Using Smartphones as Experimental Tools—Effects on Interest, Curiosity, and Learning in Physics Education
Smartphones as experimental tools (SETs) offer inspiring possibilities for science education, as their built-in sensors allow many different measurements, but until now, there has been little research that studies this approach. Due to current interest in their development, it seems necessary to provide empirical evidence about potential effects of SETs by a well-controlled study. For the present investigation, experiments were developed that use the smartphones’ acceleration sensors to investigate an important topic of classical mechanics (pendulum). A quasi-experimental repeated-measurement design, consisting of an experimental group using SETs (smartphone group, SG, NSG = 87) and a control group working with traditional experimental tools (CG, NCG = 67), was used to study the effects on interest, curiosity, and learning achievement. Moreover, various control variables were taken into account. With multiple-regression analyses and ANCOVA, we found significantly higher levels of interest in the SG (small to medium effect size). Pupils that were less interested at the beginning of the study profited most from implementing SETs. Moreover, the SG showed higher levels of topic-specific curiosity (small effect size). No differences were found for learning achievement. This means that the often-supposed cognitive disadvantage of distracting learners with technological devices did not lead to reduced learning, whereas interest and curiosity were apparently fostered. Moreover, the study contributes evidence that could reduce potential concerns related to classroom use of smartphones and similar devices (increased cognitive load, mere novelty effect). In sum, the study presents encouraging results for the under-researched topic of SET use in science classrooms.
KeywordsSmartphones Technology-based activities Secondary education Physics education Interest Curiosity
Generous financial support by the “Wilfried-und-Ingrid-Kuhn-Stiftung” for the doctoral thesis of Katrin Hochberg is gratefully acknowledged. The current paper is based largely on this thesis.
This study was funded by the “Wilfried-und-Ingrid-Kuhn-Stiftung”.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Katrin Hochberg declares that she has no conflict of interest. Jochen Kuhn declares that he has no conflict of interest. Andreas Müller declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Bahtaji, M. A. A. (2015). Improving transfer of learning through designed context-based instructional materials. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 265–274.Google Scholar
- Baker, G. L., & Blackburn, J. A. (2005). The pendulum. A case study in physics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Barkham, P., & Moss, S. (2012). Should mobile phones be banned from schools? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/27/should-mobiles-be-banned-schools. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Beech, M. (2014). The pendulum paradigm. Boca Raton, Florida: Brown Waler Press.Google Scholar
- Beland, L. P., & Murphy, R. (2015). Ill communication: technology, distraction & student performance. Centre for economic performance. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1350.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- CBC News. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom: a teacher’s dream or nightmare? CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/smartphones-in-the-classroom-a-teacher-s-dream-or-nightmare-1.3211652. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63.Google Scholar
- Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5(2).Google Scholar
- Falk, J., & Balling, J. (1979). Setting a neglected variable in science education: investigations into outdoor field trips. Edgewater, MD: Smithsonian Institution, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environment Studies.Google Scholar
- Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M. & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and longterm consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of educational psychology, 92(2), 316.Google Scholar
- Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In N. Meshkati & P. A. Hancock (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Heller, K., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4.-12.Klassen, Revision (KFT 4-12+R). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
- Jeffreys, B. (2015). Can a smartphone be a tool for learning? BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34389063. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Klein, P., Kuhn, J., Müller, A., & Gröber, S. (2015). Video analysis exercises in regular introductory mechanics physics courses: effects of conventional methods and possibilities of mobile devices. In A. Kauertz, H. Ludwig, A. Müller, J. Pretsch, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Multidisciplinary research on teaching and learning (pp. 270–288). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Kost-Smith, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: the incremental effects of a “smog of bias”. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020112.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, J., & Vogt, P. (2013). Smartphones as experimental tools: different methods to determine the gravitational acceleration in classroom physics by using everyday devices. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, J., & Vogt, P. (2015). Smartphones & Co. in physics education: effects of learning with new media experimental tools in acoustics. In W. Schnotz, A. Kauertz, H. Ludwig, A. Müller, & J. Pretsch (Eds.), Multidisciplinary research on teaching and learning (pp. 253–269). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
- Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media, and technology overview 2015. PewResearchCenter. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/#. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Main, S., & ORourke, J. (2011). “New directions for traditional lessons”: can handheld game consoles enhance mental mathematics skills? Australian Journal of Teacher Eduation, 36(2), 43–55.Google Scholar
- Mathews, J. (2015). Are smartphones dumbing down school, or are they vital learning tools? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/are-smartphones-dumbing-down-school-or-are-they-vital-learning-tools/2015/10/25/3e278ac8-7a27-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html?utm_term=.736cb682baa4. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Weiterbildung Rheinland Pfalz [MBWW]. (n.d.). Lehrplan Physik: Gymnasium Sek. II. Bildungsserver. https://lehrplaene.bildung-rp.de/no-cache/gehezu/startseite.html?tx_pitsdownloadcenter_pitsdownloadcenter%5Bcontroller%5D=Download&tx_pitsdownloadcenter_pitsdownloadcenter%5Baction%5D=forceDownload&tx_pitsdownloadcenter_pitsdownloadcenter%5Bfileid%5D=NzQ0NDc%3D. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 85(3), 424–436.Google Scholar
- Molz, A. (2016). Verbindung von Schülerlabor und Schulunterricht – Auswirkungen auf Motivation und Kognition im Fach Physik. München: Verlag Dr. Hut.Google Scholar
- Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology—promise and pitfalls. In L. M. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, Conn.: IAP.Google Scholar
- Moshinsky, M., & Smirnov, Y. F. (1996). The harmonic oscillator in modern physics (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Müller, R. (2006). Physik in interessanten Kontexten. Handreichung für die Unterrichtsentwicklung. https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/Medien-DB/ifdn-physik/physik-in-interessanten-kontexten-rmueller.pdf. Physik im Kontext. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- National Science Foundation. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: report of the National Science Board on pre-college education in mathematics, science and technology. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2007). PISA 2006 (Vol. 2: Data). Pisa: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2015). Students, computers and learning: making the connection. Pisa: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- PASCO Scientific. (2015). SPARKvue (Version 2.3.2). PASCO Scientific. https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/sparkvue/id361907181?mt=8. Accessed 21 March 2017.
- 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 eLearning research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivaraite statistics. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
- Wild, E., Hofer, M., & Pekrun, R. (2001). Psychologie des Lerners. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie - Ein Lehrbuch (pp. 207–270). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
- Williams, J. B. (2007). Assertion‐reason multiple‐choice testing as a tool for deep learning: a qualitative analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 287–301.Google Scholar