Abstract
Technology-enhanced instructional delivery is increasingly becoming the norm in the delivery of the engineering curriculum. Electronic inking is one such technology that has proven to afford enhanced learning experiences such as supporting note taking and sharing, including real-time distributed conversation. However, despite its proven benefits including other classroom technologies, several institutions still struggle with university-wide implementation or department-wide adoption. We review the key developments that some signature engineering schools have undertaken to foster the use of inking technology in the last two decades. We also examine the different aspects of inking as a classroom tool that makes learning in the 21st Century more enriching. While there are a plethora of studies that highlight computer use or other novel technologies in education, we demonstrate a couple of success stories and best practices for implementing inking technology in science and engineering disciplines. Findings from the review indicate that effective integration of inking pedagogies in delivering instruction spurs higher student engagement with content which in turn contributes to better learning outcomes/gains.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Gilfus Educational Group, Education strategy, research and implementation; http://www.gilfuseducationgroup.com/.
References
Amelink CT, Scales G, Tront JG (2012) Student use of the tablet PC: impact on student learning behaviors. Adv Eng Educ 3(1):1–17
Barber DA (2012) 5 higher ed tech trends for 2012 [Online Article]. Campus Technology Digital Magazine. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
Berg BL, Lune H (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson, Boston
Cooper H, Dorr N (1996) Conducting a meta-analysis. In: Leong FTL, Austin JT (eds) The psychology research handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Craik FI, Lockhart RS (1972) Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 11(6):671–684
Creswell JW (2013) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Dodds K, Callender D, Henry C (2012) Making a case for technology in academia. Coll Res Libr. pp crl12-380
Driscoll MP, Driscoll MP (2005) Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights
Easterday M, Lewis DR, Gerber E (2013) Formative feedback in digital lofts: learning environments for real world innovation. In: AIED Workshops. Citeseer
Fons J (2010) A year without paper: tablet computers in the classroom. Phys Teach 48(7):481–483
Frolik J, Weller T, Flikkema P, Haden C (2010) Implementing an inverted classroom using table pcs for content development. In: Reed RH, Berque DA (eds) The impact of tablet PCs and pen-based technology on education: going mainstream. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 21–29
Galligan L, Loch B, McDonald C, Taylor JA (2010) The use of tablet and related technologies in mathematics teaching. Aust Sr Math J 24(1):38–51
Garrick RD, Koon M (2010) Using tablet PCs and pen-based technology to address poor student performance in an engineering technology class. The impact of tablet PCs and pen-based technology on education: going mainstream. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, p 176
Iding M, Crosby ME (2013) Going beyond access: on-line education in Hawaii and the Pacific islands. Educ Inf Technol 18(2):245–252
Kadiyala M, Crynes BL (2000) A review of literature on effectiveness of use of information technology in education. J Eng Educ 89(2):177–189
Kettunen J et al (2011) Innovation pedagogy for universities of applied sciences. Creat Educ 2(01):56–62
Kothaneth S (2012) The relationship between organizational culture, usability, and instructional technology acceptance. Ph.D. thesis. Retrieved from Virginia Tech ETD database
Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Lam J, Duan CG (2012) A review of mobile learning environment in higher education sector of Hong Kong: technological and social perspectives. Hybrid learning. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 165–173
Lam P, Tong A (2012) Digital devices in classroom-hesitations of teachers-to-be. Electron J e-Learn 10(4):387–395
Maclaren P, Singamemni S, Wilson DL (2012) Technologies for engineering education. In: Global congress on manufacturing and management, GCMM2012
McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Mumper RJ (2014) The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med 89(2):236–243
Mohammadi-Aragh M, Williams C (2013) Students’ perceptions of tablet PC interaction techniques. Comput Educ 23(2)
Moore E, Hayes M (2008) Enhancing distributed learning environments with tablet PC technology and software. In: Proceedings of the 2008 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition
Moore E, Utschig TT, Haas K, Klein B, Yoder P, Zhang Y, Hayes MH et al (2008) Tablet PC technology for the enhancement of synchronous distributed education. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 1(2):105–116
Price E, Simon B (2009) Ubiquitous presenter: a tablet PC-based system to support instructors and students. Phys Teach 47(9):570–573
Romney C et al (2011) Tablet PC use in freshman mathematics classes promotes stem retention. In: Frontiers in education conference (FIE), 2011. IEEE, pp F1J–1
Salomon G (1990) Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Commun Res 17(1):26–44
Shulman LS (2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus 134(3):52–59
St. Clair S, Baker NC (2003) Faculty use and impressions of courseware management tools: a national survey. J Eng Educ 92(2):123–131
Sutherland I (1963) Sketchpad: a man-machined graphical communication system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge. Demonstrated on MIT’s Lincoln Lab
Sutherland IE (1964) Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system. In: Proceedings of the SHARE design automation workshop. ACM, pp 6–329
Zammit K (2013) Using information and communication technologies to engage students in the later years of schooling in learning content and literacy: case studies of three teachers. Educ Inf Technol 18(2):205–214
Zhao Y, Pugh K, Sheldon S, Byers J (2002) Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teach Coll Rec 104(3):482–515
Acknowledgments
This work is based on research supported by the National Science Foundation Grant #1140425, funding the Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES) research in Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pokorski, D., Okoth, D., Nandy, V., Fowlin, J., Amelink, C., Scales, G. (2016). Inking Pedagogy. In: Hammond, T., Valentine, S., Adler, A. (eds) Revolutionizing Education with Digital Ink. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31191-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31193-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)