why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/cv/why laptop schools...development...

14
Page 1 Why laptop schools still use printed learning materials: a theoretical and empirical discussion Prof. dr. Martin Valcke Department of educational Studies, Ghent University http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Abstract In the present contribution, "Laptop schools" are used as a metaphor to discuss the relevance and position of a learning materials in educational contexts. Despite – in state-of-the-art schools - the emphasis on Internet-based and/or computer-driven learning materials, a number of reasons are put forward why printed media remain relevant and adequate in view of instructional processes. From a theoretical point of view, the discussion will focus on the features of learning materials that foster the learning process. From an empirical point of view, a number o f research studies will be discussed that underpin the relevance of printed learning materials. During this discussion, we will center on empirical and historical perspectives, etc. To conclude, the contribution will emphasize the need to consider the teacher and to pay attention to learner characteristics. “Laptop schools” as a case study to introduce to the key discussion problem. “Laptop schools” are a growing phenomenon in state-of-the-art schools. Though not all schools provide children or students with fancy laptops, in most cases, these schools pursue an intensive use of laptops or desktop computers within the regular classroom. They implement what is called “ubiquitous computing environments”, in which the integrated use of information and communication Technologies (ICT) is fostered in a large number of curriculum fields, next to a focus on the development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information, etc. When it comes to learning materials, these laptop schools stress the use of Internet sources, and multimedia learning materials (text on screen, graphical elaborations, audio, video, and animations). This raises questions about: do learners use the laptops in view of the learning processes? Are teachers ready to use these computers and related learning materials? Does laptop usage result in higher learning performance? Figure 1. Laptops targeting developing countries. The one-laptop-per-child project (http://laptop.org/en/ ) has expanded due to the technological developments offering low cost laptop

Upload: others

Post on 14-Mar-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 1

Why laptop schools still use printed learning mater ials: a theoretical and empirical discussion

Prof. dr. Martin Valcke

Department of educational Studies, Ghent University http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

Abstract In the present contribution, "Laptop schools" are used as a metaphor to discuss the relevance and position of a learning materials in educational contexts. Despite – in state-of-the-art schools - the emphasis on Internet-based and/or computer-driven learning materials, a number of reasons are put forward why printed media remain relevant and adequate in view of instructional processes. From a theoretical point of view, the discussion will focus on the features of learning materials that foster the learning process. From an empirical point of view, a number o f research studies will be discussed that underpin the relevance of printed learning materials. During this discussion, we will center on empirical and historical perspectives, etc. To conclude, the contribution will emphasize the need to consider the teacher and to pay attention to learner characteristics.

“Laptop schools” as a case study to introduce to th e key discussion problem. “Laptop schools” are a growing phenomenon in state-of-the-art schools. Though not all schools provide children or students with fancy laptops, in most cases, these schools pursue an intensive use of laptops or desktop computers within the regular classroom. They implement what is called “ubiquitous computing environments”, in which the integrated use of information and communication Technologies (ICT) is fostered in a large number of curriculum fields, next to a focus on the development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information, etc. When it comes to learning materials, these laptop schools stress the use of Internet sources, and multimedia learning materials (text on screen, graphical elaborations, audio, video, and animations). This raises questions about: do learners use the laptops in view of the learning processes? Are teachers ready to use these computers and related learning materials? Does laptop usage result in higher learning performance?

Figure 1. Laptops targeting developing countries. The one-laptop-per-child project

(http://laptop.org/en/) has expanded due to the technological developments offering low cost laptop

Page 2: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 2

computers to users (eLearning Africa exhibition, Lusaka, Zambia, May 2010). Fried (2008) presents a recent overview of studies about the potential of intensive laptop use in classrooms. The study builds on a growing debate – even called a “feud” – between those promoting and those being opposed to laptops in the classroom. The former put forward the potential of e.g., multimedia learning materials, Internet usage, tool usage, etc. The latter point at – among others – to distraction issues, poor curriculum relevance, time management, discipline, weak performance, etc. The study of Fried is of relevance in the context of the present contribution since it questions the intensive use of ICT in relation to the impact on learning processes and mediating processes, such as task concentration. The review of research first discusses a series of studies presenting a positive picture: laptop use fosters collaborative work, engagement, active involvement, motivation, study habits, … . But there are serious limitations in relation to these studies. Most measures of success are based on perceptions, and studies hardly focus on learning outcomes. Second, many studies mention the need to regulate classroom use of laptops. Levine (2002) proposes e.g., a “laptop-up laptop-down” system. Fried (2008) studied laptop usage and related outcomes of 137 higher education students, during a 10-week study. Next to logbooks to document their work approach, standardized tests were used to measure performance. The results are clear: students report that during up to 17 minutes out of each 75 minute session they did things other than being involved in the lecture (mail, surfing the Internet, playing games, …). The key findings was a significant and negative relationship between laptop usage and learning performance. In addition, the results clearly shows that the laptops are a distracting factor. What about the other studies that suggest that laptop usage is beneficial for learning? Warschauer, Grant, Del Real and Rousseau (2004) present an interesting case study in this context. They present a long-term study that shows how laptop usage indeed promoted significantly reading comprehension in primary school children and academic literacy in middle school learners. The study about reading comprehension was set up in a school with a library, containing over 16,000 books. The reading of the children is still based on these books. The laptops are used for quizzes about these books and for post-reading activities; such as developing a mind map about the book, a presentation about the book, looking for illustrations to document the story, etc. The laptops had a very specific position within the context of an overall didactical approach to foster reading comprehension. They especially presented “tools” to support reading related activities. They were not presented as the vehicle to present the learning content . The study about academic literacy was set up with learners at risk. Also in this study, the key focus was not on learning materials presented with the laptops, but on the learner activities that were promoted via laptop usage. In view of this, the researchers developed the Expeditionary Learning model, a type of inquiry based learning that invoked student research activities, individual work, group work. The key use of the computer was to develop materials to be “presented”. Of course, learners relied on Internet based resources, but the main usage was related to the design and development of their own multimedia learning materials. Freiman, Beauchamp, Blain, Lirette-Pitre & Fournier (2010) set up a comparable study and come to the following conclusion (ibid, p.5686-: “we argue that laptops in themselves may not automatically lead to better results on standardized tests, but rather create opportunities for more open-ended, constructive, collaborative, reflective, and cognitively rich learning tasks.”. The latter imposes heavy demands on the teachers. Consequently, Inan & Lowther (2010) stress that integrated laptop use depends heavily on teacher readiness, their beliefs and school related variables (e.g., professional development strategy). The former introduces a key element in the discussion about the nature – print versus e-delivery - of learning materials. The debate about the relevance of printed or electronic learning materials cannot be isolated from the discussion about the position of these learning materials in the overall learning process. The discussion should therefore move away from a focus on discussing the media. Instead, the focus should be on the learning processes that are invoked by the different media types. This brings us to Clark (2000) that the discussion about the relevance of distinct delivery modes in learning

Page 3: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 3

materials should consider the broader context, beginning with the possible differences in learning goals. The discussion will clearly differ when the goals center on the acquisition of declarative knowledge (facts, concepts, relations, structures) or on procedural knowledge (skills, techniques, procedures, …). This brings us back to the question about the nature of learning. The main discussion team for this contribution was introduced in the context of discussions about the “laptop school”. We could also have adopted another path. The rise in eBook device has introduced a new challenge to school textbooks, as depicted below.

Figure 2. The Kindle challenge to education (http://www.jsyk.com/2009/10/19/the-kindle-dx-vs-textbooks/)?

Revisiting the learning process: where do the learn ing materials fit? Where and how do learning materials influence the learning process?

What is learning? Though we can observe a variety of behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist approaches towards learning, current approaches largely build on information processing models. More recent perspectives especially stress the nature of social learning processes and strategies that help to build up knowledge in the individual knowledge base; e.g., sharing, negotiating, explaining, questioning, … . . Three major phases can be distinguished in information processing activities to develop and store knowledge. These phases are delineated in the models of Mayer (2001) and Paivio (1986): information selection, information organization, and information integration. These phases are represented in Figure 3.

Page 4: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 4

Figure 3. The information processing approach towards “learning” (based on Mayer, 2001). In this model, two channels are represented. This implies that learners have two ways to – simultaneously – process information: a graphical channel (processing text, graphics, animations, pictures) and an audio channel that processes auditory information (processing of voice, commentaries, music, …). Of course, combinations in learning material presentations will activate both channels at the same time(e.g., video). Below, we discuss to what extent learning materials foster or hinder these three basic clusters in information processing activities.

Information selection Information is presented to the learner, selected by the learner and stored in the sensory memory. This sensory information processing phase heavily relies on adequate information selection processes. What is read, heard, looked at, experienced? What is selected and stored in the sensory memory? Let us simply compare the following two sets of information. The first picture shows two text pages of a psychology text book of Tuckman, Monetti & Monetti (2009).

Page 5: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 5

Figure 4: Page from Tuckman, Monetti & Monetti (2009, p.232).

The next picture shows a screen shot of comparable learning materials, available online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning). This is a typical webpage students would consult to get more information about the topic “classical conditioning”.

Figure 5. Wikipedia page about classical conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning).

The key question is whether the alternatives in presentation and delivery formats matter? Of course, much will depend on the level of the learner (see also below). If the learner is an advanced student with a sufficient level of prior knowledge, the Wikipedia Website will present an interesting overview that will partly fit with the available knowledge base and/or will enrich what is already known. But, if the learner is a novice, the Wikipedia website might present too much, too advanced, information. The learner might become overwhelmed (see cognitive load theory). Annand (2008) presents in this context an interesting review of the literature. He compared students studying an eBook version of a course and students studying a printed version. His findings are in line with the results of earlier studies (see e.g., Woody, Daniel & Baker, 2010), discussed in detail in his study: - Most students simply print the eBook. - Printed materials are preferred by the readers. In view of the “information selection” criterion, it is

critical to note that students mentioned that “access” to the materials was easier, the printed versions was easier to use and “portable”.

- “Print “is put at the top of the delivery medium, before Internet websites, CD-ROM based multimedia, videotaped materials, computer conferencing, audio-taped lectures, and audio-teleconferencing.

- In the case of on-screen reading, less information is transferred to long-term memory. - More rereading occurs when studying materials on screen. - Computer-based materials are of a lower resolution as compared to printed materials. - E-books compared unfavorably for perceived ease of reading. - As to the potential differential impact of eBooks over print, no significant results are reported. The study also reveals positive outcomes: some students like the flexible nature of the materials, the cost of the eBook materials seems to be lower. The latter seems to be a recurrent issue in the

Page 6: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 6

discussion about electronic versus printed learning materials. There is pressure to reduce the cost of textbooks, to alleviate the financial costs for the parents (see also Education Bureau, 2009, p.9). The fact that printed learning materials are still relevant, are preferred and are as efficient and effective as compared to electronic learning materials, cannot negate the research about multimedia and learning materials. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) of Mayer ‘(2001) is useful in this context. This theory states that textual information enriched with graphical materials is superior than text alone. This “multimedia” principle has influence generations of designers and developers of learning materials to enrich textual materials with well-designed graphics (schemas, tables, pictures, drawings, …). Additional design principles - such as the spatial contiguity principle – build on this basic principle, but reiterate the key issue: the adequate selection of information from the learning materials can be fostered by a careful graphical design. The latter principle puts forward the idea that it is better to link the text to the right part of the graphical representation: integrate text and graphics. In many ways, this can also be realized online or on a computer. But this does not question the relevance of printed learning materials, it simply indicates that next to text, also electronic delivery media can play a role. In this context, both printed and electronic learning materials have to be designed in a careful way. De Westelinck, Valcke, De Craene & Kirschner (2005) set up a study to see whether the CTML principles are also valid outside the science, and math contexts where they have been developed and applied. The results of their and subsequent research shows that designers have be sure that the learners are acquainted or get acquainted with the iconic symbol system that is at the base of the multimedia elaborations. The cognitive selection processes are clearly affected when learners do not understand (printed or electronic) multimedia representations.

Organisation processes After the selection of information in the sensory memory, the information proceeds to working memory, also called short term memory. The concept “working memory” rightly emphasizes that active involvement of the cognitive apparatus during this phase. This activity will result in the construction of cognitive structures, also called schemas or mental models. The organization process comprises the relating, connecting, comparing, and ordering of the information. At this stage, learners continuously retrieve information from the long term memory that supports the “working processes” with concepts, skills, strategies, … . What about the role of learning materials at this stage? Firstly, we can build on cognitive load research (see Sweller and colleagues (1988, 1989, 1994). This research emphasizes that the presentation of the learning materials will of will not invoke extraneous cognitive load that will hinder learning? If the information is too dense, too complex, too many words are used that have not previously been explained, … cognitive function will be hindered and the learning outcomes will be weak. There are however ways to prevent cognitive load to occur. A key strategy is to carefully design the materials: add schema’s, models, tables, … . In fact, the role of the learning material presentation is to pre-process the learning content. This takes away part of the burden, reduces the extraneous cognitive load and fosters germane cognitive load (effective load that is needed to process the information). Secondly, the role of the learning materials depends on the concrete cognitive activity they invoke. If the materials invoke reading, only limited active processing will be observed. Key processes to be fostered are: comparing, structuring, ordering, relating, summarizing, prioritizing, highlighting, selecting, etc. A discussion about the role of learning materials immediately introduces the position of workbooks next to or as part of textbooks. Since the organization phase implies active processing of the content, learners have to be active, have to write, make a mind map, develop a structure, ask questions about the content; … In other words, in this phase, the quality of learning materials will completely depend on the way they activate the learner. We refer to research overviews in relation to these strategies by Ambrose, Bridges, Pietro, Lovett & Norman (2010), Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock.

Page 7: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 7

(2001) and Schunk (2004, p.185). They present empirical evidence about the efficiency and efficacy to applying the following activities: - Add non-linguistic representations - Invoke looking for similarities and differences - Present multiple representations - Help learners to question themselves - Invite learners to take notes - Develop a mind map - … The following scheme was e.g., given to learners to structure an informative text about political parties in the Netherlands. Next to it, we show a filled out version of the same scheme. Figure 6. Schemes to support the active organization of information. A second example is related to findings similarities and differences. The following picture shows how learners in kindergarten actively process information about “teeth-friendly” and “teeth-unfriendly” food. They look in popular magazines for food pictures, and develop their own food-poster. Another strategy builds on “asking questions”. A major researcher in this field is King (1990, 1992, 1994). In one of her studies, she presented “starters” to learners to process the new information (e.g., What is an example of xxx? What will happen if xxxx, Explain ….? What is the meaning of xxxx? She consistently report the positive impact of this strategy on learning performance. This list of strategies and the examples show that workbooks are essential in this context. Of course, computers can also play an important role during this phase. Computers and the Internet present a variety of tools to support active processing: word processing, making pictures, making presentations, developing tables, making mind maps, …. But the focus is on active processing of content and not on content delivery. In many ways, learners develop their own materials. This is in line with recent discussions in the educational research field. Reininger (2010) centers on these active learning material production processes and presents the idea of “MyText” as an alternative to traditional textbooks. He – nevertheless – stresses the need for consistent and well developed introductory text to the knowledge domain. If teachers or schools don’t allow learners to work in their workbooks or textbooks, they clearly hinder the active processing during the learning process. Some publishers present solutions in this context; they provide free pdf versions of the work sheets on websites and/or on CD ROMs. This is – from an economical point of view - a sound solution. From an educational point of view, it is only partly a good solution. The CTML (see above) states that the spatial contiguity principle is critical. Learners need to work closely in relation to the information actually being processed. Having a textbook, workbook and worksheets on the same desk, does not facilitate the learning process.

Page 8: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 8

Figure 7. Comparing teeth-friendly and teeth-unfriendly food. As stated earlier, there is little research available that studies learning materials from the perspective of this second phase related to information organization. Luik & Mikk (2008) studied electronic textbooks and especially focused on the potential differential effects in high and low achieving learners or learners with well developed and weak prior knowledge. Their own study and the findings from a review of the literature suggest that in low achievers and in students with little established prior knowledge, electronic textbooks present problems (ibid, p.1484): 1. “knowledge acquisition from electronic textbooks is correlated with various features of the

textbooks, 2. these effective characteristics are different for high- and low-achieving students, 3. the learning results of high-achieving students correlate with a fewer number of characteristics of

electronic textbooks than the learning results of low achieving students.“. 4. Consider characteristics of the learner Also Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) stress that in almost all situations where novices are involved, instructional design should consider instructivist teaching approaches that will result in superior learning results. These teaching approaches assume well developed and stated learning materials. We will return to these – and related – findings at the end of this contribution.

Information integration The third phase in the learning process aims at integrating the newly developed schema into the long term memory. This activity implies the active use and re-use of the newly stored information. Use and re-use of information is observed when student solve problems, answer questions, apply their knowledge on cases, etc. In other words, this phase demands for assessment related activities. What is the role of – printed or electronic - learning materials in this context? In fact, the research hardly centers on this question. They key feature is that in one way or another assessment is taking place and sufficient attention is given to feedback. Learning materials will therefore present questions, problems, challenges, tasks, games, quizzes, puzzles, … that challenge the learner to apply the newly acquired knowledge in combination with their prior knowledge, already stored in long term memory. In computer-based or online environments we find a wide variety of item banks with questions, online assessment systems, … . The research especially centers on their efficiency (self-paced, flexible, …). Especially the fact that in online settings learners can be tested just-in-time and that a level of automated feedback can be given has a strong potential. But there is hardly comparative research

Page 9: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 9

available, contrasting this type of use with traditional printed tests being presented to learners with feedback given by the teacher, peers or developed by the learner him or herself. In sum, the role and position of textbooks as a medium with a direct impact on learning and learning outcomes seems to be less dominant as suggested in the literature. This is in line with the outcomes of early empirical studies. Sosniak & Stodolsky (1993, p.249) conclude after studying textbook usage in elementary schools (observation and interviews) that: “the influence of textbook on classroom instruction and teachers’ thinking was somewhat less than the literature would have us to expect, that patterns of textbook use and thinking about these materials were not necessarily consistent across subjects even for a single teacher, and that the conditions of elementary teachers’ work encouraged selective and variable use of textbook materials.”.

The formal status of textbooks In most countries, textbooks have a clear status. They are developed in line with a national curriculum and reflect in an integrated way the content of the curriculum. This fits the description of Shannon (2010, p.397): “Textbooks remain a staple within school curricula worldwide, presenting teachers and students with the official knowledge of school subjects as well as the preferred values, attitudes, skills, and behaviors of experts in those fields.”. In earlier days, textbooks had a very high and official status. Nowadays – in most countries - liberal market mechanisms have changed the monopoly of textbook developers and publishers. Nevertheless, even in very liberal market economy countries, achieving textbook status is not an easy undertaking. The publications have to meet clear criteria. For example, the former national standardized textbooks in Taiwan, can now be replaced by commercial textbooks: the so-called “textbook deregulation policy” (see e.g.. Chen, J., 2002). Nevertheless, these new textbooks also have to pass a political-ideological screening. In other countries, other types of filters, or control mechanisms are in place. In the USA, since the No Child Left behind Act of Bush Jr, schools in the public education system only get subsidized if they adopt teaching and learning approaches that have proven to be effective and efficient. To mediate in the quality control discussions about textbooks and didactical interventions, a clearinghouse was set up: the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC - http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). For early childhood to secondary school education, the WWC provides evidence-based data about the quality of learning materials and teaching approaches. The WWC centers on the following curriculum areas: Adolescent Literacy, Beginning Reading, Character Education, Dropout Prevention, Early Childhood Education, Elementary School Math, English Language Learners, and Middle School Math. But again, also in the context of the WCC, the discussion never solely centers of the delivery and/or distribution characteristics of the handbooks. Key elements are related to the learner characteristics, the teacher interventions, the evaluation approaches, etc. Nevertheless, in the USA we also observe some mechanisms that might be labeled as censorship in a European context (see e.g., the banning of certain texts in March this year http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html). The former introduces the question what the status is of learning material quality control in European countries. The answer to this question is easy, the variety in the structure and content of educational systems (compulsory education level) , is reflected in the variety of approaches towards textbooks. Whereas all countries put forward clear standards for education (objectives, goals, final attainment targets, qualifications, …), the position as to selection, adoption and usage of textbooks is less consistent. What they nevertheless share, is that textbooks are a commodity of the free market and as such driven by publishing policies (Follett, 1985). But – comparable to the What Works Clearinghouse – no instance is available that screens research evidence underpinning the efficacy, efficiency and/or satisfaction with specific school text books. We even have to stress that – in view of such a clearinghouse – hardly research is being set up about the quality of l < In addition and in view of the discussion that is central in this contribution, no information is – yet – available about the delivery and/or distribution format of school textbooks.

Page 10: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 10

A recent overview of related policies has been develop by INCA (2009). We reprint part of their tables and concentrate on European countries. We can conclude from this table that there is either a large level or freedom, or a basic screening is done, resulting in recommended list. But as to the latter, in many countries schools or teachers still can opt for other and/or additional alternative materials. Some countries are lacking in this list. The situation in Belgium is equal to the approach adopted in the Netherlands, but there is a stronger emphasis on reducing the costs for parents. As to the Czech republic, the Ministry of Education approves a lists of textbooks. Only these - primary and lower secondary education textbooks – will be free of charge. But the official list s extensive and the selection remains mainly in the hands of schools and teachers (Sikorova, 2005). Table 1. Overview of textbook policies (INCA, 2009). Depending on the country, teachers are not a “slave” of the textbook; they can select, enrich, enhance, … the textbook content. The key criterion is that the selection is adequate to attain the curriculum goals. In the Hong Kong context, there are no objections to the use of Internet materials. There is a key concern about quality control. If alternative materials meet the quality criteria, no objections are made (Education Bureau, 2009).

Textbooks: a short historical perspective Textbooks are considered to be critical components of classroom instruction (Bryant et al., 2008; Nathan, Long, & Alibali, 2002; Sood & Jitendra, 2007; US Department of Education, 2008). But - as has been repeatedly stressed during this text - the related research domain itself is relatively young. Also, their “history” has yet to be written and analyzed. From the 1920s, the term ‘curriculum’ linked schooling predominantly to the disciplinary subject matter as printed in textbooks (Cremin, 1971). The content of textbooks was limited to an introduction to the

Page 11: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 11

domain knowledge. This conception illustrates the traditional means-end distinction which was in vogue at that time (Clandinin & Connely, 1992). Textbooks and the as such the domain knowledge was considered to be the key instructional element. As a result, the teacher and his/her didactical approaches were not regarded as a important in view of fostering learning processes (Lee, 1966). Only since the 1960ies, A first shift can be observed in the development of textbooks. Especially building on American textbook examples, a stronger emphasis is put on the didactical elaboration of the materials. Next to the textbook and a workbook, investments are made in extensive teacher manuals. This resulted in comprehensive sets of didactical methods, covering a range of grade levels, linked to a – mostly official - curriculum line, and based on didactical strategies with an added-value. The WWC initiative discussed earlier fits into this rationale. It also results in strong and comprehensive debates about quality issues. An example is the discussions – and especially the doubts – about the benefits of the realistic mathematics curriculum in the Netherlands. Figure 8. Dutch realistic mathematics textbook are considered to be a disaster, according to this newspaper article. Dutch teachers would jump to Belgian – more traditional - methods. In the early 1990s, a shift is observed - in a large number of countries - towards standards-based curricula resulted in growing research in the field of curriculum studies and nowadays, research centres additionally on the question whether curriculum materials do really work (Stein, Remillard, & Smith, 2007). With the growth in ICT adoption in schools, and especially when hypermedia were made available on personal computers, the first electronic learning materials were developed. But, in contrast to the time and energy invested in the workbooks, little attention was paid to the development of teacher manuals, and/or professional training. As already stated earlier, the lack of teacher professional development is a crucial barrier to the integrated use of ICT in general and electronic learning materials more specifically (for an overview, see Tondeur, Valcke & van Braak, 2008). In fact, we can conclude that many attempts to develop electronic learning materials have neglected to create and develop the conditions and conditional teacher related knowledge to successfully integrate the learning materials.

Quality of textbooks Given the central status of school textbooks in national educational systems, in view of attaining the curriculum, the question can be raised what research evidence is available about the nature and quality of school textbooks. This exploration could include the focus on the delivery and production mode: text versus electronic learning materials. It is a striking findings that there is a serious shortage in evaluative research in this field. Most available research centers on the readability of textbooks (see e.g., ), tracking misconceptions/errors in the textbooks, or analyses the types of questions put forward in the materials (see e.g., Cobanoglu, Sahin & Karakaya, 2009). Other studies analyzed gender stereotypes (see e.g., Scott. & Feldman-Summers, 1979).), learning difficulties that might emerge from using specific methods (see e.g., Van Steenbrugge, Valcke & Desoete, 2010a, 2010b),

Page 12: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 12

the appropriateness of task design (see e.g., Özgeldi & Esen, 2010). With the exception of the WWC initiative in the USA – an initiative that goes far beyond the evaluation of textbooks – no systematic evaluation or monitoring approaches have been set up.

Shift in the discussion from delivery to instructional usage At this stage in the discussion about the delivery and distribution model of learning materials, we return to an earlier theme. It is clear that the quality of learning processes cannot and will not solely depend on the – printed or electronic - elaboration of textbooks. With Annaud (2008, p. 153) we stress that: “Despite the present ambivalence, even negativity, in the literature about the desirability of e-books as a primary form of instruction, there seems to be little evidence to suggest that learning outcomes are significantly affected by choice of either print-based or e-book media.”. Also Clark (1983) states that a focus on the media mode, represents rather a focus on the delivery mechanisms for instructional content. The weaknesses in electronic textbooks are especially weaknesses in their design and the way they fulfill requirements that reflect the three phases in a learning process. Electronic learning materials might be superior in view of e.g., information presentation, but the strengths are weakened due to a lack of follow-up activities that invoke adequate cognitive organization and integration activities in learners. Since teachers are the key players in selecting or defining the broader setting of textbook usage, they could become key players in future approaches towards textbook design. Baker, Thierstein, Fletcher, Manpreet & Emmons (2009) defend the Open Textbook Proof-of-Concept approach and push the idea of open textbook projects . In this way teachers become a member of a community in developing, adapting, readapting learning materials and they can – just-in-time and in line with learner needs, decide upon the most optimal delivery format: printed or electronic.

Individual differences Lastly, we turn our attention to a variable that plays a role in whatever discussion about efficacy and efficiency of learning processes: individual differences. Sikorova (2005, p.1) concludes in this context that “the idea of an optimum (printed or electronic) textbook is false. Textbooks work in frames of various educational conceptions declaring different demands. She also stresses that decisions about textbook design, development and/or selection, must consider specific characteristics of their users – students and teachers. He therefore stresses that teachers play a key role in the process of decision-making. It is only the particular teacher who knows the particular conditions under which the textbook will work in their class.” This bring Luik & Mikk (2008) to their conclusion that what is important in textbooks is to consider the needs of diverse learners.

Conclusions The central discussion theme of this contribution centered on the relevance of printed versus electronic learning materials in view of supporting learning processes. An analysis of the research literature is marred by the shortage of textbook focused research that goes beyond a media and delivery focus. It was argued that printed learning materials clearly have a strong position when it comes to supporting different phases of the learning process. Nevertheless, also electronic learning materials also have potential, but they share with the printed materials that the actual learning process goes beyond the delivery features of learning materials. It depends on the extent to which student are activated in their cognitive selection, organization and integration processes. Printed learning materials have – in this respect – a stronger tradition due to the focus on the development of teacher materials. Lastly, learning materials and their efficacy, and efficiency largely depend on learner characteristics.

Page 13: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 13

Discussion about printed and/or electronic learning materials cannot neglect the impact of learner needs, their level, progress and capabilities. References Annand, D. (2008). Learning Efficacy and Cost-effectiveness of Print Versus e-Book Instructional

Material in an Introductory Financial Accounting Course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2). Available online via http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/7.2.5.pdf.

Baker, J., Thierstein, J., Fletcher, K., Manpreet, K. & Emmons, J. (2009). Open Textbook Proof-of-Concept via Connexions. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), available online via http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ869416.pdf.

Bryant, B. R., Bryant, D. P., Kethley, C., Kim, S. A., Pool, C., & Seo, Y. (2008). Preventing mathematics difficulties in the primary grades: the critical features of instruction in textbooks as part of the equation. Learning Disability Quarterly 31, 21-35.

Chen, Jyh-Jia (2002). Reforming textbooks, reshaping school knowledge: Taiwan's textbook deregulation in the 1990s', Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 10(1), 39-72

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M.. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: MacMillan.

Clark, R. (2000). Evaluating distance education: Strategies and cautions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(1), 3-16.

Cobanoglu, E., Sahin, B., Karakaya, C. (2009). Examination of the biology textbook for 10th grades in high school education and the ideas of the pre-service teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1). 2504-2512.

Cremin, L. A. (1971). Curriculum-making in the United States. Teachers college record, 73(2), 207-220.

De Westelinck, K., Valcke, M., De Craene, B. & Kirschner, P. (2005). The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning in the Social Sciences Knowledge Domain: Limitations of External Graphical Representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 555-573.

Education Bureau (2009). Textbooks and e-Learning Resources Development. Hong Kong: Educational bureau. Available online via http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3145/wg%20final%20report_executive%20summary_e_20091022_final.pdf.

Faison, E. (1951). Readability of children's textbooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 42(1), 43-51.

Follett, R. (1985). The school textbook adoption process. Publishing Research Quarterly, 1(2), 19-23. Freiman, V., Beauchamp, J., Blain, S., Lirette-Pitre, N. & Fournier, F. (2010). Does one-to-one access

to laptops improve learning: Lessons from New Brunswick's individual laptop school initiative Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5686-5692.

Fried, C. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914.

Inan, F. & Lowther, D. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937-944.

INCA (2009). International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Internet Archive (INCA) Comparative Tables - Control and supply of school textbooks. Retrieved from http://inca.org.uk/Table10.pdf on August 6, 2010.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Lee, G. C. (1966). The changing role of the teacher. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), The Changing American school. Sixty-fifth yearbook of the National society for the study of education, Part II (pp. 9-31). Chicago: NSSE/University of Chicago Press.

Levine, 2002a L.E. Levine, Using technology to enhance the classroom environment. Technological

Page 14: Why laptop schools still use printed learning materialsmvalcke/CV/Why laptop schools...development of generic skills, such as learning to communicate, to collaborate, to manage information,

Page 14

Horizons in Education Journal, 26(6), 16–18. Luik, P. & Mikk, J., (2008). What is important in electronic textbooks for students of different

achievement levels? Computers & Education, 50(4), May 1483-1494. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nathan, M. J., Long, S. D., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). Symbol precedence in mathematics textbooks: a

corpus analysis. Discourse processes, 33, 1-21 Özgeldi, M. & Esen, Y. (2010). Analysis of mathematical tasks in Turkish elementary school

mathematics textbooks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2277-2281. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reininger, J., (2010). My Text: An alternative to the traditional textbook. Computers in Human

Behavior, 26(2), 119-121. Scott, K. & Feldman-Summers, S. (1979). Children's reactions to textbook stories in which females are

portrayed in traditionally male roles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3), 396-402. Shannon, P. (2010). Textbook Development and Selection. In P. Peterson, E. Baker and B. McGaw,

(Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition), pp. 397-402. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.

Sikorova, Z. (2005). The Textbook Selection in Primary and Secondary Schools. Paper presented to the Huitième conférence Internationale sur les Médias pour l’Apprentissage et l’Education, " Caught in the Web or lost in the Textbook ?". IUFM DE CAEN (France), 26-29 Octobre 2005.

Sood, S., & Jitendra, A. K. (2007). A comparative analysis of number sense instruction in reform-based and traditional mathematics textbooks. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 145-157.

Sosniak, L. & Stodolsky, S. (1993). Teachers and Textbooks: Materials Use in Four Fourth-Grade Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249-275.

Stein, M. K. R., J., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319-370). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 2, 257–285.

Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 463–474.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: teacher and school characteristics. Accepted for publication in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494-506.

Tuckman, B., Monetti, D. & Monetti, D. (2009). Educational Psychology. Florence, KY, Cengage Learning, Inc.

Van Steenbrugge, H., Valcke, M., Desoete, A. (2010a). Mathematics learning difficulties in primary education: teachers' professional knowledge and the use of commercially available learning packages. Educational Studies 36(1): 59-71.

Van Steenbrugge, H., Valcke, M., Desoete, A. (2010b). Do curriculum materials and teachers matter in elementary mathematics? Paper presented during PME34, Belo Horizonte, Brasil, July 18-25 2010.

Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G. and Rousseau M.(2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(4), 525-537.

Woody, W., Daniel, D. & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.