Advertisement

PROSPECTS

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 99–118 | Cite as

Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE)

  • Elizabeth BucknerEmail author
  • Paul Kim
Open File

Abstract

Despite the long-standing interest in educational technology reforms, many researchers have found that it is difficult to incorporate advanced information and communications technologies (ICT) in classrooms. Many ICT projects, particularly in the developing world, are limited by the lack of integration between pedagogy and technology. This article presents a framework for integrating ICT technology and inquiry-based pedagogies in classroom settings: the Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE). It then outlines findings from a series of studies that tested SMILE’s effectiveness in various country contexts. SMILE successfully spurs student questioning and changes student-teacher dynamics in class. On the other hand, school and country contexts influence students’ initial abilities to form deep inquiries, and SMILE is more difficult to implement in areas where rote memorization pedagogies are typical. The authors advocate further research on the effect of long-term interventions.

Keywords

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

References

  1. Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, R. R. (2000). The critical role of students’ questions in literacy development. Educational Forum, 64(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  5. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodds, R., & Mason, C. Y. (2005). Cell phones and PDAs hit K-6. Education Digest, 70(8), 52–53.Google Scholar
  11. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelley, A. (2006). Quality criteria for design research: Evidence and commitments. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 107–118). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Kim, P. (2009). Action research approach on mobile learning design for the underserved. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T., Lee, B., et al. (2011). Socioeconomic strata, mobile technology, and education: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, P., Miranda, T., & Olaciregui, C. (2008). Pocket School: Exploring mobile technology as a sustainable literacy education option for underserved indigenous children in Latin America. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(4), 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B. H., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mosteller, F. (1989). The “muddiest point in the lecture” as a feedback device. On Teaching and Learning: The Journal of the Harvard-Danforth Center, 3, 10–21.Google Scholar
  19. Muller, J., Sancho Gil, J. M., Hernandez, F., Giro, X., & Bosco, A. (2007). The socio-economic dimensions of ICT-driven educational change. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1175–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pea, R. D., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 427–442). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pietrzyk, C., Semich, G., Graham, J., & Cellante, D. (2011). Mobile technology in education. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 640–650). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  23. Plomp, T. (2009). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–36). Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  24. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Schuler, C. (2012). iLearn: An analysis of the education category Apple’s app store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  26. Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution to problem? International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seol, S., Sharp, A., & Kim, P. (2011). Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE): Using mobile phones to promote student inquiries in the elementary classroom. http://gse-it.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/worldcomp11_SMILE.pdf.
  28. Shah, N. (2011). A blurry vision: Reconsidering the failure of the One Laptop Per Child Initiative. WR, 3, 89. http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/files/2011/10/Shah1011.pdf.
  29. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Warschauer, M. (2012, spring). The digital divide and social inclusion. Americas Quarterly. http://www.americasquarterly.org/warschauer.
  33. Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world? Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  34. Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G., & Walsh, A. (1997). Prompting teachers’ constructive reflection: Pupils’ questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1025–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willoughby, K. (1990). Introduction: The concept of technology choice. In K. Willoughby (Ed.), Technology choice: A critique of the appropriate technology movement (pp. 3–14). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodward, C. (1992). Raising and answering questions in primary science: Some considerations. Evaluation & Research in Education, 6(2–3), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yu, F. Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A web-based learning system for question-posing and peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO IBE 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations