Impatient opportunists: a studyof technology use in a higher

education classroomKyong eun Oh and Jacek Gwizdka

Department of Library and Information Science,Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This study seeks to explore technology use in a higher education classroom with the focuson tablet computers.Design/methodology/approach – Study participants consisted of 36 undergraduate students fromRutgers University’s Information Technology and Informatics major. Data were collected using anonline survey, a classroom observation, and a group interview.Findings – The study findings demonstrate unexpected technology uses that can be explained by thecharacteristics of the student group, the Net generation, namely, their impatient multi-tasking andopportunistic behaviour. Students used tablet computers to take notes, conduct group activities andinteract with the instructor. Students’ preference for typing was found to be a barrier in their adoptionof tablet computers.Research limitations/implications – The findings can help technology developers and educatorsbetter understand and optimize their use of computing technology in higher education. Limitations ofthis study include only one class was studied, and classroom observation probed student behaviorsonly at selected points in time.Originality/value – The unique value of the study included: the study was not limited to tablettechnology and investigated students’ use of multiple technologies; the study captured studentbehaviors in an actual learning environment, and the study provides empirical evidence for students’multi-tasking in a classroom and for their use of tablet computers for hand writing.

Keywords Classroom technology use, Tablet computers, Student-instructor interaction,Student collaboration, Higher education, Information technology, Informatics

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and backgroundComputers have been used for instructional purposes since the late 1960s, and personalcomputers (PCs) assumed greater importance from the early 1990s (Taylor and Eustis,2002). The use of PCs is quite common in current classroom environments wherestudents frequently use their own laptop computers. Other new technologies arealso being introduced into the classroom and tablet computers are an example of this.Technologies with a push/pull mode of information delivery are having an impact onstudent behaviour and class activities as well as on instruction. For instance,instructors can push information to students, while students’ answers can be pulled byusing tablet computers. Optimizing the use of technology in higher education requiresan understanding of how technology might be used in the classroom and how itsupports or hinders students’ learning. In particular, when a new technology is beingintroduced, it is crucial to understand its advantages and disadvantages in an actualenvironment.

In the autumn 2008 semester, we introduced tablet computers to students takinga human-computer interaction (HCI) course as a part of our Information Technologyand Informatics programme. The class sessions took place in a computer laboratoryequipped with desktop PCs. The students could use the existing desktop PCs, as well

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/2050-7003.htm

Journal of Applied Research in HigherEducation

Vol. 3 No. 2, 2011pp. 81-96

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited2050-7003

DOI 10.1108/17581181111198638

81

Impatientopportunists

as the newly introduced tablets or their own laptop computers. In addition, studentscould use paper to take notes. While our research initially focused on the tabletcomputer use, the presence of wider technological choices allowed us to studytechnology use more generally and to observe student interactions with technology inthe classroom. Thus, the objectives of this study included, an examination of studentclassroom activities with a focus on technology-supported activities, an examinationof the use of multiple technologies by students in the classroom, and, in particular, anexamination of the use of tablet computers in the classroom.

The next section of this paper reviews related work that examined the impact oftechnology on higher education. In the third section, research objectives and definitionsof the terms used in this research are presented. The fourth section addresses ourresearch methodology. The fifth section presents a discussion of the results. The sixthsection summarizes the study, and the final section provides conclusion.

2. Literature reviewUnderstanding the impact of technology on education and learning processes is crucialas technology can aid as well as hinder student learning. Whenever new technology isintroduced, there is a process of change that comes with its implementation (Fahmy,2004). Numerous studies examined the impact of laptop computers on student learning.Some of these studies reported positive effects of laptop computer use on education(Siegle and Foster, 2001; Saunders and Klemming, 2003; McVay et al., 2005; Stephen,2005; Barak et al., 2006). The positive effects included increased participation andactive learning, improved interactions between students and instructor, and increasedmotivation and academic achievement. Demb et al. (2004) surveyed students in OhioDominican University to examine their perceptions of the value of the laptop computer.The result showed that students valued laptop computers as important to theirlearning; moreover, the students noted the importance of a laptop computer for itsportability and convenience. On the other hand, some studies showed negativeinfluences of laptop computers on student learning. Recently, Wurst et al. (2008)surveyed graduating cohorts of honours business students at several universities toexamine whether laptop computers improved students’ achievement and satisfaction.The result showed that the use of laptop computers did not contribute to studentachievement, and that the students did not show particular satisfaction from usinglaptop computers. Similarly, Fried (2008) showed that many students were using laptopcomputers for non-course-related purposes in the classroom, and that laptopcomputers distracted students from paying attention to the course.

Tablet computers are a relatively new technology that is being introduced intohigher education settings. There have been few empirical studies that focus on theusability and impact of tablet computers (Twining and Evans, 2005; Ozok et al., 2008).Tront and Scales (2007) reported early assessment of their on-going, multiyear projecton the tablet computer use by students in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech.The students were required to own tablet computers. After the first year of the project,they found positive effects of tablet computers on students learning both inside andoutside the classroom to include improvement of class participation, student creativityand collaborations (Tront and Scales, 2007, p. 10). Evans and Johri (2008) introducedmobile tablet PC technology into engineering education at Virginia Tech aiming tosolve the problem of large size classes, which make it difficult for students to engage inclass activities. They used tablet PCs with Dyknow networked software. The authorsreported that an increased awareness and visibility of student performance helped

82

JARHE3,2

instructors in identifying concepts that needed to be clarified. The authors found thattablet computers facilitated students’ participation in the class and supported studentexpression by letting them easily create, represent, and share sketches and annotations.The authors concluded that tablet PCs would be useful for subjects that frequently useannotations or quick sketches such as in the science, mathematics, and design fields.Karatsolis and Mills (2007) interviewed and surveyed 265 students who were taking aPrinciples of Communication course at Albany College of Pharmacy. The course wasdesigned to provide students with opportunities to facilitate interaction with tabletcomputers. The results showed that tablet computers supported students’ writing,revision, and research skills. Ozok et al. (2008) compared 34 students’ satisfaction andpreference for pen-and-paper, laptop, and tablet computers. The students were fromthe Department of Information Systems at the University of Maryland. Studentsparticipating in this study answered a questionnaire after participating in anexperiment that involved performing: reading, writing, manipulation, and form fillingtasks. The results showed that students mostly preferred laptop computers to othertechnologies.

Drawing described above conclusions is not straightforward. Technology hasmultifarious aspects and it may be hard to simply conclude that certain technologyhas a positive or negative impact on education. Depending on the tasks, the locationwhere the technology is used, the environment, and the user characteristics, the sametechnology can bring advantages as well as disadvantages for student learning,as shown in the reviewed literature. Thus, to understand the impact of technology ineducational settings it is important to examine it empirically.

In addition, the tutors’ attitudes towards technology influence the impact oftechnology on students’ learning. On the one hand, when tutors have positive attitudestowards using technology in class, they may not only encourage students’ usingtechnology but also try to make the most of new technology in class. On the otherhand, negative attitudes towards technology use in class may prevent the tutors frommaking the best use of technology (Harris, 1997). Tutors’ knowledge of technologyaffects the impact of technology as well. When the tutors are knowledgeable abouttechnology, it is likely that they may know how to adopt and use certain technology inclass, effectively. However, when the tutors do not know much about technology, it willbe difficult to use technology in class, successfully. Regardless of its importance, thereare only few studies that solely focused on the knowledge and attitudes of the tutors totechnology. There are even fewer studies that empirically investigated the tutors’attitudes towards using computing technology in class. However, just as the impact oftechnology on students’ learning has mixed results, the tutors’ attitudes towardstechnology use in class seem ambiguous (Fried, 2008). To be more specific, whilesome tutors view students’ bringing laptops to class as a challenge and show concernsabout its negative impact on student learning (Bhave, 2002; Melerdiercks, 2005; Young,2006), other tutors actively advocated using laptops in class reporting that when usedeffectively, using laptops in class encourages students’ active involvement in the class(Levine, 2002; Hall and Elliott, 2003; Weaver and Nilson, 2005). A number of studiesabout tutors’ training reported their lack of knowledge and confidence in usingtechnology to incorporate it into the class they teach. This is one of the commonbarriers in incorporating technology by tutors into the curriculum (Topp et al., 1995;Ali, 2003; Marx, 2005; Zelin and Baird, 2007). In this study, we examined the tutors’attitudes to technology indirectly by asking students how many tutors allow laptopuse and how many tutors actively encourage laptop use in a classroom.

83

Impatientopportunists

3. Research objectivesThis study was exploratory in nature. Our initial research objective was to study theusefulness and impact of the tablet computer on classroom activities. However,having the class in a computer lab equipped with desktop PCs enabled us to ask amore general question about how multiple computing technologies were used in theclassroom. In addition, students kept using paper for note taking and for reviewingclass lecture slides. Thus, our objectives included the examination of:

. student classroom activities, with a focus on technology-supported activities;

. use of multiple technologies by students in the classroom; and

. use of tablet computers in the classroom.

In this study, “student behaviours” were defined as any student activitiesperformed in the classroom that were either related or not related to the course. Inthe remainder of this paper, “technology” refers not only to computing technologiesbut also to paper. Thus, “technology” includes desktop, laptop, and tablet computers aswell as paper.

4. Methodology4.1 The sampleStudy participants were Rutgers University students from the Information Technologyand Informatics major, who took HCI course in the autumn of 2008. The research wasreviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed consent formswere administered to the students prior to the research. The researchers collected datafrom 31 students, who agreed to participate in the research; note that 28 of theseparticipating students (84.8 per cent) were male. In the case of in-class observations,all students present in the class were observed. The number of students present fromclass to class fluctuated from 33 to 36. To protect participants’ privacy, data werecollected by graduate assistants and all responses from the participants wereanonymous.

According to our survey questions that asked participants’ knowledge of andexperiences with information technology, most students reported to have a goodknowledge of information technology, but did not consider themselves to be experts.There were 42.4 per cent of the students who reported that they were “pretty savvy, butthere are others who are ahead of me in what they know”, while 30.3 per cent reportedthat “I consider myself fairly knowledgeable with plenty of IT skills, including at leastone programming language”. The level of technology expertise was also supported bythe fact that 29 students (87.9 per cent) owned laptops. However, in the case of tabletcomputers, most of the students answered that they (75.8 per cent) had never used itoutside this class, and only two students (6.1 per cent) used tablet computers ona regular basis. In addition, more than half of the students (51.5 per cent) never usedpen-based computer software applications on a computer nor a PDA. Thus, the samplepopulation of students seemed to be quite knowledgeable about informationtechnology, but they were not particularly familiar with using tablet computers or anypen-based computer software.

4.2 ProceduresThree different methods of data collection were used: an online survey, studentobservation during the scheduled class sessions, and a group interview.

84

JARHE3,2

Class observations were conducted three times during the 2008 autumn semesterat the 11th, 12th and 13th week of the semester. Two researchers observed studentbehaviours in the classroom with special focus on their technology use in note takingas well as on collaboration and interactivity. The observation was structured withpredetermined categories of behaviours (Powell, 1997, p. 118). During each examinedclass session, three observations were conducted with each researcher observing halfof the class. During each observation, the researcher observed one student for 10-15seconds and recorded different activities that were performed during that time and thetypes of technology the student used to engage in these activities. The observationdata were recorded in a codebook with a list of 15 possible student behaviours in theclassroom. The codebook also differentiated technology (i.e. desktop computer, laptopcomputer, tablet computer, paper, none) that students used in each activity. To recordthe different kinds of behaviours and the portion of each behaviour in a unit oftime and to check the kinds of technologies involved in each behaviour, 12 points wereused as a score for each student. This total amount of points was divided amongdifferent student’s activities in a unit of time; 12, 9, 6, or 3 points were assigned toreflect the magnitude of an activity. For example, when a student was engaged in oneactivity only, 12 points were assigned; when equally in two activities 6 points weregiven to each; when in three activities with one dominant, 6, 3, and 3 were assigned,respectively. When any materials were opened either on screen or on the desk, but notused at that moment, then a check mark was recorded to indicate their potential uses.To ensure the reliability of the observation, a preliminary observation was performed(Neuman, 2000, p. 166) in the ninth week of the semester. This initial observation wasused to develop more accurate categories of possible behaviours in the classroom,and definitions of each behaviour (Powell, 1997, p. 120). The final list of 15 possiblestudent behaviours in the classroom that were used for coding student activitiesinclude: following slides or listening to instructor, taking notes, interacting withinstructor, group activities, using or viewing course-related materials (e.g. web sites,programs, books, hand-outs), interacting with classmates for the course, other on taskbehaviours, doing work for another course, interacting with classmates for non-courserelated purposes, using or viewing non-course related materials (e.g. web sites, books),doodling, online chatting, using mobile phone (e.g. checking, texting, talking), other offtask behaviours, using or viewing web sites or other programs but cannot tell whetherit is course related or not.

An online survey was distributed via e-mail during the 14th and 15th week of thesemester (the last two weeks of the semester). The questionnaires asked students abouttheir perceptions, attitudes, uses, and technology expertise.

A group interview was carried out in class in the 15th week of the semester. One ofthe graduate assistants led the discussion while another graduate assistant took notes.The interview was semi-structured, where the questions were open-ended andhad a predetermined order (Krathwohl, 1997, p. 287). The questions were posed as afollow-up to the online survey and probed further into the students’ note taking,interactivity, and tablet use in class.

4.3 ApparatusThe students and the course instructor used HP Tablet PCs model 2710p. The tabletshave a 12.1 inch screen. Their display can be rotated and folded into a “tablet mode”,where the tablet’s pen is used for interaction and the keyboard is hidden. The image onthe tablet display can be positioned in a landscape or portrait mode.

85

Impatientopportunists

The tablet-specific software used by the students and the instructor included thefollowing:

. Classroom Presenter v3[1] (CP) was used for lecture presentation (Andersonet al., 2006). The software allows for broadcasting lecture slides over the localnetwork to students’ computers (both tablets, as well as desktops). CP supportsslide annotation in real-time by the instructor and it supports adding students’private notes to the slides. CP supports two modes of student-instructorinteractivity: first, students can send individual slides to the instructor’scomputer; and second, instructor can collect from students responses toquestions and show the response statistics back to students in real-time (similarto old-fashioned clickers).

. DENIM[2] was used for sketching and designing web user interfaces (Newmanet al., 2003). Prototyping user interfaces was an important learning component ofthe HCI class. The DENIM software allowed for using tablets to design web sitesfrom their top-level information architecture to the low-level details of each webpage. Students used it in group activities as well as a part of their course project.

4.4 Data analysisThe survey data were analysed using SPSS version 16. In particular, the data wereanalysed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA. To analyse observation data, theresearchers created a spreadsheet to assess student activities that employed differenttechnology. In analysing the interview data, we reviewed the notes taken by theresearch assistant during the interview by combining and grouping them into sectionsaccording to questions in the online survey.

5. Results and discussion5.1 Note taking in classroomResponding to the survey, most students said that they took notes sometimes(45.5 per cent) or during exam review (21.2 per cent). There were not many studentswho responded that they either take notes in every class (15.2 per cent), or never takenotes (6.1 per cent). Paper was reported to be still the most prominent note-takingmedium that was used by students (45.5 per cent). However, a number of studentsanswered that they preferred to take notes on desktop, laptop, or other mobiledevices (36.4 per cent), thus showing that students felt comfortable with taking noteson computers. Hence, in spite of continued use of paper by many students, computerdevices were also reported to be frequently used for taking notes.

This trend was also evident in the group interview. Nearly all students respondedthat they liked to take notes on paper, and that they also liked to take notes on desktopor laptop computers, because “typing is fast, neat, and accurate”. This trend was alsoshown in the study by Reimer et al. (2009). They examined how students took notes inhigher education. The results showed that students found both handwritten andelectronic notes convenient. Handwritten notes were reported to support students’understanding of material; they enabled drawing diagrams and inserting specialnotation (such as mathematical equations). Electronic notes were faster to take andeasier to organize notes than handwritten notes.

Interestingly, results from the survey and interview in our study showed that tabletcomputers were not regarded by students as a technology convenient for note takingbecause writing on the tablet screen was reported not to be easy for the students. This

86

JARHE3,2

issue will be developed further in Section 5.4. In addition, small technical issues,such as an inconvenient file format and the lack of easy e-mail connectivity in thetablet-based software for annotating lecture slides, were reported to create, togetherwith the inconvenience of handwriting, a barrier sufficient to prevent studentsfrom taking advantage of slide annotation. In summary, even though paper wasreported to be the note-taking medium of choice for the majority of students,desktop and laptop computers were also used by numerous students for that purpose.At the same time, the students reported that tablet computers were inconvenientto take notes.

5.2 Interactivity in the classroomMost students reported in the online survey that interactivity was very important orcritical to learning (75.8 per cent). The students generally showed positive attitudestowards group assignments and projects by selecting one of the two following choices:“they can work well with the right team members” (36.4 per cent), and “usually, I enjoyworking on a project with a group” (21.2 per cent). However, there were also somestudents who reported that they generally did not like group assignments or projects(18.2 per cent). In the case of class discussion, eight students (24.2 per cent) respondedthat they contributed to the discussion during almost every class, while 13 students(33.3 per cent) reported they sometimes did. These survey results show that studentsconsidered themselves to be quite active in class discussions.

Class observations conducted during group activities showed students’ activeparticipation in group activities. During the first observed class session 31 from 33students (93.9 per cent) were engaged in group activities. During the second observedclass session, all of the students were involved in group work. During the thirdobservation, 28 of 33 students (84.8 per cent) were doing group activities.

In addition, during the three observed class sessions, a fair number of students wereobserved to interact with the instructor and with other students. To be more specific,during the first observed class session, 11 from 33 students (33.3 per cent) wereinteracting with the instructor or classmates. During the second observed classsession, ten from 36 students (27.7 per cent) interacted with the instructor or theirclassmates. During the third observed class session, nine of 33 students (27.2 per cent)were interacting with the instructor or classmates. Table I shows the percentageof students who were interacting with the instructor and classmates in three classobservations.

In summary, most students thought that interactivity in the classroom wasimportant, reported to have positive attitudes towards group work, and reported thatthey contributed to class discussion. These positive attitudes were confirmed throughin-class observation. During the observed classes, students actively participated ingroup activities and interacted with their instructor and classmates.

Percentage

First class session 33.3Second class session 27.7Third class session 27.2

Table I.Percentage of students

interacting in class duringthree observations

87

Impatientopportunists

5.3 Technology use in the classroom5.3.1 General technology use in classrooms. The survey results showed that in general,most professors allowed laptop use in class. According to the survey, 19 students(57.6 per cent) answered that all of their professors allow laptop use, and 11 students(33.3 per cent) said most professors allow laptop use. However, most of the studentsresponded that none of their professors encourage laptop use in class (66.7 per cent).This could indicate that their professors have neither positive nor negative attitudestowards laptop use in class. Therefore, it seems to be mostly the student’s own decisionwhether to use a laptop in the classroom or not. Most of the students answered thatthey would like to use laptops in class (66.7 per cent).

Students were asked to indicate computer applications that they used in coursestaken at a college or university level. The majority of students selected applicationssuch as programming (93.9 per cent), presentation preparation (87.9 per cent), projectwork (81.8 per cent), creating models or design work (78.8 per cent), and search andinformation retrieval (78.8 per cent). Except for problem solving (39.4 per cent) andcalculations or graphing (36.4 per cent), computer applications were used in theclassroom by more than 70 per cent of the students. The percentages of the responsesfor specific computer applications are indicated in Figure 1.

During class observations, students used computers to follow slides, take notes,interact with the instructor, participate in group activities including sketching anddesigning prototypes, view web sites, and interact with classmates. This result is alsosupported by Conole et al.’s (2008) study, in which they reported that universitystudents used technologies extensively in all aspects of their studies such as finding,managing, and producing materials.

To summarize our findings, computers were used in diverse ways in the classroom.5.3.2 Student activity and technology use. Technology use in the classroom was

directly investigated through class observations. The first observation was made whenthe instructor was giving a lecture, while the second and the third observations weremade when students were engaged in an exercise to evaluate group projects of otherstudent groups.

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

Percentage

Problem solving

Writing

Com

pute

r ap

plic

atio

ns Calculations or graphing

Presentation preparation

Programming

Project work

Search and information retrieval

Creating models or design work includingweb design

100.0

Figure 1.Percentage of responsesfor computer applicationsin classroom

88

JARHE3,2

The observation data showed that most students were engaged in the primary activityin the class. However, there were also many students who were using or viewing non-course-related materials on desktop computers. The non-course-related activity wasamong the top three activities in two out of three observations; however, observationdata show that tablet computers were not used for the non-course-related activities.There can be two possible explanations for not using tablet computers in non-course-related activities. The first possible explanation is that the screen of a tablet computerwas more visible to the instructor than either a desktop or a laptop display. Thisexplanation can be supported by the observation data that paper was also not used fornon-course-related activity. A second possible explanation is that keyboards are noteasily accessible when tablet PCs are folded. Desktop and laptop keyboards made iteasier to perform text entry and to engage in online chatting or sendinge-mails. The difficulty of hiding what is on tablet’s screen can actually be consideredas an unexpected and positive effect of tablet computers on student behaviour in theclassroom.

Interestingly, in all observations, students were engaged in more than one activityin a unit of time indicating that they were multitasking. While explaining theNet generations’ characteristics, McNeely (2005) mentions this phenomenon that“They [the Net Generation] are not locked into one thing” (p. 4.3). Conole et al. alsoasserted that students in higher education are comfortable with multitasking.They also mentioned that students are inclined to switch among media, tools,and contents. In our observation, we also found that students were impatient asthey rapidly switched from one activity to the other activities. McNeely explainedthe reason for this behaviour by stating that because the Net generation expects thingsto work properly and fast and that if something does not work properly, they get bored.Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) explained “They [Net Generations] are able to shift theirattention rapidly from one task to another, and may choose not to pay attention tothings that do not interest them” (p. 2.5). Figure 2 shows the frequency of number ofactivities conducted by students simultaneously in each unit time of observations,which is 10-15 seconds.

Freq

uenc

y

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4

Number of activities

Figure 2.Frequency of number ofactivities conducted by

students simultaneouslyin each unit time

of observations

89

Impatientopportunists

Among different technologies, desktop computers were the most frequently usedtechnology for the top three activities. Laptop or tablet computers were not among thetop three. This is possibly because all students had laptop computers or tabletcomputers. Table II shows the main activities from three observations and it includesthe preferred technology that was used by students in each activity. The percentage ofactivity means the percentage of the class engaged in the activity, and the percentageof the preferred technology indicates the percentage of the whole class who used acertain technology to perform the named activity.

Interestingly, when the observers checked what technologies (including paper) wereopened (i.e. not actively used by a student but still open on a desk, which indicatedtheir potential use), more than one type of technology was simultaneously opened. Thisindicated that students were opportunists who used whatever was available to them.During the first observation, students in the classroom had an average of 2.1 differenttechnologies open in each unit time of observation. During the second observation, thestudents had an average of 1.4 technologies open. During the third observation, anaverage of 1.2 technologies was open. During the preliminary observation, studentsused even more technologies simultaneously, while they were prototyping webinterfaces as a part of a group project. For instance, students had opened course-relatedweb sites on a desktop, outlined a draft on paper, while working on a web site designusing a tablet computer. Conole et al. (2008) also mentioned this phenomenon thatstudents in higher education are “able to work with multiple resources and toolssimultaneously” (p. 522). Figure 3 shows the total frequency of number of technologiesused by students in a unit time of observation.

This phenomenon is also reported by Jenkins (2006). While comparing the digitalrevolution paradigm with the convergence paradigm, he wrote that when new mediaappear, new media and old media coexist and interact in complicated ways ratherthan new media displacing or absorbing old media. To be more specific, he stated that“if the digital revolution paradigm presumed that new media would displace old media,the emerging convergence paradigm assumes that old and new media will interact inever more complex ways” ( Jenkins, 2006, p. 6). As Jenkins noted, students were usingold and new technology at the same time in intricate ways.

To summarize our findings, students reported that most professors allowed laptopcomputer use in class. They also reported that they not only had positive attitudestowards using laptop computers but also they were heavily using laptop computers in

Activity rank Activity Preferred technology

First class session1 Group activities (53%) Desktop (46%)2 Using or viewing course-related materials (10%) Desktop (10%)3 Interacting with classmates for the course (9%) None (9%)Second class session1 Following slides or listening to instructor (36%) Desktop (34%)2 Using or viewing non-course-related materials (29%) Desktop (3%)3 Taking notes (12%) Desktop (7%)Third class session1 Following slides or listening to instructor (34%) Desktop (5%)2 Using or viewing non-course-related materials (32%) Desktop (31%)3 Doing work for another course (15%) Desktop (7%)

Table II.The main activities andpreferred technology foreach activity

90

JARHE3,2

class activities. In addition, a variety of computer applications were used in class.Moreover, students conducted various tasks simultaneously, used more than onetechnology that were available to them and rapidly switched from one technologyto another.

5.4 Tablet computer use in classroomAccording to the survey, which was conducted at the end of the course, studentsreported that they used tablet computers to sketch and design interface prototypes(72.7 per cent), to interact with an instructor by sending questions and responses(54.5 per cent), to work with a group on team projects (30.3 per cent), to surf the web(30.3 per cent), to take notes on course slides (24.2 per cent), to take notes usingother programmes (12.1 per cent), and to communicate with others outside the class(9.1 per cent). Thus, it was used mostly for the course-related activities, and especiallyfor the group projects and for interaction with the instructor. These results were alsoconfirmed by observation.

When asked how easy it was to use tablet computers, about one-third of thestudents responded that using tablet computers in the course was neither difficultnor easy (30.3 per cent), while some students responded it is “very easy” (24.2 per cent),and some “difficult” (24.2 per cent). Thus, it seemed that for many students, using atablet was more easy than difficult. On a five-point Likert scale, spanning from 1, verydifficult to 3, neutral to 5, very easy, the mean was 3.27, which also indicate thatusing tablet computer is somewhat easy. Using a tablet computer was easier forthose who used tablets on a regular basis (M¼ 4.00; SD¼ 1.41) or who tried using itbefore (M¼ 3.50; SD¼ 1.05) than for those who did not use a tablet before (M¼ 3.16;SD¼ 1.31). Therefore, the experience in using a tablet computer would make iteasier to use.

When students were asked to rate advantages of using tablet computers in the class,spanning from 1, very unimportant to 3, neutral to 5, very important, “ability to createprototype designs” (M¼ 3.27; SD¼ 1.36) and “ability to interact with an instructor”(M¼ 3.09; SD¼ 1.44) showed the highest values of importance. This result is also

00 1 2

Number of technologies

20

40

60

80

100

120Fr

eque

ncy

140

160

180

Figure 3.Frequency of number of

technologies used bystudents simultaneously

in each unit timeof observations

91

Impatientopportunists

supported by the open-ended questions of the survey. When asked to describe howthey could imagine tablet computers being used to enhance learning in a universitycourse, many students mentioned interactivity with an instructor. For instance,one student wrote, “I think that it is a great way to interact with the instructor”,another student also wrote “the professor can ask students to sketch improvementsonto a design then share them with the class”. In addition, in the interview,students mentioned portability of tablet computers as one of its advantages. Table IIIdisplays the means and SDs for importance of each of the advantages of usingtablet computers in a classroom.

When students were asked, in the open-ended questions in the survey, to explain thebarrier they experienced in using tablet computers, students answered that one of thebarriers was the technical problem with the software. For example, one student replied“it [the software for prototyping] crashed at least three times”. Relative unfamiliaritywith tablet computers was also mentioned as a barrier during the group interview.Another important barrier was bad handwriting. For instance, one student said that“a lot of us have horrible handwriting and that is why we take notes with laptops in thefirst place”. Another student said “I type all of my notes because my hand writing isterrible so I don’t care much about writing on a tablet screen”. It was quite interestingto discover that one of the barriers in using tablet computers was that this populationof students found it easier to type than to handwrite when taking notes. Pen-basedcomputer’s ability to recognize users’ handwriting was previously considered to be oneof the great advantages of tablet PCs (Ozok et al., 2008, p. 330). Our findings show,however, that this advantage disappears for the generation who finds typing quitecomfortable. Difficulty in using the tablet pen was another related barrier. At theinterview, students answered that difficulty of using pens made bad handwritingsworse. During the interview, nearly all students said that writing on a tablet screen wasnot easy. The thick line of the pen was a barrier of using a tablet computer and somestudents even said that they found it easier to ignore the pen and just use the tablet as alaptop. Looking down on the screen was also mentioned as a barrier. When discussingfuture applications for tablets in the classroom, students said that it would be good forclasses that include drawing and sketching such as art departments or medical fields.In addition, students answered that it would be useful for collaborative projects.

Thus, tablet computers seemed mostly applicable in supporting group activitiesand interaction with the instructor. Students reported that tablet computers weresomewhat easy to use. The students answered that the main advantages andsignificance of using a tablet computer in a classroom environment were for groupprojects and interactions with the instructor, while technical problems of software,unfamiliarity, bad handwriting, and difficulty in using the tablet’s pen were reportedto be the barriers in the tablet use.

M SD

Ability to take notes on lecture slides 2.64 1.25Ability to take notes in other programs 2.33 1.11Ability to create prototype designs 3.27 1.35Ability to work with a group on team projects 2.48 1.52Ability to interact with an instructor by sending responses and questions 3.09 1.44Ability to surf the web 2.15 1.12

Table III.Importance of advantagesof using tablet computersin class

92

JARHE3,2

6. SummaryWe reported on an empirical study that explored technology use in a higher educationclassroom with a special focus on tablet computers. The data were collected using anonline survey, a classroom observation, and a group interview. The main findingshighlight student attitudes, preferences, and their actual use of several technologies,including paper (e.g. paper notebooks), desktop computers, laptop computers,and tablets.

Although many students reported that paper was a preferred medium for takingnotes, a significant portion of students also said that they were comfortablewith typing notes on desktop or laptop computers. Many students reported to havea positive attitude about using laptop computers, and reported that they usedthem often.

Most students reported that tablet computers were “somewhat easy to use”, andthat the tablets supported well their group projects and interactions with instructor.However, unfamiliarity with new software, the students’ poor handwriting styleand the difficulty in using the tablet’s pen were indicated as barriers in adoptingthe tablets. We expected that handwriting on the tablet computer screen would be oneof its advantages. However, this feature was regarded as one of the barriers by theNet generation that grew up with computer technology and was less experiencedwith writing longhand. Students reported that subtle things such as thick pentrace and rough note appearance contributed to the their difficulties in using thetablet computers. Improved technology capabilities and increased familiarity of thetablet computers could make tablet computers a more useful learning tool.Students thought that a tablet computer could enhance learning in higher educationclassrooms, in particular, when used for sketching, drawing, and working oncollaborative projects.

Interestingly, we found that students were engaged in more than one activity andwere simultaneously using more than one technology. Their multitasking involveddifferent activities performed using different technologies.

The study results showed a broad picture of technology use in the classroom. Theydemonstrated how adoption of technology interacts with the characteristics andexperiences of the student population. In particular, we found that the students’multitasking was expressed by their tendency to use simultaneously multipletechnologies. The students exhibited opportunistic behaviour by taking advantageof the technologies that were available to them during class time. They used whatevertechnology was available and worked for them. We observed that the students wereimpatient and quickly switched between technologies. The attitude and the use oftechnologies changed over time. While the novelty of tablets motivated the initialinterest of students, they abandoned the technology quickly when they encountereddifficulty in its use.

7. ConclusionsTablet computers are one of the new technologies being introduced into classroom.Understanding changes introduced by such new technologies in the classroomenvironment is crucial to realizing the full advantage that the technology can bring tohigher education.

Our study uncovered students’ multitasking behaviour, their opportunistic use oftechnologies, the interplay of technology affordances and its usability, and itsperceptions by students.

93

Impatientopportunists

Simultaneous use of multiple technologies demonstrated unique usefulness andfit of each technology to different classroom activities. For instance, students foundlaptop computers useful for typing notes, while desktop convenient for browsingweb sites. Thus, it will be important to further investigate technology affordancesconducive to a range of activities in a classroom. The tablet technology affordsdesigning and sketching activities. The existence of this affordance was corroboratedby the students’ comments. Another technology affordance in the classroomenvironment is its support for interacting with tutors and other students. Our findingsstress the role of this affordance and point to further need for its improvement.The continued investigation in these directions will contribute to the improvementof current technology as well as the development of new technology that can be usedin the classroom.

Limitations of the current study include the investigation of one class only andrecording selected snapshots of student behaviour by observing them at severaldiscrete points in time. In addition, it is difficult to make generalizations as thecurrent classroom environments are undergoing changes, as does the technology itself.In the future, we plan to conduct a comparative study between two sections of thesame course, where one of the sections will use the tablet computers and the other willnot use the tablets to have more in-depth understanding of the usefulness of tabletcomputers. Another fruitful avenue for extending this study would be to focus onstudents’ simultaneous technology use and opportunistic behaviour in a setting withmore diverse technology choices.

Notes

1. The CP software can be downloaded at: www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/presenter/doc/startguide3.html

2. DENIM can be downloaded at: http://dub.washington.edu:2007/denim/download

References

Ali, A. (2003), “Faculty adoption of technology: training comes first”, Educational Technology,Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 51-3.

Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Chung, O., Davis, K., Prince, C., Razmov, V. and Simon, B. (2006),“Classroom presenter – a classroom interaction system for active and collaborativelearning”, WIPTE, available at: http://classroompresenter.cs.washington.edu/papers/2006/AACDDPRS_WIPTE_2006.pdf (accessed 30 June 2009).

Barak, M., Lipson, A. and Lerman, S. (2006), “Wireless laptops as means for promoting activelearning in large lecture halls”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 38No. 3, pp. 245-63.

Bhave, M. (2002), “Classrooms with Wi-Fi: a challenge for teacher control and a revolution inlearning”, T.H.E. Journal, Vol. 30 No. 14, pp. 17-20.

Conole, G., Laat, M., Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2008), “‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogicalinnovations’: what’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perceptionof technology”, Computers & Education, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 511-24.

Demb, A., Erickson, D. and Hawkins-Wilding, S. (2004), “The laptop alternative: studentreactions and strategic implications”, Computers and Education, Vol. 43 pp. 303-401.

Evans, M. and Johri, A. (2008), “Facilitating guided participation through mobile technologies:designing creative learning environments for self and others”, Journal of Computing inHigher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 92-105.

94

JARHE3,2

Fahmy, M. (2004), “Thinking about technology effects on higher education”, The Journal ofTechnology Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-8.

Fried, C.B. (2008), “In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning”, Computers andEducation, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 906-14.

Hall, M. and Elliott, K. (2003), “Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: strategies toencourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment”, Journal of Education forBusiness, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 301-7.

Harris, R. (1997), “Teaching, learning and information technology: attitudes towards computersamong Hong Kong’s faculty”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 89-114.

Jenkins, H. (2006), Convergence Culture, NYU Press, New York, NY.

Karatsolis, A. and Mills, G. (2007), “Tablets as writing canvases and construction sites”, in Prey,J.C., Reed, R.H. and Berque, D.A. (Eds), The Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technologyon Education, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, pp. 67-78.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1997), Methods of Educational & Social Science Research, Longman, New York,NY.

Levine, L. (2002), “Laptop classrooms present new teaching challenges”, T.H.E. Journal,Vol. 30, p. 10.

McNeely, B. (2005), “Using technology as learning tool, not just the cool new thing”, in Oblinger,D.G. and Oblinger, J.L. (Eds), Educating the Net Generation, EDUCAUSE, Boulder, CO,pp. 4.1-4.10, availabe at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101d.pdf (accessedNovember 2009).

McVay, G., Snyder, K. and Graetz, K. (2005), “Evolution of a laptop university: a case study”,British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 513-24.

Marx, S. (2005), “Improving faculty use of technology in a small campus community”, T.H.E.Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 21-43.

Melerdiercks, K. (2005), “The dark side of the laptop university”, Journal of Ethics, Vol. 14No. 1, pp. 9-11.

Neuman, W.L. (2000), Social Research Methods, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Newman, M., Lin, J., Hong, J. and Landay, J. (2003), “DENIM: an informal web site designtool inspired by observations of practice”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 18 No. 3,pp. 259-324.

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005), “Is it age of IT: first steps toward understanding the Netgeneration”, in Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J.L. (Eds), Educating the Net Generation,EDUCAUSE, Boulder, CO, pp. 2.1-2.20, available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101d.pdf (accessed November 2009).

Ozok, A., Benson, D., Chakraborty, J. and Norcio, A. (2008), “A comparative study between tabletand laptop PCs: user satisfaction and preferences”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 329-52.

Powell, R. (1997), Basic Research Methods for Librarians, Ablex, Greenwich, CT.

Reimer, Y.J., Brimhall, E., Cao, C. and O’Reilly, K. (2009), “Empirical user studies inform the design ofan e-notetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education”,Computers and Education, Vol. 52, pp. 893-913, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.013.

Saunders, G. and Klemming, F. (2003), “Integrating technology into a traditional learningenvironment”, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 74-86.

Siegle, D. and Foster, T. (2001), “Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software:their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology”, Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 29-37.

95

Impatientopportunists

Stephen, B.R. (2005), “Laptops in psychology: conducting flexible in-class research and writinglaboratories”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 101 No. 101, pp. 15-26.

Taylor, D. and Eustis, J. (2002), “Assessing the changing impact of technology on teaching andlearning at Virginia tech: a case study”, New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol. 1999No. 102, pp. 55-70.

Topp, N., Mortenson, R. and Grandgenett, N. (1995), “Building a technology-using faculty tofacilitate technology-using teachers”, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 11-4.

Tront, J.G. and Scales, G.R. (2007), “Keynote address implementing a large-scale tablet PCdeployment”, in Prey, J.C., Reed, R.H. and Berque, D.A. (Eds), The Impact of Tablet PCs andPen-based Technology on Education, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, pp. 1-10.

Twining, P. and Evans, D. (2005), “Should there be a future for Tablet PCs in schools?”, Journal ofInteractive Media in Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

Weaver, B. and Nilson, L. (2005), “Laptops in class: what are they good for? What can you do withthem?”, New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 101, pp. 3-13.

Wurst, C., Smarkola, C. and Gaffney, A. (2008), “Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education:effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructive measures in honorsand traditional classrooms”, Computers and Education, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1766-83.

Young, J. (2006), “The fight for classroom attention: professor vs laptop”, Chronicle of HigherEducation, Vol. 52, pp. 27-9.

Zelin, R. and Baird, J. (2007), “Training faculty to use technology in the classroom”, CollegeTeaching Methods & Styles Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 41-8.

Further reading

Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. (2003), “The laptop and the lecture: the effects of multitaskingin learning environments”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 46-64.

Mogey, N., Sarab, G., Haywood, S., van Heyningen, S., Dewhurst, D., Hounsell, D. and Neilson, R.(2007), “The end of handwriting? Using computers in traditional essay examinations”,Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 39-46.

About the authors

Kyong eun Oh is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Library and Information Science in theSchool of Communication and Information at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Kyong eun Oh has worked as a Research Assistant on the iThinking project since the autumn of2008. Kyong eun Oh is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: keoh@eden.rutgers.edu

Jacek Gwizdka is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Library and InformationScience, in the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey. Dr Gwizdka first used pen-based computers in his research in 1995. While at theUniversity of Toronto, he worked on using tablets as electronic notebooks for engineers. He alsoworked on applications of pen-based computing to annotate phone conversation and paperdocuments at Fuji Xerox Palo Alto Lab (FXPAL) and at Xerox PARC. He holds one patent in thearea of pen-based computing. His current research interests include implicit assessment ofcognitive states of users engaged in information seeking.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

96

JARHE3,2