There has been a rapid increase in the use of technology in university classrooms. Many university classrooms and laboratories include an overhead projection unit, computer, and connections for laptops. More recently, tablet PCs have been investigated as another way to effectively engage students in a classroom environment. This study summarizes the results of student surveys comparing three different lecture delivery methods: using complete PowerPoint slides and handouts, using traditional chalkboard lectures without handouts, and using skeleton PowerPoint slides and handouts. Both PowerPoint lectures were delivered through a Tablet PC with a wireless link to an LCD projector, allowing for instructor mobility. Second year engineering students were asked to evaluate six learning assessment statements and to provide written feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses for each of the three methods. Using the Tablet PC resulted in the highest overall scores but with much variance between the six survey questions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbikairajahE.EppsJ.ShengM.CellerB.ChenP. (2005). Experiences with an electronic whiteboard teaching laboratory and tablet PC-based lecture presentations. Proceedings of the IEEE ICASSP, 5, 565–568.
2.
AndersonR.SimonB.WolfmanS. A.VanDeGriftT.YasuharaK. (2004). Experiences with a tablet PC based lecture presentation system in computer science courses. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Norfolk, Virginia, USA, March 03–07, 2004). SIGCSE '04. ACM, New York, pp. 56–60.
3.
BerqueD. A. (2006). Pushing forty (courses per semester): Pen-computing and DyKnow tools at DePauw University. In BerqueD.PreyJ.ReedR. (Eds.), The impact of pen-based Technology on Education: Vignettes, Evaluations, and Future Directions (pp. 31–40). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
4.
BiswasS. (2007). Teaching courses with tablet PC: Experiences and student feedback. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2007, Honolulu, HI.
5.
CarterJ. (2002). A framework for the development of multimedia systems for use in engineering education. Computers & Education, 39(2), 111–128.
6.
ClarkS.TaylorL.PickeringJ. (2007). Understanding the impact of tablet PCs on students learning and academics' teaching. Proceedings of the Second Innovation in Accounting and Corporate Governance Education Conference. January 31–February 2. Hobart, Tasmania.
7.
CorneliusT. L.Owen-DeSchryverJ. O. (2008). Differential effects of full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 6–12.
8.
DaviesC. H. J. (2002). Student engagement with simulations: A case study. Computers & Education, 39(2), 271–282.
9.
DertingT. L.CoxJ. R. (2008). Using a tablet PC to enhance student engagement and learning in an introductory organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(12), 1638–1643.
10.
FelderR. M.SilvermanL. K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
11.
FrolikJ.ZumJ. B. (2004). Evaluation of tablet PCs for engineering content development and instruction. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 101–105.
12.
GillT. G. (2007). Using the tablet PC for instruction. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 183–190.
13.
GrabeM.ChristophersonK.DouglasJ. (2004–2005). Providing Introductory Psychology Students Access to Online Lecture Notes: The Relationship of Note Use to Performance and Attendance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 295–308.
14.
HullsC. (2005). Using a tablet PC for classroom instruction. Proceedings of the 35th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Engineering Conference, October 2005, Indianapolis, IN, pp. TG2-1–TG2-6.
15.
JamesT.HillH.ConeC.LatimerS. (2006). The Calf-Path[1]: One university's experience with pen-enabled technologies. In BerqueD.PreyJ.ReedR. (Eds.), The impact of pen-based technology on education: Vignettes, evaluations, and future directions (pp. 95–102). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
16.
JohnsonA. (2008). Digital ink: In-class annotation of PowerPoint lectures. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(5), 655–657.
17.
KaminS.HinesM.PeiperC.CapitanuB. (2008). A system for developing tablet PC applications for education. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, March 12–15, 2008). SIGCSE '08. ACM, New York, pp. 422–426.
18.
KoileK.SingerD. (2006). Development of a tablet-PC-based system to increase instructor-student classroom interactions and student learning. In BerqueD.PreyJ.ReedR. (Eds.), The impact of pen-based technology on education: Vignettes, evaluations, and future directions (pp. 115–122). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
19.
LimK. Y.TotoR.NguyenH.ZappeS. E.LitzingerT.WhartonM. (2008). Impact of instructors use of the tablet PC on student learning and classroom attendance. 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Mechanical Engineering Division, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2008. Paper number 2008–616.
20.
LordS.PerryL. (2006). Tablet PC—Is it worth it? A preliminary comparison of several approaches to using tablet PC in an engineering classroom. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2006, Chicago, IL.
21.
MathewsC. P.KhoieR. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of tablet PC-based instruction. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2007, Honolulu, HI.
22.
MockK. (2004). Teaching with tablet PC's. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 20,(2), 17–27.
23.
PerryE. H. (2007). The impact of online lecture notes on learning outcomes of beginning thermodynamics students. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, AC 2007-989.
24.
Pomales-GarciaC.LiuY. (2007). Excellence in engineering education: Views of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 253–262.
25.
RuhlK.HughesC.SchlossP. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18.
26.
SnellerJ. (2007). The tablet PC classroom: Erasing borders, stimulating activity, enhancing communication. Frontiers in education conference–global engineering: Knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports. FIE '07. 37th annual, pp. S3J-5–S3J-10, October 10–13, 2007.
27.
StickelM. (2008a). Effective use of tablet PCs for engineering mathematics education. Proceedings of the 38th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY, pp. S3J-7–S3J-12.
28.
StickelM. (2008b). Lessons learned from the first time use of tablet PCs in the classroom. Proceedings of the 38th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY, pp. S1A-7–S1A-12.
29.
TimmonsS. J. (2004). Tablet PC: Blackboard to the web. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, October 2004, Baltimore, MD, pp. 296–300.
30.
TotoR.WhartonM.CimbalaJ.WiseJ. (2007). One step beyond: Lecturing with a tablet PC. Computer Education Journal, 17(3), 2–11.
31.
WalkerD. G.StremlerM. A.JohnstonJ.BruffD.BrophyS. P. (2008). Case study on the perception of learning when tablet PCs are used as a presentation medium in engineering classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(3), 606–615.
32.
WuW.ChenW. (2008). Effect and varied types of instructional delivery media and messages for engineering education: An experimental study. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(1), 107–114.
