an educational intervention, we conducted a series of

studies in diverse country contexts. We draw from the global research agenda advocated by

Looi et al. (2010): ‘‘by collaborating across the globe, researchers could take advantage of

different student device preferences, exchange curriculum ideas, understand cultural dif-

ferences and better address issues of scale’’ (p. 167). Our design examines the advantages

and limitations of MDs for inquiry-based learning in various settings, and implementation

involved a network of researchers and non-profit organizations that collaborated on a series

of studies using SMILE. The research team varied in each context, but all the researchers

were trained in advance on SMILE and its implementation.

Sample

We conducted a series of seven studies: two in California, and one each in India,

Argentina, Indonesia, South Korea, and Tanzania. Several factors shaped our choice of

countries, as our major goal was to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a

mobile inquiry-based learning model using mobile apps and MDs in varied country con-

texts, and among learners of different backgrounds. We asked: what factors shape project

feasibility, and how do these factors vary by context? Therefore we employed purposeful

sampling and intentionally sought opportunities to study varied settings. Our major

dimensions of interest were: urbanicity (urban/rural); national economic development;

student population (age and school type); world region (West, Asia, Africa, Latin Amer-

ica); and school subject. Therefore, we chose sites that would let us consider how each

dimension affected implementation.

In addition, given the applied nature of our study and the importance of strategizing

with local partners to carry out applied research in international contexts, we also chose

locations based on feasibility and local interest. Table 1 shows the locations and their

characteristics.

Procedure

The SMILE project is part of a larger model of educational design research (EDR):

educational interventions that consider how to design and implement mobile technology to

meet the future needs of developing and under-resourced nations. Plomp (2009) defines

EDR as ‘‘the systematic study of designing, developing and evaluating educational

interventions (such as programmes, teaching-learning strategies and materials, products

and systems) as solutions for complex problems in educational practice’’ (p. 13). The goal

of EDR is to advance ‘‘our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and

the processes of designing and developing them’’ (p. 13). This approach to research differs

substantially from traditional models of research that prioritize description, hypothesis

testing, or analysis of singular or multiple variables (van der Akker, Gravemeijer,

McKenney, and Nieveen 2006). Rather than simply describing a problem or parsing out the

effect of a single variable, EDR helps researchers understand how to improve real-world

problems.

Increasingly, scholars are recognizing the benefits of this prototype-development

approach to educational reform, particularly in educational technology. Reeves (2006)

advocates for more EDR, as the educational technology field has ‘‘a legacy of ill-conceived

and poorly conducted research that results in no significant differences or, at best, in

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


modest effect sizes’’ (p. 57). Seeking to improve research in the field, Plomp (2009)

explains that EDR permits ‘‘systematic research supporting the development and imple-

mentation processes in a variety of contexts’’ (p. 9). While Kelley (2006) is more skeptical

of design research as a methodology, he argues that its purpose should not be knowledge

production per se, but improving a specific outcome or product: ‘‘design studies should

produce an artifact that outlasts the study and can be adopted, adapted, and used by others

(e.g., either researchers or teachers)’’ (p. 116). He argues that EDR is most appropriate for

understanding how to improve an educational learning environment or specific educational

technology.

Drawing on earlier work by scholars in educational technology, our design approach

specifically focuses on better understanding how mobile educational technology can

improve student inquiry, inside and outside of classrooms around the world. Through a

series of iterative research studies, our team aims to continually improve the SMILE

model, both its apps and its implementation procedures, while also understanding the

contexts and people where the model is most effective. As Kelley (2006) advocates, the

project has generated a specific educational innovation: the mobile phone app Global

SMILE, which is open-source and publicly available to all students, teachers, and

researchers who have access to mobile phones and an Internet connection through the

iPhone or Android markets. Pilot studies are helping the SMILE team to continuously

refine the app. Our overall research goal is not to compare sites to understand where

implementation is most successful. Instead, we are gathering insights from each site to

further develop both the app and the implementation of the model. In this sense, each site

teaches us more about how to implement SMILE in various contexts worldwide.

The SMILE implementation model draws on earlier EDR. Reeves (2006) outlines four

stages of EDR: (1) identify an intervention model; (2) develop prototype; (3) test it iter-

atively; and (4) reflect and evaluate. We also draw on Kim’s (2009) four-stage model for

Table 1 Pilot study locations and features

Sitelocation

Urbanicity National economicdevelopment level

School level World region Substantivediscipline

Sunnyvale,California

Suburban-urban

Developed (mixedincome, ethnicallydiverse studentpopulation)

Primary North America Science

Stanford,California

Suburban-urban

Developed Undergraduatepost-secondary

North America Socialsciences

Nellore,India

Rural Lower middle-income Primary Southeast Asia Math andscience

Misiones,Argentina

Urban Upper middle-income Primary South America Civic andsocialsciences

Pesatren,Indonesia

Rural Lower middle-income Primary East Asia andPacific

Math

Seoul,SouthKorea

Urban Developed Graduatepost-secondary

East Asia Medicine

Newala,Tanzania

Rural Low income Secondary Sub-SaharanAfrica

Language


123


designing action research in under-resourced areas of the developing world. His stages are

(1) strategize; (2) apply; (3) evaluate; and (4) reflect. These four stages are similar to those

of Reeves, but Kim’s model is particularly appropriate for thinking about how academics,

funding organizations, and civil society organizations in highly developed countries can

work with and support the work of their peers in under-resourced regions. At all stages of

Kim’s model, researchers are encouraged to strategize and test the technological innova-

tion with academics and organizations who are working locally and globally to share

resources and knowledge.

Given this design process, the SMILE project is currently in its iterative testing and

research stage, testing the SMILE app in multiple countries and contexts. Seeds of

Empowerment (Seeds), a globally networked NGO that has helped develop SMILE,

piloted the seven studies we describe below. Working jointly with Stanford University,

Seeds is refining the project’s app to better understand how it can enhance student learning

and expand opportunities for student inquiry inside and outside of school. This larger group

of researchers (the Seeds-Stanford collaboration) is continuing to study the design and

implementation of SMILE by testing it in a wide variety of classrooms worldwide. Below,

we summarize findings from seven initial implementation studies.

Findings

Here we summarize the various studies we have conducted to assess the model. In each

pilot study, we asked: what elements of the SMILE approach are effective, and what are its

limitations?

Science inquiry in Northern California

In this study, we implemented SMILE in a fifth grade science classroom in Sunnyvale,

California, a small mixed-income city in ‘‘Silicon Valley’’ near San Francisco. Students used

a prototype of SMILE to generate questions, as shown in Fig. 4, left. Familiar with mobile

technology and with asking questions, these students could easily ask media-rich questions as

shown in Fig. 4, middle and right. At first, they remained focused on recalling information, as

shown in the sample inquiries in the figure, largely because they lack experience in asking

questions in their traditional classroom setting. Still, they said the activity was enjoyable and

helped them review material for tests (Seol, Sharp, and Kim 2011).

The Sunnyvale teacher easily adopted SMILE into her classroom practice, and further

developed her own teaching strategies around it. She taught students about Bloom’s (1956)

taxonomy and asked them to evaluate their peers’ questions using its categories. For

example, she advised students to give a question a low rating if it was designed to simply

trigger recall, but a higher rating if it required others to apply knowledge or synthesize

multiple concepts. This impressive innovation by a local teacher indicated that teachers can

play an important and active role in linking technology and pedagogy within the SMILE

model; it informs teacher training by encouraging teachers’ creativity, experimentation,

and ownership of the programme.

Math and science inquiry in India

We conducted our second pilot study in rural Nellore, in southeastern India. These students

were asked to use SMILE to generate questions on any topic they chose from their math

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


and science textbooks. Compared to the students in California, this group found it hard to

generate their own questions, given their previous classroom experiences with rote

memorization activities, so they practiced on paper to become familiar with questioning

skills. Also, they had little experience manipulating smart phones, but adjusted to the

technology after roughly 20 minutes of exploration.

They were able to generate a variety of questions on motion, levers, static electricity,

moon eclipses, and fractions. The teacher was not involved except to observe and facilitate.

The class included a wide range of abilities and their depth of inquiry varied substantially.

The more advanced students were asked to explain their questions to the rest of the class. It

was clear that the questions from the more advanced students challenged the less advanced

ones. This study raised important new questions about how to best use SMILE in mixed-

ability classrooms, and about the advantages and disadvantages of grouping students by

ability when using SMILE for various purposes; these questions deserve further research.

Undergraduate classes at Stanford University, California

Fig. 4 Left: Fifth grade students in SMILE activity. Middle: Sample Inquiry 1 incorporating a drawing.Right: Sample Inquiry 2 incorporating textbook figure


123


Our third pilot study was at the university level: we asked students to generate questions

based on all their learning in a course to date, thus creating a summative assessment of the

class. Interestingly, they generated questions using Google search and Wikipedia. Some

used both notebook computers and the mobile phone we provided. Some took screen

pictures of their notebook, textbooks, reading materials, etc. In one hour, these students

could generate, answer, and rate at least three questions. The activity was fast-paced

because they could do research quickly, use mobile phones easily, and generate ques-

tions comfortably. However, even these students began by asking mostly simple recall

questions.

As these students evaluated each other’s questions and understood which ones got

higher ratings, they developed questions that were more conceptually difficult and of

higher quality. While discussing the questions generated in the first round, the workshop

facilitator gave students clear specifications on what constitutes a high-quality question:

multiple concepts, more effective media incorporation, triggering critical thinking, etc.

This study raised important questions on how to improve the quality of student inquiry

over time and what role the facilitator plays in setting early guidelines for stimulation and

multi-purpose class learning evaluations.

Civic engagement in Misiones, Argentina

An urban high school in northern Argentina was the setting for our fourth pilot. Here,

students used SMILE to think critically about what it means to be an engaged citizen in

their community, generating questions for their peers about such potential moral dilemmas

as homelessness, suicide, stealing, and school bullying and violence. They produced

interactive and media-rich questions through skits on social issues, which they captured on

video (Fig. 5).

For example, some participants took photos of ambiguous civic situations and created

questions for their peers, such as ‘‘What would you do in this situation?’’ or ‘‘Who do you

think is responsible for this?’’ Others took photos depicting homelessness or bullying. As

they rated each other’s questions, they came to realize that the better questions were those

whose responses divided the class, where less complex questions would yield unanimous

answers. However, most topics elicited a range of perceptions and attitudes. After three

rounds of creating, answering, and rating each other’s questions, they began to generate

more challenging questions on local concerns. One addressed the increasing incidence of

suicide locally and asked their peers for the major cause. This context revealed additional

benefits of SMILE: not only is it a tool for managing student learning and assessment, it

also facilitates discussions of issues that students see as important.

Math in Indonesia

Our fifth pilot study, which focused on mathematics, was conducted with sixth grade

students in Pesantren, an Islamic boarding school in the rural village of Wanaraja, Indo-

nesia. The students were asked to generate questions related to math; they covered a wide

range of topics, from the triangle angle sum theorem, to fractions, areas, and diameters.

Teachers were surprised at the students’ enthusiasm. They were also surprised at the

students’ ability to adopt the technology by themselves and to train each other and even

their teachers, exuding a great sense of achievement and pride. During the sharing phase,

students were excited to see their questions posted on the projector screen; this suggests

that visualizing and sharing work with the entire class can be a motivating experience for

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


students, especially in classrooms where computers and projectors are rare. This pilot

suggested that SMILE supports teachers in carrying out student-centered initiatives, by

providing teachers a platform for student-initiated learning and activities, and demon-

strating the immediate benefits for classroom environment and student engagement.

For this project, we developed and refined a four-stage implementation method targeted

to math inquiries. The stages are (1) explore the device; (2) prompt students to generate

problems in groups; (3) compete against other groups and discuss the experience as a class;

and (4) evaluate, reflect, repeat, and seek enrichments. Using this model, students gener-

ated and shared questions covering a variety of topics (Fig. 6). The format balanced

collaboration within groups and competition between groups, ensuring scaffolding and

evaluation among peers. We also noticed, however, that in nearly every group, one student

tended to be dominant. Future research is needed to understand the strength and limitations

of having a dominant group member, and how that student’s age, gender, and ability level

might affect the effectiveness of student inquiry.

AIDS instruction in South Korea

Our iterations of SMILE prompted us to develop additional software that can be used both

inside and outside the classroom. Unlike SMILE Ad-hoc, which is used for synchronous

real-time sessions, SMILE Global works with a central server in an asynchronous mode. It

aggregates all the questions generated from SMILE sessions around the world and lets

participating schools share and exchange questions—so students need not be in the same

place at the same time. Moreover, it lets learners of all ages and areas exchange inquiries

on common topics, and still share experiences within their local contexts and cultures.

We tested SMILE Global with medical students at Chungbuk National University in

South Korea (Fig. 7). Based on student feedback and our previous experiences with

Fig. 5 Clockwise from top left: Students enact skits on homelessness, depression, and school bullying;workshop facilitator discusses student questions and answers with whole class


123


SMILE, we first discussed the criteria for high- quality questions, presented criteria rubrics,

and shared and discussed examples of high- and low-quality inquiries. By considering

sample questions before they interacted with SMILE, the students better understood what

was expected of them. This initial overview of question quality seems to be important in

promoting deep inquiry.

To understand the content, these students preferred using web-based content on

Naver, the Korean version of Google search or Wikipedia, instead of their textbooks, but

they often used their textbooks and group discussions to gain deeper understanding.

Follow-up interviews showed that by the end of the activity, they were very excited

Fig. 6 Students generate math questions using Junction Quiz and incorporate their own drawings into itusing the phone’s camera function

Fig. 7 Clockwise from top left: Students taking a pre-test survey on an iPad, learning about high-qualityquestion matrices, submitting questions using an iPad, and generating questions in groups

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


about the activity and pleasantly surprised at how deeply they were thinking about their

topics.

During this iteration, we began to include criteria to evaluate student questions; this

allowed us to more deeply explore SMILE’s possibilities as an assessment tool. As these

students were already very experienced using technology, generating questions and

interacting with SMILE was easy for them. They spent 60% of their time on the inquiry-

making task.

They also used videos to support their SMILE inquiries, and found the media richness to

be another highlight in this experience. Knowing that their questions could be accessed

around the world motivated them to create high-quality questions. However, their low level

of overall English proficiency slowed down their process of generating questions. We

realized that automatic translation of questions would help here; easily accessible trans-

lation tools will allow students from around the world to contribute and exchange inquiries

freely. With the translation technology that is now widely available, language should not

be a barrier for SMILE Global. Helping medical students exchange questions about

medical knowledge through a tool like SMILE Global seems to be a worthy avenue for

future research, especially as it could benefit medical students in the developing world.

High school English in Tanzania

We conducted our final pilot in Newala, Tanzania through a joint initiative between

Stanford University, Seeds of Empowerment (described earlier) and Jiamini, a local NGO

based in Newala. This was the first long-term investigation of SMILE as a regular peda-

gogical practice. Here our objectives were to understand how SMILE is used in classrooms

in very under-resourced educational settings, and whether students become better able to

pose and respond to self-created inquiries over time.

Teachers and administrators alike were enthusiastic about integrating computers and

mobile phones into their classrooms, and eagerly adapted the inquiry-based techniques into

their lessons. But they also faced important challenges, which shed light on the feasibility

of SMILE projects in under-resourced areas. It took two weeks for both students and

teachers to become comfortable with the computer and MDs. Although many students

were already familiar with MDs, manipulating the smart phones took some adjustment.

They also faced frequent electricity outages.

Since February 2012, the teachers in Newala have been sending us sample student

questions roughly every two weeks. The depth of inquiry indicated by the questions is

improving over time, moving from questions based on memorization to some that apply

knowledge and manipulate facts. We gained two important insights in Tanzania. First, it is

important to have committed and creative teachers serve as ‘‘technology experts’’ in their

schools. Second, these teachers need an initial training period, and some follow-up men-

toring so they can facilitate inquiries in their classrooms.

Major findings

Our studies suggest that MDs can be implemented relatively easily in a wide range of

classroom settings, and can clearly increase the use of inquiry-based pedagogies. The

similarities that emerged across all contexts were the SMILE model’s ease of imple-

mentation, students’ relatively quick adoption of MDs, and efficient uses of technological

resources. Looking at SMILE’s effects on classroom practices, we also found that rela-

tionships between students and teachers changed during the SMILE workshops.


123


At all the sites, teachers adapted quickly to the inquiry-based practices used in the

demonstration workshops, and could easily run the workshops themselves. Similarly,

students in all contexts were familiar with MDs; they could experiment with the phones

and various applications, and manipulate the SMILE app. Even in Tanzania, the most

under-resourced site, the adoption time was under two weeks. In the developed country

contexts, and at the university level, students were already fluent with the mobile tech-

nology and learned to manipulate the SMILE app more or less immediately. This suggests

that worldwide, mobile phone applications can be implemented in a wide variety of

educational settings, with relatively short learning curves.

Additionally, in our follow-up correspondence, the teachers in Tanzania said that many

students and teachers in the same school can share one set of MDs, much as a computer lab

is a school-wide resource. Such a ‘‘mobile’’ computer lab is an efficient use of these

resources.

In terms of pedagogy, we noted that the relationships between students and teachers

changed quite dramatically during the SMILE sessions. As expected, teachers were not

simply transmitting information to students; rather, students were drawing on written or

digital resources to formulate their own questions. Students also worked together in highly

collaborative small groups, in contrast to individual student work. The teachers played

important roles in guiding students through the solutions to difficult questions, correcting

any mistakes, and elaborating on student-generated questions. In this sense, SMILE was

able to transform typical relationships in class, at least during the workshop.

Nonetheless, the success of each implementation also varied along important dimen-

sions, depending on the context. First, as expected, we found that students in more

developed countries had no technological learning curve, while those unfamiliar with smart

phones took longer to use them. A lesson about application design is that even apparently

simple tasks like entering names or group numbers require experience: How does one

delete a character or find the shift or space key? Though the students in Tanzania became

relatively competent with the smart phones after roughly two weeks, we learned that user

interfaces should be as simple as possible, especially in applications designed for the

developing world.

A second major finding was that students’ abilities to generate their own questions

differed substantially. Students from developed countries were more competent ques-

tioners generally, when assessed on dimensions of Bloom’s taxonomy. In less-developed

countries, such as Tanzania, most of the student-generated questions in the early work-

shops drew on facts the students had memorized. In contrast, students with more exposure

to inquiry-based methods could generate analytical or application-based questions. Here,

we see that teacher quality is another important component in the success of a SMILE

workshop. Students and teachers who have been exposed to inquiry-based methods in their

classes can more easily bring that experience to SMILE. However, with the Tanzania

project, we saw that students’ questioning skills developed over time, which is the purpose

of SMILE. Training teachers to continue their workshops, and to facilitate student inquiry

over time, is an important component of the model. In this sense, our study confirms the

findings from earlier research: technology can never replace teacher training. At the same

time, it supports the idea that mobile apps, like SMILE, can effectively encourage greater

student-centered activities and practices in classrooms.

Finally, we also note that the lack of basic technological infrastructure can hamper the

implementation process itself. It is possible to run a SMILE workshop in a school without

electricity—as we saw in the India pilot—but it is far more difficult, as doing so requires a

working laptop, router, and charged phones.

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


Scaling up and future research

How can the SMILE model scale up its impact? We have witnessed a groundswell of

interest in what SMILE offers, and have also tried to understand what factors make it most

likely to succeed. We have learned that people in any sector—from university, to business,

to local educational office—can initiate a SMILE project. But if technology-enabled

inquiry-based pedagogies are to be used in classrooms, and to maximum effect, local

education officials must be on board. Unsurprisingly, SMILE works best when those

officials, along with civil society organizations, universities, and local businesses, work

together to bring it to classrooms, and each supports different elements of its implemen-

tation. We see four elements that are critical to its success:

1. Use of mobile devices, not computers. Using MDs reduces the cost, makes it easier to

scale and maintain, and increases opportunities for collaboration, especially in under-

resourced and underdeveloped regions. SMILE can be highly effective with a ratio of

one device for every three learners, making it more sustainable in the long run.

2. Localized development and translation of the app.

3. Facilitator workshops, which allow teachers and facilitators to experience SMILE

before they teach it. Students who learn technology quickly can be excellent resources

here, training both themselves and the teachers.

4. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

Successfully implementing any educational innovation requires the thoughtful consid-

eration and deep understanding of the local educational ecosystem, and its many constit-

uencies and stakeholders. Given the many aspects of a successful SMILE project,

implementation requires collaboration with this ecosystem, which includes learners,

teachers, parents, education governance structures, industry partners, universities, and

NGOs. An effective SMILE project brings together members of these varied constituen-

cies. For example, in most of our pilot studies, business leaders provided local telecom

network infrastructure and equipment such as mobile devices and computers, while local

educational administrators facilitated the participation of local schools and offered teacher

workshops. University staff conducted research on strategies to enhance the model within

the local context, and NGO partners provided localized knowledge, programme oversight,

and project coordination. This eco-systematic approach brings together many stakeholders,

without exhausting the limited resources of any one sector.

Conclusions

Humans naturally ask questions about how the world works; doing so is an important

avenue for learning. It also lies at the heart of a needed shift in classroom pedagogies around

the world: transitioning away from dictating information and towards engaging students in

learning and solving problems. We have discussed two associated projects, SMILE Ad-Hoc

and SMILE Global; both aim to foster learning by promoting student inquiries. SMILE

Ad-Hoc expands inquiry-based and multimedia-rich learning programmes in both rural and

under-resourced schools. SMILE Global builds on SMILE Ad-Hoc to connect learners of all

regions and ages around the world. We believe that technology can empower students to

take their learning into their own hands, and become active agents of their own learning.

Although many educational initiatives have aimed to bring technology to children, prior

experience has shown that a hardware-only model does not work. Innovative educational


123


software and applications are also sorely needed. However, pre-made content that seems

innovative in developed countries may not be useful in the developing world, without

contextualization. Thus far, most innovations have been developed and piloted in the

developed world and then transferred to contexts for which they were not designed. We

have much to discover about the potential power of mobile innovations by targeting their

development to the specific needs and contexts of schools and students in the developing

world. Even the open-source content movement, which seems innovative in the developed

world, will not be of benefit without local developers who can deliver and contextualize the

content. Open-source content cannot reach rural villages without access to the Internet and

reliable electricity, unless intermediaries deliver technology. Moreover, the educational

technology cannot have a practical impact there unless it is translated into local languages.

Future innovations in educational technology must continue not only to leverage local

content and practices, but also to nurture local creativity and entrepreneurship. Otherwise,

they will be short-lived, expensive, and of little benefit to anyone. SMILE considers local

materials and conditions, allowing teachers and students to create a more active learning

environment. It can even work in places where the teacher has the only textbook, due to

poverty or poor infrastructure. For example, in our studies, MDs with cameras and video

recording facilitated duplication and distribution of scarce education materials within

highly disadvantaged school settings, while also enabling students to participate in inquiry-

based activities. We must remember that today’s mobile technology can be used to nurture

digital and multimedia literacy among students in developing regions even without reliable

electricity or fixed infrastructure. Through the kind of inquiry-based learning facilitated by

SMILE, students engage in real-world problem solving, thinking, and skill building. This is

where our focus should be, as these are the goals of truly liberating educational practices.

References

Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton, AB:Athabasca University Press.

Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.Becker, R. R. (2000). The critical role of students’ questions in literacy development. Educational Forum,

64(3), 261–271.Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York:

David McKay.Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science.

International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches.

Computers & Education, 52(1), 141–146.Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256–262.Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3),

197–210.Dodds, R., & Mason, C. Y. (2005). Cell phones and PDAs hit K-6. Education Digest, 70(8), 52–53.Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.Kelley, A. (2006). Quality criteria for design research: Evidence and commitments. In J. van den Akker,

K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 107–118).New York: Routledge.

Kim, P. (2009). Action research approach on mobile learning design for the underserved. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 57(3), 415–435.

Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T., Lee, B., et al. (2011). Socioeconomic strata,mobile technology, and education: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 59(4), 465–486.

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


Kim, P., Miranda, T., & Olaciregui, C. (2008). Pocket School: Exploring mobile technology as a sustainableliteracy education option for underserved indigenous children in Latin America. International Journalof Educational Development, 28(4), 435–445.

Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communicationsof the ACM, 52(6), 66–73.

Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B. H., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobiletechnology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 41(2), 154–169.

Mosteller, F. (1989). The ‘‘muddiest point in the lecture’’ as a feedback device. On Teaching and Learning:The Journal of the Harvard-Danforth Center, 3, 10–21.

Muller, J., Sancho Gil, J. M., Hernandez, F., Giro, X., & Bosco, A. (2007). The socio-economic dimensionsof ICT-driven educational change. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1175–1188.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in theEnglish classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pea, R. D., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devicesanytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 427–442). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pietrzyk, C., Semich, G., Graham, J., & Cellante, D. (2011). Mobile technology in education. In M. Koehler& P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Inter-national Conference 2011 (pp. 640–650). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Plomp, T. (2009). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Anintroduction to educational design research (pp. 9–36). Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for Cur-riculum Development.

Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer,S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). New York: Routledge.

Schuler, C. (2012). iLearn: An analysis of the education category Apple’s app store. New York: The JoanGanz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution toproblem? International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 425–432.

Seol, S., Sharp, A., & Kim, P. (2011). Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE):Using mobile phones to promote student inquiries in the elementary classroom. http://gse-it.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/worldcomp11_SMILE.pdf.

Shah, N. (2011). A blurry vision: Reconsidering the failure of the One Laptop Per Child Initiative. WR, 3,89. http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/files/2011/10/Shah1011.pdf.

Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. The Journal of theLearning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational designresearch. New York: Routledge.

Warschauer, M. (2012, spring). The digital divide and social inclusion. Americas Quarterly. http://www.americasquarterly.org/warschauer.

Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world? Journal of InternationalAffairs, 64(1), 33–51.

Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G., & Walsh, A. (1997). Prompting teachers’ constructive reflection: Pupils’questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1025–1037.

Willoughby, K. (1990). Introduction: The concept of technology choice. In K. Willoughby (Ed.), Tech-nology choice: A critique of the appropriate technology movement (pp. 3–14). Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. TheJournal of Higher Education, 57(1), 196–211.

Woodward, C. (1992). Raising and answering questions in primary science: Some considerations. Evalu-ation & Research in Education, 6(2–3), 145–153.

Yu, F. Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizableonline learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129–1138.

Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A web-based learning system for question-posing and peerassessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.

Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wirelesshandheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 235–243.


123


http://gse-it.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/worldcomp11_SMILE.pdf

http://gse-it.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/worldcomp11_SMILE.pdf

http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/files/2011/10/Shah1011.pdf

http://www.americasquarterly.org/warschauer

http://www.americasquarterly.org/warschauer

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Buckner (United States) is a Ph.D. candidate in international and comparative education atStanford University. She has studied the potential of mobile learning in Palestine, Tanzania, and Jordan.

Paul Kim (United States) is the chief technology officer and assistant dean of the Stanford UniversitySchool of Education. He is currently a senior researcher on the Programmable Open Mobile Internet, an NSFproject to develop and evaluate ubiquitous wireless mobile computing and interactive systems for K-20formal and informal learning and assessment scenarios. His research interests are contextualized innovationsin education, mobile empowerment design, and education ecosystems that are enterprising and sustainable inunderserved communities of developing countries.

E. Buckner, P. Kim

123


elizabethbuckner.files.wordpress.com · open file integrating technology and pedagogy for...

Documents