Over the past few months, I have spent lots of time thinking about software and technology applications. How do we use Google Meet or Zoom to lead a class? Is Flipgrid or Marco Polo better for sharing quick videos among class members? What word cloud app will integrate seamlessly with my presentation?
This week, however, to quote the irrepressible Olivia Newton John, I say let’s get physical!
I confess that I don’t spend much time thinking about hardware. In part, this is because most of our hardware
– like our laptops and our Boxlight interactive whiteboards – is selected for
us by district-level technology staff and almost magically (or, uh, after many
calls to tech support) arrives in our classroom and works as planned. In part, this is because, unlike many library
media specialists, physical technology is not in my wheelhouse but in that of my
Instructional Technology Specialist partner, Ms. Powe. The makerspace, which is where a lot of
physical tech seems to enter school libraries, is her domain, not mine.
_______________________________________________
Lucy Santos Green – who happens to be the professor for my class – reminds us in her 2014 article for Knowledge Quest that technology integration is a key role for library media specialists and that “becoming effective technology leaders involves shifting the focus of our efforts from promoting technology tools and usage to supporting teachers in designing technology-enabled experiences” (p. 42). Whether the issue is hardware or software, we need to be able to evaluate and select tools that enhance a student-centered pedagogy.
There are a few proposals for evaluating technology for this purpose:
- SAMR, the validity of which Green justifiably calls into question (2014)
- The R.A.T. Model based upon research by Joan Hughes (2020)
- The Florida Center for Instructional Technology’s (2019) Technology Integration Matrix
- Kearney, Schuck, Burden, and Aubusson’s (2012) M-learning framework
Of these, I find Kearney, et al.’s (2012) framework to be most instructive due to its consideration of three specific features of student-based learning
over time and space. This framework
encourages technology integration leaders to ask three key questions:
1.
Does the tool give the learner control? (Personalization)
2.
Does the tool provide “real world relevance
and personal meaning to the learner” (p. 9)? (Authenticity)
3.
Does the tool promote sense-making through
dialog? (Collaboration)
______________________________________________
So, to which hardware will I apply this lens? Being in the library and being a fan of books, my mind immediately goes to eReaders. Anyone else have a couple of these laying around?
Not just me, right? It seems eReaders were all the rage a few years ago. Not only did I go through a couple, but in the first half of the decade now ending, a number of bloggers were also looking at eReaders and their usefulness in the classroom:
- Travis Jonker in 2012 for School Library Journal’s blog, 100 Scope Notes
- Buffy Hamilton, checking out the new Nook in 2011 for her blog, The Unquiet Librarian
- Heather Schugar, Carol Smith, and Jordan Schugar for Reading Rockets in around 2013 (based on the date of publication of their identically named article)
- Audrey Watters in 2012 for School Library Journal’s blog, The Digital Shift
Jenaca Fredheim even created a Wiki on their use, and the journal TechTrends
published an article. But not long after
this, the excitement over eReaders died down, thanks, I believe, to the introduction
of the Kindle app that can be used on any device and the explosive ubiquity of
multi-purpose tablets and phones-used-as-mini-tablets.
My question becomes: are eReaders obsolete or, under the M-learning framework, do they
hold potential for our learners?
-----
Before I get into the analysis, I’d like to mention cost. Many early comments about eReaders noted cost (Hamilton, 2011; Jonker, 2012; Schugar, Smith, & Schugar, 2013; Watters, 2012), but dedicated eReaders are now fairly inexpensive, with the cost of a Kindle as low as $90 (Amazon.com, 2020). Additionally, I am surely not the only person with unused e-readers gathering dust at home who may be interested in donating them to a school library.
----
Back to the M-learning framework!
1. Personalization:
Schugar, Smith, and Schugar (2013) caution us to ask, “Will the e-reader allow access to content that is different or better suited to the task?” (p. 623), a question well-suited to the M-learning framework’s personalization element I do think that eReaders have the potential to provide a fairly high level of learner control over task-specific content. As Watters (2012) notes when discussing Kindle features that excite learners: “Start with the built-in dictionary and then add highlighting, variable font sizes, text-to-speech, and note-taking capabilities. There’s also a ‘popular highlights’ feature, whereby readers can see the most frequently highlighted passages, and that’s been a great ‘conversation starter’—even among second graders, says Parker—to encourage literary criticism, of sorts” (para. 5). Because eReaders are easily portable (and allow for the portability of far more books at one time than most of us want to carry around in print), they facilitate providing the “just enough, just-in-time, just-for me” sort of learning that Kearney, et al., discuss (2012, p. 9). Jonker (2012), Hamilton (2011), and Watters (2012) all note the value of this type of personalized content in literature reading circles. With costs of eReaders declining, I can envision a student – perhaps a student with limited library access or limited internet access – leaving school for the summer with a charger and an eReader stocked with a curated collection of books, and a librarian not worrying too much if the device doesn’t return.
2. Authenticity:
The M-learning framework asks us to consider whether technology centers learning in real-world practice and relevance for the learner. eReaders, while they may appear to have been rendered outdated by multi-use tablets, do nonetheless provide the opportunity for “rich, contextual tasks” (Kearney, et al., 2012, p. 11) that have “real world relevance” (Kearney, et al., 2012, p. 10). Certainly, reading on a device is a modern task in which many people engage in the “real world” outside of school. As Union, Walker Union, and Green note, our students “have grown up in an era in which computers and digital technologies are ubiquitous in their vernacular speech and skill sets” (p. 71). Having access to a range of curated textual content in a single, portable device can provide learners with the opportunity to practice real-world activities of research, reading, and content curation.
3. Collaboration
Under the M-learning framework, the collaboration aspect considers whether technology supports dialogue and the creation of content by the learner in a community of learners. Does the technology encourage learners to engage in sense-making through conversation? While using an eReader can be a solitary activity, it does promote the ability of learners to engage in community activities, such as the literature circles I note above. With some eReaders, content could be shared among readers in different locations without having to mail printed copies of books. It is less clear whether eReaders provide the sort of networked, learner-generated content creation that Kearney, et al. (2012), envision.
______________________________________________
Where does this analysis leave me?
References
Amazon.com. (2020). Kindle. https://www.amazon.com/b/?node=6669702011&ref=ODS_v2_FS_KINDLE_category
Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2019). The technology
integration matrix. FCIT. https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/
Fredheim, J. (2012, March 4). Using e-readers in the classroom.
http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Using_E-Readers_in_the_Classroom
Green, L. S. (2014). Through the looking glass: Examining technology
integration in school librarianship. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36-43.
Hamilton, B. J. (2011, August 11). Next steps in the eReader
journey: The Nook Simple Touch. The Unquiet Librarian. https://theunquietlibrarian.com/2011/08/11/next-steps-in-the-ereader-journey-the-nook-simple-touch/
Hughes, J. E. (2020). Replacement, amplification, and
transformation: The R. A. T. model. TechEdges. https://techedges.org/r-a-t-model/
Jonker, T. (2012, February 18). Lending e-readers in the school library
(Part II: Planning). 100 Scope Notes, School Library Journal. http://100scopenotes.com/2012/02/18/lending-e-readers-in-the-school-library-part-ii-planning/
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012).
Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning
Technology, 20. DOI:10.3402/rlt.v2010.14406
Newton-John, O. (2009, December 24). Physical (official video) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/vWz9VN40nCA
Schugar, H., Smith, C., & Schugar, J. (n.d.). Teaching with interactive picture e-books in grades K-6. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/teaching-interactive-picture-e-books-grades-k-6
Schugar, H.R., Smith, C.A. &
Schugar, J.T. (2013). Teaching with interactive picture e-books in grades K–6.
The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 615-624. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1168
Union, C. D., Walker Union, L.,
& Green, T. (2015). The use of eReaders in the classroom and at home to
help third-grade students improve their reading and English/language arts
standardized test scores. TechTrends, 59(5), 71-81. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-015-0893-3
Watters, A. (2012, February 1). The truth about tablets: Educators
are getting iPads and eReaders into students’ hands – but it’s not easy. The
Digital Shift, School Library Journal. http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/02/ebooks/the-truth-about-tablets-educators-are-getting-ipads-and-ereaders-into-students-hands-but-its-not-easy/
