Research Article

Results from a Study for Teaching Human Body Systems to Primary School Students Using Tablets

Emmanuel Fokides 1 * , Aikaterini Mastrokoukou 1
More Detail
1 University of the Aegean, Greece* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), April 2018, 154-170, https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.414808
OPEN ACCESS   2589 Views   1368 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the results from a study which examined whether tablets together with a mobile application with augmented reality features can help students to better understand the functions of the respiratory and the circulatory system. The target group was 75 sixth-grade primary school students, divided into three groups. The first group was taught conventionally; students studied using a printed handbook. In the second, a constructivist teaching model was used, but the instruction was not technologically enhanced. The third group of students used tablets and an application, and the teaching was based on a slightly modified version of Bybee's 5Es model. All three groups of students worked in pairs, they were taught the same learning material, and the teacher acted as a facilitator of the process. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire and evaluation sheets. Results indicated that students in the third group outperformed students in the other two groups. The results can be attributed to students' enjoyment, motivation, and positive attitude towards the use of tablets as well as to the teaching method. The study's implications are also discussed. 
Keywords: Augmented reality, Circulatory system, Mobile applications, Tablet computers

CITATION (APA)

Fokides, E., & Mastrokoukou, A. (2018). Results from a Study for Teaching Human Body Systems to Primary School Students Using Tablets. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), 154-170. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.414808

REFERENCES

  1. Akcayir, M, & Akcayir, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
  2. Akcayir, M., Akcayir, G., Pektas, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054
  3. Allen, M. (2014). Misconceptions in primary science. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
  4. Al-Mashaqbeh, I., & Al Shurman, M. (2015). The adoption of tablet and e-textbooks: first grade core curriculum and school administration attitude. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(21), 188-194.
  5. Alyahya, S. & Gall, J. E. (2012). iPads in education: A qualitative study of students’ attitudes and experiences. In T. Amiel, & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012 (pp. 1266-1271). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  6. Arnaudin, M. W. & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721-733. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690513
  7. Billinghurst, M. & Dunser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56-63. doi: 10.1109/MC.2012.111
  8. Boticki, I., Baksa, J., Seow, P., & Looi, C-K. (2015). Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school. Computers & Education, 86, 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.015
  9. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848
  10. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scatter, P., Carlson-Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). BSCS SE instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
  11. Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F-K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018
  12. Chen, C-H., Huang, C-Y., & Chou, Y-Y. (2017). Integrating augmented reality into blended learning for elementary science course. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Education Technology, 68-72. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029387.3029417
  13. Cheng, K-H. & Tsai, C-C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9405-9
  14. Chi, M. T. H., Chiu, M., & DeLeeuw, N. (1991). Learning in a non-physical science domain: The human circulatory system. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.
  15. Clarke, B. & Svanaes, S. (2014). Tablets for schools: an updated literature review on the use of tablets in education. Retrieved on 16 September 2017 from http://maneele.drealentejo.pt/site/images/Literature-Review-Use-of-Tablets-in-Education-9-4-14.pdf
  16. Corder, G. W. & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: Α step-by-step approach. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118165881
  17. Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  18. Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: a systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
  19. Domingo, M. G. & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
  20. Driver, R. & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
  21. Dundar, H. & Akcayir, M. (2014). Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.020
  22. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
  23. Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6, 241-252. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181
  24. Ferdousi, B. & Bari, J. (2015). Infusing mobile learning into undergraduate courses for effective learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 307-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.476
  25. Fitzgerald, E., Taylor, C., & Craven, M. (2013). To the Castle! A comparison of two audio guides to enable public discovery of historical events. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(4), 749-760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0624-0
  26. Fleck, S. & Simon, G. (2013). An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: an exploratory study. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, 14-22. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534903.2534907
  27. Fokides, E. & Atsikpasi, P. (2017). Tablets in education. Results from the initiative ETiE, for teaching plants to primary school students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2545-2563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9560-3
  28. Forsthuber, B., Motiejunaite, A., & de Almeida-Coutinho, A. S. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
  29. Fulantelli, G., Taibi, D., & Arrigo, M. (2015). A framework to support educational decision making in mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.045
  30. Furió, D., Juan, M-C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: a comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12071
  31. Garcia-Barros, S., Martínez-Losada, C., & Garrido, M. (2011). What do children aged four to seven know about the digestive system and the respiratory system of the human being and of other animals? International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2095-2122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.541528
  32. Gatt, S. & Saliba, M. (2006). Young children’s ideas about the heart. In M. F. Costa, & B. V. Dorrío (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Hands-on Science. Science Education and Sustainable Development, 17-23.
  33. Gorhan, M. F., Oncu, S., & Senturk, A. (2014). Tablets in education: Outcome expectancy and anxiety of middle school students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(6), 2259-2271.
  34. Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2015). Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12123
  35. Harlen, W. & Qualter, A. (2014). The teaching of science in primary schools (6th ed.). Routledge.
  36. Hellenic Ministry of Education (2011). Διαθεματικό ενιαίο πλαίσιο προγραμμάτων σπουδών [Unified curricular framework]. Retrieved on 16 September 2017 from http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/
  37. Huang, K-L., Chen, K-H., & Ho, C-H. (2014). Enhancing learning outcomes through new e-textbooks: a desirable combination of presentation methods and concept maps. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 600-618. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.538
  38. Ibáñez, M. B., Di Serio, Á., Villarán, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004
  39. Kesim, M. & Ozarslan, Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: current technologies and the potential for education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 297-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.654
  40. Mang, C. F. & Wardley, L. J. (2013). Student perceptions of using tablet technology in post-secondary classes. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), 1-16.
  41. Mintzes, J. J. (1984). Naïve theories in biology: Children’s concepts of the human body. School Science and Mathematics, 84(7), 548-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1984.tb10179.x
  42. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
  43. Murphy, G. D. (2011). Post-PC devices: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in tertiary environments. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1), 18-32.
  44. Ozgur, S. (2013). The persistence of misconceptions about the human blood circulatory system among students in different grade levels. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8(2), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2013.206a
  45. Reiss, M. J. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research on Science Education, 31(3), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013116228261
  46. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
  47. Sad, S. N. & Goktas, Ö. (2014). Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 606-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12064
  48. Safadel, P. & White, D. (2017). A comparative analysis of augmented reality and two-dimensional using molecular modeling on student learning. In P. Resta, & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp.1774-1776). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  49. Sharples, M. & Roschelle, J. (2010). Guest editorial: Special issue on mobile and ubiquitous technologies for learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TLT.2010.7
  50. Shuler, C., Levine, Z., & Ree, J. (2012, January). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
  51. Sun, D., Looi, C-K., Wu, L., & Xie, W. (2016). The innovative immersion of mobile learning into a science curriculum in Singapore: an exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 547-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9471-0
  52. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre. Retrieved on 16 September 2017 from https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FBlob%2Fpdf2687.pdf%3Fk%3D2687
  53. Tracana, R. B., Varanda, I., Viveiros, S., & Carvalho, G. S. (2012). Children’s conceptions about respiration before and after formal teaching: identification of learning obstacles. Proceedings of the XV IOSTE Symposium (International Organization for Science and Technology Education)-The use of Science and Technology Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, 1-11.
  54. UK Department of Education. (2015). National curriculum in England: science programmes of study. Retrieved on 16 September 2017 from https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study#key-stage-3
  55. van Krevelen, D. W. F. & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.
  56. Wilkinson, K. & Barter, P. (2016). Do mobile learning devices enhance learning in higher education anatomy classrooms? Journal of Pedagogic Development, 6(1), 14-23.
  57. Windschitl, M. A. (1995). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations (Paper 15946). Retrieved on 16 September 2017 from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16945&context=rtd
  58. Wu, H-K., Lee, S. W-Y., Chang, H-Y., & Liang, J-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
  59. Zydney, J. M. & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001