Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using iPad-based mobile learning to teach creative engineering within a problem-based learning pedagogy

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This case study, noting the increasing interest in iPad-based mobile learning research and aware of the current dearth of engineering talent in the UK, aims to contribute to a still sparse area of research that links iPad use to engineering education. To achieve this, the study investigates the integration of iPad-based mobile learning (M-learning) into a creative engineering (CE) module in a secondary school in England that has adopted a problem-based learning pedagogy. The findings indicate that iPad-based M-learning is compatible with the problem-based learning pedagogy underpinning the particular creative engineering module, both philosophically and practically, inside and outside the classroom. The integration of the iPad with problem-based CE pedagogy is able therefore to create a new M-learning pedagogical model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azer, S. A. (2001). Problem-based learning: Challenges, barriers and outcome issues. Saudi Medical Journal, 22(5), 389–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassey, M. (2012). Case studies. In A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman, & M. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 155–169). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Design for learning: Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackbourn, J. M., Papasan, B., Vinson, T. R., & Blackbourn, R. L. (2000). Leadership forthe coming millennium: Lessons from Deming, Glasser, and graves. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision-Electronic, 17E(4), 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluestein, S. A., & Kim, T. (2016). Expectations and fulfillment of course engagement, gained skills, and non-academic usage of college students utilizing tablets in an undergraduate skills course. Education and Information Technologies, 1-14.

  • Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, J., Kinash, S., Mathew, T., & Kordyban, R. (2011). iWant does not equal iWill: Correlates of mobile learning with iPads, e-textbooks, BlackBoard mobile learn and a blended learning experience. In ascilite (Vol. 1, pp. 168-178).

  • Bush, T. (2012). Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. In A. R. J. Briggs et al. (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership & management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers’ private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 251–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research method in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, F. K. (2002). Problem-based learning in engineering education: A catalyst for regional industrial development. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 1(1), 29–32.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, C. (1999). Ethnographic eyes: A teacher’s guide to classroom observation. USA, Portsmouth: Heinemann.

  • Giannakos, M. N., Pappas, I. O., Jaccheri, L., & Sampson, D. G. (2016). Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness. Education and Information Technologies, Online First, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9538-1.

  • Guerra, A., & Kolmos, A. (2011). Comparing problem based learning models: Suggestions for their implementation. In PBL across the disciplines: Research into best practice 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL 2011 (pp. 3-14).

  • Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). Back to the basics of teaching and learning (2nd edition): Thinking the world together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. In J. Davies, E. Graaff, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), PBL across the disciplines: Research into best practice. Aalborg University Press.

  • Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinash, S. (2011). It’s mobile, but is it learning? Educational Technology Solutions, 45, 56–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detectives PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. Paper presented at International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education.

  • Klopfer, E., Perry, J., Squire, K., Jan, M. F., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Mystery at the museum: A collaborative game for museum education. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 316-320). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Li, Y., & Liu, X. (2017). Integration of IPad-based M-learning into a creative engineering module in a secondary School in England. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, P., & Norton, B. (2004). Problem based management learning-better online? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 7(2), 1–8.

  • Marra, R.M., Palmer, B., Ulseth, R., & Johnson, B. (2011). The iron range engineering PBL curriculum: How students adapt to and function within PBL. In J. Davies, E. Graaff, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), PBL across the disciplines: Research into best practice. Aalborg University Press.

  • McFee, G. (1992). Triangulation in research: Two confusions. Educational Research, 34(3), 215–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (2004). Nominated sampling. In M. S. Lewis-Beck et al. (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49, 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, J., & Herrington, J. (2012). Mobilising authentic learning: Understanding theeducational affordances of the iPad. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/Wellington12/2012/images/custom/oldfield,_james_-_mobilising.pdf.

  • Savin-Baden, M. (2007). A practical guide to problem-based learning online. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, G., & Ophoff, J. (2013). Towards a method for mobile learning design. Issues inInforming Science and Information Technology, 10, 501–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, P. J. B. (2015). English e-learning in the virtual classroom and the factors that influence ESL (English as a second language): Taiwanese citizens’ acceptance and use of the modular object-oriented dynamic learning environment. Social Science Information, 54(2), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (2009). How to do your research project. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valstad, H. (2010). iPad as pedagogical device. Retrieved from http://www.iktogskole.no/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ipadasapedagogicaldevice-110222.pdf.

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Modern Language Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong, China

    Yulong Li & Lixun Wang

Authors
  1. Yulong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lixun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lixun Wang.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Sample interview questions: Interviews before class observation

  1. 1.

    What is teaching and learning like in CE, and is it different from other modules?

  2. 2.

    How is iPad-based M-learning incorporated into the CE pedagogy? Can you give some examples?

  3. 3.

    Does the CE module encourage iPad use? How?

  4. 4.

    What do you think of mobile learning?

  5. 5.

    What are your opinions on the advantages of iPad-based M-learning in CE?

  6. 6.

    What do you think of the improvement M-learning brings to teaching and learning?

  7. 7.

    How are CE teachers and students supported in the school?

  8. 8.

    How do teachers and students choose their apps?

1.2 Sample interview questions: Follow-up questions after class observation

  1. 1.

    What are the students doing, why are they not using iPad? Why are they using laptop instead?

  2. 2.

    What is the pedagogy? I heard that it’s problem based learning, is that the case?

  3. 3.

    How does this kind of pedagogy differ from the pedagogy used in other regular modules such as Science and Chemistry? What’s the difference during the teaching and learning?

  4. 4.

    How do they use iPad during the process of designing?

  5. 5.

    For general creative engineering, how is iPad incorporated into the teaching and learning?

  6. 6.

    Compared with other regular modules, do you think the creative engineering module encourages more iPad use?

  7. 7.

    What do you think of mobile learning? Is it an advantage in the study of creative engineering? Are there specific benefits?

  8. 8.

    What do you think of the abilities of creative engineering students? What abilities have they improved by using iPad?

  9. 9.

    What about the assessment, how do you assess them?

  10. 10.

    Are there limitations of using iPad in the study of creative engineering?

  11. 11.

    How can the use of iPad match the curriculum of creative engineering?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Wang, L. Using iPad-based mobile learning to teach creative engineering within a problem-based learning pedagogy. Educ Inf Technol 23, 555–568 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9617-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9617-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation