Search

Background: The substantial growth in gamification research has connected gamified learning to enhanced engagement, improved performance, and greater motivation. Similar to gamification, personalized learning analytics dashboards can enhance student engagement. Objectives: This study explores the student experiences and academic achievements using a gamified dashboard in a large, introductory STEM course. Methods: We examined two groups of students enrolled in different sections of a one‐semester‐long physical geology course with a total enrollment of 223 students. The only difference between the groups was that one had access to the dashboard. The data collection included students' assignments, overall performances, and exam scores. Students in both sections completed a Science Literacy Concept Inventory survey at the beginning and end of the term. Additionally, students completed an end‐of‐term survey containing open‐ended questions on their experience and interactions with specific elements. Results: Students shared mostly positive comments about their experience with the dashboard, and the final grade of students with access to the dashboard was 13% higher, on average, compared to their peers in the non‐dashboard section. Conclusion: With low costs and little time invested, gamified dashboards could have a significant impact on student performance in large STEM lecture courses. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Leaner dashboards that provide personalized feedback are linked to improved student performance in undergraduate STEM courses. However, students may be reticent to adopt dashboards, especially students in the middle range of the performance distribution, for whom the impact of the dashboard may be most significant.Prior research on gamification in STEM courses suggests that adding gameful elements like progress trackers, badges, and rewards can increase students' engagement in undergraduate coursework.The combination of personalized learning in dashboards and the motivational experience of gamification should boost student engagement, dashboard adoption, and ultimately foster academic achievement. What this paper adds: In this paper, we examine the differences in academic performance between students with and without access to a gamified learning dashboard in an undergraduate Geology course.We observe that students with access to the dashboard (the treatment group), outperform students without access (the control group). The greatest benefit is observed for students who use the dashboard more frequently.Students reported that the progress tracker, the badges, and the rewards all incentivized their use and provided useful feedback about their performance. Students who did not adopt the dashboard expressed a need for more detail about the tool and its purpose. Implications for practice and/or policy: Instructors and instructional designers for large enrollment undergraduate STEM courses should consider the affordances of gamified learner dashboards for increasing engagement and for providing synchronous feedback about learners' strategies in the course.Aligning the dashboard to the content of the curriculum—by ensuring that badges reflect key concepts‐ encouraged participation and helped students identify the utility of the tool. Dashboards should be personalized to individuals and to the course.Adding gameful elements in a low‐cost intervention for increasing adoption and engagement of dashboards in large enrollment introductory courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mobile learning studies often focus on teachers' perspectives. This study instead considers students' experiences of learning with mobile devices (i.e., m‐learning) in secondary school mathematics and science. Objectives: The research aims to describe the m‐learning experiences of secondary mathematics and science students, and to determine the extent to which distinctive pedagogical dimensions impact students' perceived learning. Methods: A survey instrument using the iPAC mobile pedagogical framework as a theoretical lens is developed and validated. This framework highlights three pedagogical dimensions: personalization, authenticity, and collaboration. Structural equation modelling is used to investigate how each dimension predicts students' perceived improvement in learning, whilst accounting for usage context, among a sample of students in schools where mobile devices are used extensively. Results and Conclusions: Students were in agreement that personalization was a characteristic of their m‐learning experiences, but authentic and collaborative learning were not as strongly featured. M‐learning activities fostering personalization were most important for improving perceived learning; authenticity and collaboration were also significant, but no differences in perceived learning improvement due to location were found. Authentic m‐learning and perceived improvement in learning with mobile devices were significantly higher in science than mathematics subjects. Implications: When teachers design m‐learning tasks that enhance personalization, collaboration, and authenticity, students are predicted to perceive improvements in their learning. The findings suggest that teachers should consider designing technology‐enhanced tasks that improve students' experiences of collaborative and authentic learning, particularly in mathematics for greatest gains in students' perceived improvement in learning. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic:Mobile learning studies often focus on teachers' perspectives and practices or expert commentaries.Issues of usability, access, engagement, motivation, and potential risk are often highlighted rather than pedagogical factors.Mobile technologies provide students with opportunities for more personalized and autonomous seamless experiences across learning contexts.Science teachers frequently use authentic and project‐based m‐learning opportunities, whilst mathematics teachers prefer didactic, drill and practice approaches.What this paper adds:This study focuses on students' m‐learning in secondary mathematics and science.A multi‐item scale considering aspects of authenticity, personalization, collaboration and context is developed and validated.Personalization in m‐learning activities are most important for perceived learning, followed by authenticity and collaboration.Science students report greater authenticity and perceived learning in m‐learning than mathematics students.Implications for practice and/or policy:Highlighting the student perspective is a valued lens to evaluate m‐learning pedagogy and outcomes in student learning.Efforts should be made to develop mobile pedagogies, particularly with respect to authenticity and collaboration.Teachers in mathematics would benefit most from examining practices that improve authenticity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet‐enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom. Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: ‐What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?‐Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)‐Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?‐Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).‐Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?‐What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice. Search Methods: The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand‐search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here. Selection Criteria: The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand‐held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta‐analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each. Main Results: A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g. a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully. Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post‐test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings. Authors' Conclusions: Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]