Running head: Teaching Practices

Teaching Practices in iPad-Classrooms –

Alignment of Didactical Designs, Mobile Devices and Creativity

Isa Jahnke1

Umeå University, Sweden

1 Dr. Isa Jahnke, Umeå University, Department of Applied Educational Science, Devision Interactive Media & Learning (IML), SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden, Phone: +46-90-786-9798, E-mail: isa.jahnke@edusci.umu.se, Website https://iml.edusci.umu.se/ictml/

Running head: Teaching Practices

Teaching Practices in iPad-Classrooms –

Alignment of Didactical Designs, Mobile Devices and Creativity

Abstract Creativity is socially constructed and is not an objective fact at all. How do people socially construct creativity in a specific context like formal education? What does creativity consist of with regard to teaching and learning from the teachers’ perspective and how can it be supported from the approach of digital didactics? From two case studies, one in the field of creativity in higher education and a second about iPad-classrooms in Danish schools, the paper presents and reflects didactical concepts with regard to fostering creativity using mobile devices called iPad-Didactics. A qualitative research approach using mixed methods, in particular interviews and classroom observations were applied. The data illustrates the implementation of new mobile technology in education requires rethinking the existing underlying didactical concepts and communication patters. The most creativity has been observed when the teacher designed such student learning activities enhanced by mobile technology where no correct solution is available. When there is a shift from traditionally separating ICT and education to new co-located settings where mobile devices and education merged into new teaching spaces, then there is a need to rethink traditional Didaktik towards Digital Didactical Designs bridging ‘learning what is known’ and ‘learning when the answer is not known’.

Keywords: creative learning, mobile technology, digital didactics, schools, case study

3

Introduction - The Social Construction of Creativity in a Context The problem with the term creativity is that there exist a lot of different definitions

and also contradictory meanings in the research field of creativity (e.g., Boden, 1994, Fischer 2011; Herrmann, 2009; Jahnke, 2011, Watson, 2007; Amabile, Hadley & Kramer 2002; Gardner, 1993). For instance, the different researchers discuss what and who is creative, e.g., the person, the product, the process, the environment; the individual great mind; a smaller group in interaction; a larger group, an organization, the society. Individual, social and collaborative creativity are some of those different concepts. Despite – or even because of – these manifold concepts of creativity, no precise definition of creativity is available. One example of how to study the pluralism of creativity in higher education is done by Jackson & Shaw (2006) and Kleiman (2008).

To make it the research problems more visible, creativity for a firm which designs shoes or software programs might be different than creativity in sociology in universities or language schools. Secondly, researchers (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) argue that the idea-generating person is only creative when an external authority assigns the value of their creations. But creativity is subjective. When a person thinks s/he is creative this is true for her although it does not necessarily mean that this idea is also a creative one for another person or group. Different people might assign creativity to different things; this is a dynamic change over time. What seems to be creative in the past, may or may not be creative in the presence and future (or vice versa). Third, there is a difference between creativity (generating new ideas) and innovation (acceptance of new ideas).

Because creativity is subjective, it always needs to be defined within a specific context. Creativity is socially co-constructed, affected and colored by societal structures. According to Berger and Luckmann (1967) “the social construction of reality”, people construct their understanding of creativity. People have different understandings what creativity is and how to observe it. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to ask in general what creativity is – but it is useful to study the different conceptions on creativity in a context like schools and higher education and to make the diversity visible.

The guiding overall question in this paper is: How do people socially co-construct creativity, what are their conceptions of creativity in a specific context like schools; what does creativity consist of with regard to teaching and learning from their perspective and how can it be supported from a didactical and technical understanding?

Traditionally, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) “has been segregated from the normal teaching classroom”, e.g. computer labs (Henderson & Yeow, 2012). This has been changed with the advent of smaller flexible devices, like iPads. Differences from laptops to flexible small and easy-to-handle multimodal devices are discussed at another place, for instance, Johnson (2013). The assumption that the iPad is different than laptops is also supported by Jahnke, Norqvist, & Olsson (2013). Their interviewed teachers said “the iPad works”, “you open an iPad and it works”, “you don’t waste time like with the laptops where the batteries where out of energy or the software wasn’t installed”. One answer by a teacher, why there is an hype around iPads, was: “There is no technology in there!” and she pointed her finger to the iPad. Of course, an iPad is made of technical elements and it is a pure technical device. However, with that quote the teacher’s point of view becomes clear: the teachers perceive the iPad as a device that is easy to use instead of a complex complicated technical device. This is one major difference to the laptop. The second guiding question in this paper is as follows: To what extent can mobile technology be useful to support creativity; to what extent is it integrated in the didactical designs?

To study the alignment of didactical designs, creativity and mobile devices, this paper present results from two cases a) DaVinci, teachers’ conceptions on student’s creativity in

4

higher education, and b) Odder, K-9 schools using iPads in classrooms. Results will be presented and discussed.

Didactical Designs, Creativity, Mobile Technology

In this paper, mobile learning is defined as teaching and learning supported by mobile devices like iPads. A discussion towards “mobile learning” and what and who is mobile is done at another place (e.g., Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005; Sharples, 2006; Pachler, 2007; Traxler, 2007; Jahnke et al. 2012).

Although, in this paper, the innovation of iPads was the point of departure to start the research study, the paper won’t focus too much on technology. Instead, the main aim is to study the relation of didactical designs, creativity and mobile devices.

The term ‘didactical design’ follows from the German concept of Didaktik by Klafki (1963,

1997) and is inspired by Hudson (2008), Fink (2003) and Lund & Hauge (2011) who stress the differences of teaching concepts and learning activities and call them designs for teaching and designs for learning. This view on didactics and design put teaching and learning into a new light: Teaching is not only a tool to reach the cognitive dimension; teaching is rather an activity-driven design to enable learning as activity for knowledge production instead knowledge consumption (“activity designs for learning”, Hauge & Dolonen, in Olofsson & Lindberg, 2012; “multimodal perspective”, Selander & Kress, 2010). A didactical design (figure 1) includes different elements and their relations:

1) teaching objectives, expected learning outcomes 2) learning activities 3) forms of assessment 4) social relations (teacher-student and student-student interaction) 5) technology (e.g., ICT, Social media)

The element No 1 of teaching objectives defines intended learning outcomes. Element

No 2 focuses on student learning activities, the plan how to achieve the teaching objectives in such a way that the learners are able to develop competencies and skills which the teachers have in mind (expected learning outcomes). Element No 3 includes different forms of feedback and assessment to support the student learning progress (“constructive alignment” by Biggs & Tang, 2007). According to the study by Bergström (2012), process-based assessment is the most effective method to foster learning, however, in reality it is rare and summative assessment is the common routine. Element No 4 is the design for social

Figure 1. Digital didactical design

5

relations, e.g., student-teacher-interaction, by the “dynamics of social roles” (Jahnke, 2010; Herrmann, Jahnke & Loser, 2004). The digital didactical design is the advanced model that integrates Educational Technology and Educational Apps (this is design element No 5). To each of the four elements the design-question is, how can the iPad or another mobile device supports teaching, learning and feedback activities? In an ideal world, to each of the design elements mobile technology supports the activity to enhance learning. Mobile technology can make a difference in learning, especially in “making learning visible” (Mårell-Olsson, 2012). In two case studies, Mårell-Olsson & Hudson, (2008) illustrate different types of digital portfolios in which students develop the ability to “collect, organize, interpret and reflect on their own individual learning and practice, and become more active and creative in the development of knowledge” (p.73). The integration of mobile technologies in didactical designs and vice versa, however, is more complex as it seems. Koehler et al. (2007) show how complex the integration of content, technical and pedagogical knowledge is (TPCK model). In addition, Loveless (2007) illustrates at the example of primary schools how the co-evolutionary development of subject knowledge and didactics needs the support of “improvisation”.

This research assumes that mobile devices like iPads by themselves do not foster creativity in teaching and learning. When the teacher use iPads, a lot of different things could happen, a) traditional teaching patterns could be reinforced using mobile devices (Song, 2007), b) the classroom could be changed into a creative learning experience, c) the teacher applies new forms of 5-minute-didactics or other types of microlearning (Bruck & Lindner, 2008) or, d) something else happens. Inspired by Rogers’ model “diffusion of innovations” (2003), the assumption is that the iPad-classrooms can be clustered at least in three different didactical adopter types, what we call A, B and C didactical groups: According to Digital Didactics, group A is a didactically well-designed classroom with an high extent of iPad use; group B is a didactically moderate-designed classroom with a medium extent of iPad use and group C is a didactically weak-designed classroom with a low extent of iPad use.

By studying the “constructive alignment” (Biggs & Tang, 2007) of didactical designs in teaching practices, the paper gives answer if these designs relates to creativity, and if yes, to what extent and how it supports creative learning. Our research questions are: RQ 1. What are the teachers’ understandings and conceptions towards student creativity? RQ 2. Do the teachers apply didactical concepts to foster creativity that students can be creative? If yes, which ones, and to what extent? RQ 3. Do the teachers use iPads in alignment with the didactical design to become an integrated balanced digital didactical design to enable creative learning?

Methods

In two case studies, different mixed methods were applied which will be described in the following sections.

The aim of case 1 was to make the teachers’ conceptions on student’s creativity visible and to create a framework including the diversity of teachers’ understandings towards student’s creativity. The outcome of case study 1 was a framework for analyzing creativity in teaching. From this framework, an observation sheet for observing creativity in schools and higher education could be derived (Jahnke & Haertel, 2010) which has been applied in case study 2.

Case 1: DaVinci – Teachers’ conceptions on student’s creativity

The study 1 entitled DaVinci (funded by BMBF, Germany, 2008-2011) included interviews with teachers and instructors in higher education (part A) and an online survey

6

(part B). Part A explored the teachers’ conceptions on student’s creativity (20 interviews), part B validate the exploration within a broader group of teachers (n=296).

Part A – Data collection and analysis: The first part of data collection consisted of

20 expert interviews, which included a) 10 experts defined as outstanding teachers, award-winning teachers (ars legendi, “Professor of the Year”) and those who had been highly rated by students on the website MyProf (meinprof.de), and b) 10 ordinary teachers and instructors mainly from computer and educational sciences from the University-Alliance-Metropolis-Ruhr.

The aim of the interviews was to make the teachers’ imaginations and conceptions on student’s creativity visible.

The interview guide (partly structured) included 5 parts. The first part started with questions about personal understandings on own creativity (e.g., what is creativity for you? conditions for creativity? what fosters/hinders you to be creative? To what extent can people learn to be creative?). The second part asked about creativity in teaching and learning. This was the central part in the interview. The teachers have been requested to describe one of their courses in detail; including teaching objectives, learning activities, assessments, structures, content, how the course is related to creative, and how the students can be creative, how the teachers fostered student creativity in learning. The researchers also asked explicitly, “What is a creative effort given by the students in your course? How do you know that the students are creative? How can you see/perceive student creativity in learning? Please describe”. A third part of the interview guide integrated questions about what needs to be changed to have more creativity in higher education, how to foster creativity in higher education. The 4th part asked about motivation of the teachers and their skills and competencies. Finally, the last question was about three fairy wishes related to fostering creativity in higher education. What do you as teacher wish for? Depending on how the interview went, the interviewer switched the order of the questions. The central idea of the interview guide was to ‘let the teacher tell’, a slightly different form of the narrative interview method.

The duration of the in-depth partly structured interviews took from 1 hour until 5 hours (medium=2 hours). The interviews were conducted in 2008-2009, preferable at the interviewees' places of work and with 1-2 interviewers; 13 male and 7 female teachers. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed afterwards. In addition, notes were taken.

The interviews were analyzed by means of “open coding” inspired by Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin 1990; Bryman 2008). The researchers analysed each of the interview in detail in order to study what the interviewees said what their understanding of creativity is. Finally, all 20 interviews were compared, condensed and summarized on a higher level. As a result, six facets of teachers’ conceptions on students’ creativity could be visualized. The empirical data from the first phase led to a preliminary theoretical model.

However, so far, it couldn’t be said if those six aspects are only an empirical evidence for the 20 interviewees and valid for the interviewees only, or if the results are also valid for other teachers or if adjustment needs to be done. Thus, to deepen the knowledge about the six aspects, a broader online survey was created and applied.

Part B – data collection and analysis: The aim of part B was to validate the

preliminary framework (derived from part A). An unusual online questionnaire was created. In detail, the online questionnaire had the aim to find out to what extent a broader

group of teachers would confirm or reject on the preliminary framework. The unusual online half-standardized questionnaire had only 4 main questions: The

first question was an open question. The teachers got the question, “What is a creative effort

7

of your students in your course?” This was an open question with three open fields to write answers. In a second question, the teachers were asked to match their given answers from question No 1 to one or more of the six aspects, which were developed from the interviews. Technically spoken, the open answers made by the teachers in the question No. 1 were automatically transferred to the question No 2. Question No 2 then asked to match the open answers by the teachers to the six given aspects of creativity (from part A) either just one and more, or doesn’t fit at all. The other two questions asked about socio-demographical aspects and whether the teachers think they foster creativity in higher education or not, and if yes, to what extent.

The half-standardized questionnaire was provided to all teachers at the University-Alliance-Metropolis-Ruhr (UAMR) consisting of Dortmund (N = 2307), Bochum (N = 2973) and Duisburg-Essen (N = 2432). This corresponds to 7712 potential recipients which had been requested via e-mail distribution centers and supported by the deans. From a total of 7712 possible recipients, 812 people clicked on the questionnaire (10.5%). 712 people opened the first question "What is a creative effort given by your students?". At this point, 45% of the questionnaires were not continued. 367 people went on to the third question. In summary, a total of 296 people responded to the questionnaire from beginning to end (page 4 of the survey). Of a total of 812 participants who viewed the survey, the response rate is about 36%.

The distribution between male and female is almost equal: 52.1% male, 47.9% female. 70% of the participants are academic staff, about 20% professors and more than 10% lecturers. The respondents have different amounts of experience in teaching practice. Only 10% of the respondents had been teaching for less than 1 year. Almost 40% of the university teachers had between 1 and 4 years of teaching practice. About 25% reported between 5 and 10 years of teaching, another 25% indicated more than 10 years teaching.

The disciplines are distributed in the following. Almost 40% of the teachers work in language-/cultural studies. Mathematics/science as well as law/economic-/social sciences each have about 20%. The other subject groups like engineering (10%), medical sciences (3.5%), arts (3%) and sports (1%) were less represented. Conclusions about these fields should be drawn carefully.

The outcome was a framework for analyzing creativity in teaching. From this framework, an observation sheet for observing creativity in schools and higher education could be derived (Jahnke & Haertel, 2010) which has been applied in the case study 2.

Case 2: Odder - Danish iPad-classrooms Case study 2 started in January 2012 in Denmark, where a whole municipality

implemented a 1:1 iPad-program for app. 2,000 students and 180 teachers in all their 7 schools. There was a need to buy new laptops. Instead of laptops, the politicians in Odder decided to use iPads. The headteachers and the local department of the teachers union were consulted to make sure that they agreed. Both parts agreed.

Data collection. The motivation to go to these schools was the assumption that the schools are open for innovation. Instead of buying new laptops for all pupils, the schools did buy iPads. The aim was to explore their didactical designs: Do the teachers adjust their didactical designs to the iPad and do they develop new digital didactical designs? Classroom observations and teacher interviews were used, as part of a larger study. The classroom observation sheet was based on the didactical triangle

• teaching aims • learning activities • forms of feedback/ assessment • social relations and roles

8

• how the iPad is integrated (or not integrated) in the teaching practices supporting the teaching objectives

The observation sheet additionally included: a description of the classroom (e.g., numbers and gender of pupils), observations of communication patterns, collaboration and/or forms of cooperative learning, creativity (can the observer see creative learning activities?), special skills of the teacher, and a free field for comments (e.g., something what the observer did not expect or what s/he want to comment on; surprises etc.). The classroom observations were conducted by two to five researchers who took notes, photos and video recordings.

The interviews were usually conducted by a total of three researchers and recorded. Data from the observations and interviews were first analyzed according to each classroom taught by a teacher (i.e. observations and interviews for each case were combined) and then open coded (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000). In April and August 2012, 15 classroom observations (45-90 mins. each) and 13 interviews (ca. 60 mins. each) were conducted in six schools in Odder municipality in Denmark. In the classrooms, there were 4 male and 11 female teachers. The teaching subjects ranged from Danish, English, Math, Music, Art to Physics. The classes ranged from preschool class to ninth grade with class sizes of 10 to 27 students (mix of male and female students).

Data analysis. To analyze the data, the research team created a schema. This form has been created based on the digital didactical approach; see fig. 1. Table 1 illustrated the form:

Table 1. Form for data analysis

Name of the classroom: _____ Design of…

Describe briefly using keywords

Didactical issues addressed? Yes/ No?

Quality of the didactical elements towards reaching the teaching aims, scale 1 to 5 1=fits to the teaching objectives; 2=fits with minor weakness; 3=in between; 4= sufficiently; 5= not sufficiently to enable learning regarding teaching aims

1 Teaching aims are visible? 2 Learning activities are clear

and appropriate to reach teaching aims?

3 Feedback, assessment is process-based and/or other forms, which?

4 Social relations are visible in communication & collaboration among peers and teacher-student interaction?

5 a) Is there an added value of the iPad? b) Additionally: low/medium/high extent?

The two steps of the analysis include first the analysis of each observed classroom

towards their didactical groups, secondly, the summary of all analyzed classes with the guiding question of how many of the 15 classrooms can be seen as groups A, B and C didactical classrooms (inspired by Rogers, 2003).

The definition for the didactical groups A, B and C is as follows: A. Didactics group A= when 4-5 of these issues (in table 1) are covered and the quality of

the design to enabling learning is appropriate to reach the teaching objectives (1.0-2.4)

9

B. Didactics group B = when 2-4 of these issues are covered and the quality of the design to enabling learning fits with minor weakness to reach the teaching objectives (2.5-3.0).

C. Didactics group C = when only 2 or less issues are covered and the quality tends to be not sufficiently (3.1-5.0); or all issues are addressed but in a quality that is not useful to reach the teaching objectives. In addition to these didactical groups, the use of the iPads has been analyzed (element No

5b in table 1). The iPad use is defined as a low, medium and high extent. • The low extent of iPads shows a non-added value of using the iPad in the classroom

situation or it was not evident; for example, the iPad is just a substitute for pen and paper or textbook (low).

• A medium extent is assigned when the iPads within the classroom is more or less as a device that also could have been done with some sort of computer, laptop or even a stationary computer, for example, a substitute for a laptop with Internet access (medium).

• A high extent is when the use of the iPad device shows special characteristics or features where no other device can make it, for example, special apps, an one-in-all device, a multi-modal device (high). These two dimensions – didactical level and iPad use – together inform the level of

Digital Didactics. The analyzed data were checked by content validation and peer-review validation where at least 3 researchers checked the analysis of the data. Such a communicative validation was done by using the inter-subjective methods and is important to proof the quality of the research outcomes (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000).

Findings In this section, the results from case study 1, creativity in higher education to inform

how to observe creativity in teaching and learning, and then case study 2, creativity in iPad-classrooms, will be illustrated.

Case study 1 - Six rubrics of student creativity from teacher’s perspective The empirical result of DaVinci is a conceptual framework for understanding the

teachers’ conceptions on student’s creativity in higher education (Jahnke & Haertel, 2010) described in the following paragraphs.

According to the teachers, creativity in formal education can be observed through students’ behavior. The teachers were asked, “What is a creative effort (creative thinking/practice) given by your students? How can you see when your students are/were creative?”. The online survey was filled by 296 teachers who made 587 entries to this question. Then, we asked the teachers to match their given answers to the preliminary framework of 6 rubrics. These 6 rubrics were bottom-up developed from in-depth interviews (part A). The teachers in part B had the choice to match their answers to one, to more than one, to all six or to none of the following 6 rubrics (results in detail in Jahnke, Haertel, Wildt, submitted).

The result is that the teachers assign creativity to students in one or more of the following facets:

1) students show self-reflections 2) students make own decisions (independent from what the teachers want) 3) students show curiosity and motivation to learn 4) students create/produce something 5) students show multi-perspective thinking

10

6) students develop original, entirely new ideas. In table 2, empirical data from the interviews is provided.

Table 2. Teachers’ social construction of creativity in higher education – 6 aspects (A1-6)

Typical interview quotes, “How do you/teacher know when your students are/were creative? How can you see it?”

Bottom-up clustered 6 facets of student’s creativity from teachers’ perspective

“when the students produce totally new ideas what I as teacher never saw before”, “this is difficult, teachers only can enable the possibility of arrival of new ideas”, “when my students learn form mistakes to get totally new ideas”.

6) developing original, entirely new ideas

“When students change their perspective”, “multi-perspectives”, “when students break through routines and patterns of habits”, “when students take a different attitude”, “reduce prejudice”, “when students integrate provocations”, “deal with ambiguities”, “perpetually scrutinizing”.

5) multi-perspectives

“when students create something”, “when students create products”, “students conduct research-mode/inquiry based projects”, when students conduct aid and outreach projects like planning a congress”

4) creating/producing something

“When the students are curious about the topic”, “when students are engaged”, “students use their own experiences and connect it to theory”, “students show interesting ways to pose questions or problems”; “students establish a link from the theoretical topic to practice”; “when students use metaphors/humor to visualize the theoretical field”

3) curiosity and motivation

“When the students take the responsibility for steering the processes of their own learning”; “when students make own decisions”, “students decisions are independent from teacher’s assignments”

2) independent learning (making decisions)

“When the learner ‘constructs’ knowledge themselves rather than adopting it”; “when students do an internal dialog”, “when students breaking out of a receptive posture”, “students think critically”.

1) self-reflective learning

Case study 2 - Exploring creativity in iPad-classrooms

Following the teacher’s understanding of student’s creativity, a second study has been started in schools in Denmark, Odder community, which implemented a 1:1 iPad program. The aim was to explore the different teaching practices, in particular how the teaching practices are related to mobile devices, creativity and didactical designs (Jahnke, Norqvist, & Olsson, submitted). We assumed that there are different patterns of digital didactical designs and different arrangements on how the teachers support student’s creativity.

From the Digital Didactics point of view, a didactically well-designed classroom address all five elements of the Digital Didactics triangle. A constructive alignment is seen when teacher makes

1. the teaching objectives (intended learning outcomes) visible 2. designs learning activities (individual and collaborative learning) 3. designs and establishes process-based formative feedback and assessment 4. supports social relations and teacher-student- and student-student-interaction 5. and use technology that enhances learning

11

In a constructive alignment, the teacher applies teaching practices where the iPad has an added value to enable learning regarding the teaching objectives. The added value of an iPad is the use of its multimodality; the iPad is neither a substitute for pen/paper nor laptop.

From 15 observed classrooms, 14 classrooms supported the creativity rubric “students create something”. The range of the creativity design differs in three patterns:

• The teacher defines an assignment focusing on finding the correct solution but the way to get there, needs student’s creativity. = C

• The teacher defines an assignment in which the students can create something new where no correct answer exists. = B

• The teacher defines an assignment to students for transforming the problem into a new context and to make this visible (to show the teacher that the students understood the underlying concept) – learning where no correct answer exists. = A

Table 3. Analysis over all 15 classrooms No Class-

room Digital Didactics in practice (5 issues, Likert scale, 1=didactically well-designed; 5=didactically not sufficiently designed to reach teaching aims)

iPads (low-medium-high extent)

Creativity Rubric No 4 “creating sth.”

11 Physics K-9

Group A – mean=1.4, didactically well-designed; Collaborative production of experiments

High A

6 Reading skills, K-0

Group A – mean=1.6, didactically well-designed; Complex learning, creating a book review

High B

5 Math K-2

Group A – mean=2.0, didactically well-designed; Transforming a math story into a new math story

High A

4 Math K-1

Group A – mean=2.2, didactically well-designed; Collaboration in small group discussions about math

High B

10 Arts K-8

Group A – mean=2.2, didactically well-designed; Collaborative writing about arts

High B

8 Writing Skills, K-7

Group A – mean=1.4, didactically well-designed; Peer-reflective learning

Medium B

7 Music K-6

Group B – mean=2.6, didactically moderate-design; Collaborative productions of music, small groups

High B

15 Geography K-3

Group B – mean=2.6, didactically moderate-design; Groupwork, two students in a group to find distances

High C

2 Proverbs K-2

Group B – mean=2.6, didactically moderate-design; Creating a new story with Puppet Pals

Medium B

12 Geography K-5

Group B – mean=2.6, didactically moderate-design; Groupwork to create a presentation (Middle East)

Medium B

14 Language K-3

Group B – mean=3.0, didactically moderate-design; Individual learning to prepare a non-fiction story

Low C

3 History K-2

Group C – mean=3.4, didactically weak-design; Collaborative production of a movie and a book

High B

1 English K-6

Group C – mean=3.2, didactically weak-design; Individual production, recording own voice in English

Medium C

13 Preschool class, K-0

Group C – mean=3.4, didactically weak-design; Role-playing

Low - (play)

9 Biology K-1

Group C – mean=3.6, didactically weak-design; Creating a mind-map of student’s knowledge about a given animal

Low B

From the digital didactical design perspective, the observed classrooms can be

clustered in three didactical groups (see table 2) • Digital Didactical group A: 6 classrooms • Digital Didactical group B: 5 classrooms • Digital Didactical group C: 4 classrooms

12

However, the integration of the iPad also differs. The results show different levels of a

co-evolutionary development of didactical designs and mobile devices. The iPad were used in high, medium or low extent of use. When combining the didactical designs and the integration of the mobile devices, 8 of 15 classrooms can be classified as iPad-Didactics (group A with high/medium extent of iPad-use; group B with high extent of iPad-use). • iPad-didactics: 8 classrooms illustrate iPad-Didactics where the didactical group A and

the high extent of the iPad use is aligned (cases 11, 6, 5, 4, 10), where the didactical group is A (case 8) and where a moderate-design is enriched by a high extent of iPad use (cases 7, 15).

• Almost iPad-didactics: 4 classrooms have potential towards iPad-Didactics: o 3 classrooms show a didactical group B design with a medium or low extent of

iPad use (cases 2, 12, 14). o 1 classroom shows the didactical group is C, however, a high extent of iPad use.

The technology is a benefit for a rather weak alignment (case 3). • A rather weak design with potentials for improvements

o 3 classrooms illustrate a didactically weak-design and the extent of the iPad use in this context is medium or low (cases 1, 13, 9).

The analysis shows different patterns when combining the three levels a) didactical group, b) extent of iPad use and c) creativity. Looking closer to the 8 classrooms called iPad-Didactics, 7 classrooms support creativity in a way where the students got assignments to create something new where no correct solution is available (labeled as A or B): in 5 classrooms the assignment was to create something new, and in the other 2 classrooms, the learners got the assignment to transform the problem into a new context. In both designs, the teachers create a learning activity “where the answer to a problem is not known” (Fischer, 2011).

3 out of 15 classrooms focused on the correct solution only and did not support transformative learning (marked as C). 1 out of the 15 classrooms is a special case of creativity, here the students did not create something new, the creativity grounded in playing roles which the teachers assigned to them.

In the following sub-section, 3 classrooms of iPad-Didactics will be illustrated in

detail, cases no. 5, 11 and 8. Further descriptions are available in Jahnke & Kumar (in press).

Classroom No 5. Transformative learning (math). The students in grade 2 (7 years old), supported by a female teacher, got the

assignment to design mathematical stories transformed from a given problem delivered on a piece of paper. Such an already existing mathematical problem was for example a) “minigolf – count the points” and b) “Mike was 5 when I was born. I am now 4 years old, how old is my older brother now?”. The students got the task to transform the given math problem into a new story. To make the transformation of existing ‘math stories’ visible (e.g., the principle of additions), the students got the task to create comics. The students used the iPad to create the stories with the app called Strip Designer. The students used a template of Strip Designer and uploaded pictures from Google or from the camera roll (photos the students have taken), and they created speech bubbles and included text. In the creating phase, a change of communication patterns took place, the students were more active and a communication between the pupils started and helped each other.

Classroom No 11. Personalized learning (physics).

13

In the classroom of the physics, a male teacher and 15 students (8 girls and 7 boys) in the 9th grade participated. The main learning activity for the students was to design new experiments based on the prior knowledge the students gained the classes before. The aim was to apply the new knowledge and to show the teacher the learning outcome in the field of Sound, Light, Magnetism, Electricity and Chemistry. The teacher said to the students, “Please, show me something essential about sound or lights, and create a new experiment”.

While some students gathered and built groups and started the work, one group of 2 students was not sure how to start. The teacher created a new assignment for their personal needs. This group got the assignment to create a joint mindmap using the app Popplet. This student group collected their diverse knowledge and cretaed one mindmap to identify where the knowledge gap is. That gap served then as the starting point to plan the experiment. Other groups started with the experiment without making such a mindmap. At one experiment, there were up to 7 students working three pupils made. The students got the assignment to document their process of planning and conduction the experiment. The students shared the results in Dropbox and got feedback by the peers. In this example, the role of the iPad differs. It was a tool for documenting the process. The students used the Camera and Video recording features. They took photos and made podcasts. The students did podcast the preparation of the experiment in case the experiment would fail to show the teacher what the students have done so far and to analyze why it failed. The iPad was also used as a tool for resources to gain information (via Google/Bing, Youtube etc.), the students used the Textbook app (an app that have a lot of textbooks) and to share the documentation (Dropbox app). The students also used the app ProTuner (a tuning app) for illustrating frequencies in sounds.

Classroom No 8. Peer-Reflective learning (language).

This classroom is a K-7 class with 21 students (ca. 14 years old), 9 girls and 12 boys. The subject was Danish. The teaching objective was to improve writing skills in Danish, the mother tongue of the students. The female teacher did apply peer-reflections and she used a closed Facebook group for this task. The three steps of her design are as follows:

a) Individual assignment: Students wrote a story about something that happened in their childhood. The students used the app Pages and copied it into Facebook to get feedback from the other students as well as the teacher.

b) Peer feedback: The students made comments on the stories of the others by using the functionality of the “comment” button in Facebook. Such reviews were guided by the teacher. The students made their reviews by using those items from a list that the teacher created in advance. The teacher told in the interview that such a list is helpful to reflect both a) the own story, how it is written and b) to reflect the stories of the others. The teacher showed the guided list and the plan for the assignments. Thus, the students got an idea how to respond to their colleagues’ texts.

c) The teacher presented some of the reviews and the reviewed stories in the classroom face-to-face. The teacher used the Smartboard to present some of the stories on Facebook.

In a final activity the students revised their first drafts based on the comments on the others and uploaded the final version into Dropbox. In this classroom, the function of the iPad was reduced to deliver Internet access to Facebook.

Discussion While the small sample of the observed iPad-classrooms limits the generalizability of

the findings, the data provides useful insight into the ways in which iPads can be used for learner-centered, creative learning designs in a classroom using mobile devices. RQ 1. What are the teachers’ understandings and conceptions towards student creativity?

14

Creativity is closely connected to the creation of something. Case study 1 illustrated diverse rubrics to foster a creativity-friendly environment in formal education. The 6 rubrics illustrate the teachers’ conceptions how they see student’s creativity. The teachers assign creativity to students in one or more of the following facets:

1) students are creative when showing self-reflections 2) students are creative when making own decisions (independent from the teacher) 3) students are creative when showing curiosity and motivation to learn 4) students are creative when creating/producing something 5) students are creative when showing multi-perspective thinking 6) students are creative when developing original, entirely new ideas The rubrics are helpful for instructors, teachers and designers to support students to be

more creative in their learning activities, and to create designs that support student’s creativity.

RQ 2. Do the teachers in iPad-classrooms apply didactical concepts to foster creativity that students can be creative? If yes, which ones, and to what extent?

What the classrooms of iPad-Didactics have in common is that their digital didactical designs focus on action. The teachers made assignments were the students had to produce something and while doing so, the students reflected and learned. Being active while producing something can enable learning not only on the surface like remembering facts but also can deepen learning like critical thinking and self-reflections. To summarize, case study 2 pointed out that creativity in co-located classrooms, physical spaces enhanced by mobile technology, is especially supported when students create something (this relates to rubric No 4 of case study 1). The classrooms showed that creativity – to create something – plays a central role in the digital didactical designs. So, yes, the teachers applied digital didactical designs to enable creativity, at least with regard to one of the six creativity rubrics.

Looking closer into the classrooms and the rubric “creating something” in schools, the results show a differentiation of three sublevels bridging ‘learning what is known’ and ‘learning when the answer is not known’:

a) creating something new within a given context where no correct answer is available,

b) transforming something into a new context where no correct answer exists, and c) creating a solution when the answer is known but the way to get there is open

designed by the teachers and needs student’s creativity to solve the problem. It is obvious that such design for “creating something” requires a space for exploring,

playing and making mistakes – an informal open learning space in formal education (“informal-in-formal learning”; Jahnke, 2012). This is what the teachers in Odder did. The teachers combined traditional textbook readings with open-ended, unstructured space where “students are encouraged to experiment, play and explore topics on their own motivation” (Johnson et al., 2013).

RQ 3. Do the teachers use iPads in alignment with the didactical design to become an integrated balanced digital didactical design?

In the beginning of the studies, the question has been raised whether the iPad serves only as a textbook substitute or not. The classrooms showed that it was not the case. Instead, there is a range of different digital didactical designs. The teachers created new didactical approaches and transformed their traditional classrooms into a creative learning experience for students. At least in 7 cases it became obvious that iPad-Didactics has been applied which illustrates a constructive alignment of didactical designs, mobile technology and creativity.

15

Those digital didactical designs by the teachers have the characteristics of process-oriented rather than product-oriented learning. The teachers did not only focus on outcomes or exams/test only and did not expect students to reproduce the facts. The teachers had a learner-centered approach – the teachers allowed the students to learn by making mistakes, they wanted to challenge their students, and yet, the teachers did scaffold the learning process by providing feedback and personalizing the learning experience for students who struggled. In at least three of the detailed cases, the iPad served as a booster to enable learning as a process. The mobile technology, embedded into a didactical design, helped to make the learning process of the students visible to themselves and to the teacher.

Overall, the studies illustrated that Digital Didactics can not be limited to “didactical

designs + mobile technology”, it is rather a new combination and emergence of Digital Didactics including new key principles, a) focuses on learning as process, b) making learning visible, and c) combining both textbook reading and open spaces to boost creativity. In at least 7 classrooms, such an alignment of didactical designs, mobile technology and creativity was obvious.

All of the 15 classrooms showed that a didactical design by teachers matters to enable learning. Although in some of the classrooms the digital didactical designs were not sufficiently applied in practice to enable learning to reach the teaching objectives, still all of the classrooms illustrated the potential of iPad-Didactics. The observers could see the teachers’ passions for their job and their students. In addition, almost all of the interviewed teachers see themselves as “collaborative learners at work” (Goggins, Jahnke, & Wulf, 2013) open-minded for innovative designs. In knowing this, it becomes clear that some of classrooms are in the beginning and on an experimental stage – the teachers explore new ways of teaching to enable learning and it takes time to get there. When schools want to develop themselves, they have the responsibility to give teachers time to explore and experiment with new co-located teaching spaces enhanced by mobile technology.

Conclusion

Through Social Media, learning outside of schools (informal learning) and learning in schools (formal learning) is coming closer, for example, access to information to solve a problem is easier and faster than without mobile technology. Designers, teachers, schools and higher education institutions have to ask whether there is any difference in learning outside and inside of schools or not. If not, why do we have schools and universities? The paper here argues that there is a difference; the teacher can make the difference. The teacher makes deeper learning possible and triggers the students to go beyond their horizons. It is not enough to learn on the surface like remembering facts, understanding information and applying knowledge. When we want to support learners to become critical and reflective, skills like analyzing, evaluating, individual and collaborative creativity to develop new ideas are necessary. A teacher in such a role, asking uncomfortable questions, usually supports a learner to go further than just a person on herself. Teaching, that fosters deeper learning, needs the alignment of digital didactical designs, mobile devices and creativity. The empirical cases illustrate how to do those teaching practices, bridging learning what is known and learning when the answer is not known to push the learners on their way to deeper learning.

References Amabile, T., Hadley, C., & Kramer, S. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business

Review, 80, 52-61. Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative Researching with text, image and sound.

London: Sage.

16

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin: Middlesex. Bergström, P. (2012). Designing for the Unknown. Didactical Design for Process-based

Assessment in Technology-Rich Learning Environments. Umeå: University Press. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd ed. New York:

MCGrawHill. Boden, M.A. (1994). Precis of the creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 17, pp. 519-570. Bruck, P., & Lindner, M. (2008). Microlearning and Capacity Building. Proceedings of the

4th International Microlearning 2008. Innsbruck: University Press. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (Third Edition). New York: Oxford University

Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention. New York: Harper-Collins. Fink, D. L. (2003). Integrated Course Design. Idea paper #42. Idea Center, Kansas. Fischer, G. (2011). Social Creativity: Exploiting the Power of Cultures of Participation. In

Proceedings of SKG2011: 7th International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grids (pp. 1-8). Beijing, China.

Gardner H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.

Goggins, S.P., Jahnke, I. & Wulf, V. (2013). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace. New York: Springer.

Herrmann, Th. (2009). Design Heuristics for Computer Supported Collaborative Creativity. Conference Proceedings HICSS 2009 (pp. 1-10). Hawaii: University Press.

Herrmann, Th., Jahnke, I., & Loser, K.-U. (2004). The Role Concept as a Basis for Designing Community Systems. In F. Darses; R. Dieng; C. Simone; M. Zackland (Eds.), Cooperative Systems Design (pp. 163-178). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Hudson, B. (2008). A Didactical Design Perspective on Teacher Presence in an International Online Learning Community. Journal of Research in Teacher Education, Vol. 15, Issue 3-4, 93-112.

Jahnke, I., Norqvist, L., & Olsson, A. (2013). The Odder experience on iPads in schools- reflecting on digital didactical designs. Proceedings of EC-TEL 2013, Cyprus.

Jahnke, I. & Kumar, S. (in press). iPad-Didactics – Didactical Designs for iPad-classrooms: Experiences from Danish Schools and a Swedish University. In: Ch. Miller & A. Doering (Eds.), The New Landscape of Mobile Learning: Redesigning Education in an App-based World. London: Routledge.

Jahnke, I. (2012). Technology-Embraced Informal-in-Formal Learning. In A. Ravencroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. Delgado Kloos, D. Hernandez-Leo (Eds.), 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills. Proceedings of EC-TEL2012 (pp. 395-400). Berlin: Springer.

Jahnke, I., Bergström, P., Lindwall, K., Mårell-Olsson, E., Olsson, A., Paulsson, F., & Vinnervik, P. (2012). Understanding, Reflecting and Designing Learning Spaces of Tomorrow. In: I. Arnedillo Sanchez, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of IADIS Mobile Learning 2012 (pp. 147-156). Berlin.

Jahnke, I. (2011). How to Foster Creativity in Technology Enhanced Learning. In B. White, I. King, & Ph. Tsang (Eds.), Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments: Present and Future (pp. 95-116). New York: Springer.

Jahnke, I. (2010). Dynamics of social roles in a knowledge management community. In Computers in Human Behavior, 26, DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.010

Jahnke, I., & Haertel, T. (2010). Kreativitätsförderung in der Hochschule – ein Rahmenkonzept. Das Hochschulwesen, 3/2010, 88-96.

17

Jackson, N., & Shaw, M. (2006). Developing subject perspectives on creativity in Higher Education. In N. Jackson et al (Eds.). Developing Creativity in Higher Education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 89-108). London: Routledge.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Klafki W. (1997). Critical-constructive didactics. In Uljens M (Ed.), Didaktik (pp. 215-228). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Klafki, W. (1963). Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz. Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 3(45), 209-217. Lund, A. & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Designs for teaching and learning in technology-rich

learning environments. Digital kompetanse - Nordic journal of digital literacy (4), 258-272.

Mårell-Olsson, E. & Hudson, A. (2008). To Make Learning Visible: In what way can ICT and Multimedia Contribute? Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, 3, pp 73–90.

Pachler, N. (2007). Mobile Learning: Towards a Research Agenda. WLE Centre, IoE, London.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (5th edition) New York: Free Press. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning.

Proceedings of mLearn 2005 Conference, Cape Town. www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples.pdf

Sharples, M. (2006). Big issues in Mobile Learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative. LSRI. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Song, Y. (2007). Educational uses of handheld devices: What are the consequences? TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51(5), 38-45.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing, and Evaluation Mobile Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8 (2), 1-12.

Watson, E. (2007). Who or What Creates? A Conceptual Framework for Social Creativity. Human Ressource Development Review, 4 (6), 419-441.

Acknowledgement I want to thank Tobias Haertel from DaVINCI project funded by BMBF, Germany (2008-2011) for his great inspiration and work on creativity in higher education. I also want to thank PhD students Lars Norqvist and Andreas Olsson for their very active engagement in the Odder project and their support. Big thanks go to Lise Gammelby and all teachers in Odder, Denmark, especially I thank those teachers who let us participate in their classrooms and took part in our interviews. The teachers do a fantastic job, exploring new teaching designs to enable learning in the era of Social Media and mobile technology.

18