ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Like its predecessors - the pencil, paper, and calculator - computers must be within arm's reach, mobile, and palm-accessible in order to make a difference in the classroom.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Critics [3–5] claim there is
essentially no hard evi-
dence computers have
had a significant impact
on learning in K–12 education.1
Given the significant costs
involved in putting technology
into schools and given the poten-
tial to harm young children, one
prominent report calls for “An
immediate moratorium on the
further introduction of computers
in … elementary education” [3].
Rather than getting defensive, ges-
ticulating wildly, and dragging out
that favorite story about how one
child we personally know accom-
plished an amazing thing with a
computer, it’s time to come out of
the closet: children simply arent
using computers in K–12 schools
and that’s why there isn’t substan-
tial data on the impact of comput-
ers in K–12 education.
Let’s look at some basic statis-
tics about availability and use of
computers in K–12:
• Henry Becker, a professor at the
University of California, Irvine,
has been monitoring the spread
of computers in schools for
almost as long as computers
have been in the schools. In a
1998 nationwide survey [1],
Becker attempts to assess the
density of computers in schools.
He reports that fewer than 20%
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 15
Handheld Devices are
Ready-at-Hand
GREG MORGAN
Elliot Soloway, Cathleen Norris,
Phyllis Blumenfeld, Barry Fishman,
Joseph Krajcik, and Ron Marx
Like its predecessors—the pencil, paper, and calculator—computers
must be within arm’s reach, mobile, and palm-accessible in order to
make a difference in the classroom.
Log On Education
1While there are hundreds of studies documenting the
positive impact of computers on teaching and learning,
these studies are not typically carried out in large-scale
contexts as are studies in, say, medicine and public
health. We have surveyed over 100 of these focused
studies in K–12 science education (hice.eecs.umich.
edu/convergentanalysis/science) and writing education
(hice.eecs.umich.edu/convergentanalysis/writing); they
all agree that under the right conditions, computers do
indeed lead to enhanced learning.
16 June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
of the schools meet the following
criteria: “having at least one
computer of any kind for every
four students enrolled, one Pen-
tium or Power Macintosh com-
puter for every six students, one
CD-ROM-equipped computer
for every six students, and hav-
ing at least half of all instruc-
tional rooms connected to the
Internet by a high-speed, direct
connection.”
• Conducting 20-question, online
Snapshot Surveys of educators in
Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and
New York during 1999–2000
[6], we found that of the 6,000
respondents, approximately 60%
reported they had none or one
computer in their classroom.
• But Becker [2] observed that
“frequent [computer] use was
closely associated with having
computers accessible in the
teacher’s own classroom.”
• From our Snapshot Survey,
approximately 45% of teachers
report that their students use a
computer less than 15 minutes a
week. Similarly, Becker [1]
reports that 70% of the teachers
in his nationwide survey allow
their students to use computers
zero, one, or two times a week.
• In our work in middle schools in
Detroit, we found that in-class
availability of computers is
strongly associated with gains in
student learning [5].
• Computers are sequestered pre-
dominantly in labs.
• Limited though computer access
is, Becker observes that the pri-
mary use of computers in K–12
schools is for word processing:
computers are being used as
typewriters.
So computer availability, access,
and use is dismal in schools. But
what about their availability in the
home? Here’s what we found:
• In households where the annual
income is lower than 50,000,
the U.S. census reports that
approximately 25% of these
families have computers in the
home. In contrast, where annual
income is above $50,000,
approximately 60% have com-
puters. In Detroit about 70% of
the children are on free or
reduced-fee lunch program.
Thus, in our efforts in Detroit’s
middle schools, we can’t count
on children having access to
computers or the Internet at
home to do their schoolwork.
In U.S. K–12 schools, the avail-
ability and use of Internet-
connected computers is about
20%–30% less than for stand-
alone computers.
Bottom line: it’s unreasonable
to expect computers to have a pos-
itive impact on learning and
teaching if students and teachers
have limited access to them.
The Prognosis
The German philosopher, Martin
Heidegger, distinguished between
things “present-at-hand” (not
available for work) and things
“ready-at-hand”—things essen-
tially within one’s reach and that
truly get used. In the white-collar
workplace, PCs are ready-at-hand.
Indeed, while K–12 schools talk
about “students per computer,”
those in the business world talk
about “computers per person,” (a
desktop at work, a laptop for
travel, a home computer used for
work, a handheld device, a two-
way pager, and an Internet-
enabled cellular phone per
person).
As we have said, the term “per-
sonal” computer is an oxymoron
in K–12 schools. A so-called per-
sonal computer is used eight peri-
ods a day, five days a week, by
eight to 24 different children each
period. That is, when the PC is
running, which is maybe 70% of
the time, since the settings are
constantly being changed, inadver-
tently or not.
The reality is this:
• The Detroit Public Schools
As long as computer labs are down the
hallway and up the stairs, teachers will consider
them irrelevant to learning and teaching.
Log On Education
administration is not going to
buy a $1,000 PC for each of its
167,000 students nor is the
Plankinton, SD, administration
going to buy one for each of its
604 students.
• Communities are not going to
earmark enough money, on a
continuing basis, to buy and
keep the ratio of PCs down to
even 2 students to 1 computer,
let along a 1-to-1 ratio in the
next few years. Do the math and
the costs are staggering.
As long as computer labs are
down the hallway and up the
stairs, teachers will consider them
irrelevant to learning and teaching.
As long as the ratio of students to
computers is 4–7 to 1, the effort
needed to use them is simply too
high, given all that has to be
accomplished in a school day. As
long as computers are not ready-
at-hand, they will not be used in a
routine, day-in, day-out fashion;
the impact of computers on K–12
education will continue to be
essentially zero.
The Answer’s Right in the
Palm of Your Hand
Don’t despair; hope springs eternal
from the well of technological
innovation.
Handheld devices can be the
PC of choice for K–12.
We are talking about those
overgrown, playing-card-sized gad-
gets that adults use as modern-day
appointment books. Oftentimes
referred to as personal information
managers (PIMs) or personal digi-
tal assistants (PDAs), these devices
come in a variety of flavors: Palm
Computing, Inc started out with
Palm Pilots and now sell $150
M100’s; Handspring, Inc. makes
the Visor, which also runs the
PalmOS; PocketPC’s run a version
of Microsoft’s Windows OS and
are made by Hewlett-Packard,
Compaq, and Casio.
While small in stature, these
handheld devices, when equipped
with appropriate software, can do
much more than keep track of
addresses and phone numbers.
Indeed, we believe the following:
each and every child should be pro-
vided with a $100 handheld device.
This amount of money is available
if we look hard enough.
Impossible dream? No. Each of
1,700 students and 65 teachers in
all three high schools in the Con-
solidated High School District in
Illinois (see www.d230.org/Hand-
held/) uses handheld devices made
by Palm Computing, Inc. Emi-
nence Middle School, in Emi-
nence, KY has all 50 of its 12- and
13 year-old students use Pocket-
PCs for schoolwork.
Yes, handheld devices have sig-
nificant limitations. For example,
the computational zorch (power)
tends to be so low multimedia is
problematic; writing extended
documents via pen-input is taxing,
especially for the younger students,
and the screen is too small. But,
inasmuch as the alternative is
essentially access to no zorch and
no screen, the handheld device is,
for K–12 students, a quantum
leap in computational availability.
Core Applications and
Supporting the Curriculum
Reading, writing, and arithmetic
are all available on handheld
devices. From the included
Notepad, a vanilla text editor, to
the more decked out Handango
Professional Users Suite
(www.handango.com) for $89.95,
all the normal office productivity
tools are available on handheld
devices.
While having children use the
built-in calendar to record the due
dates of their assignments is actu-
ally a good idea, the personal
information manager functionality
of handheld devices isn’t what will
sell educators on these devices.
Teachers are held accountable for
curriculum. Thus, compelling
applications are those that support
the teaching and learning of the
curriculum. Check out the follow-
ing applications being developed
in our group at Michigan. They
are being used by upward of 2,000
students in middle and high
school classrooms in the U.S.
Selling the Solution
Now that we believe handheld
devices are the answer to the access
challenge in K–12 education, we
need to sell this solution to the
schools. It took years to convince
schools to purchase graphing cal-
culators; getting math educators to
share their new-found power to
switch over to purchasing hand-
held devices will take some doing.
Our strategy is to demonstrate
there are enough provocative, edu-
cational handheld applications
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 17
18 June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
that enable learning and teaching.
And (here is the really impor-
tant bit) link those applications to
existing curricular materials so
educators essentially already know
how to use the handheld devices.
Having enough applications that
have educational utility is strong
ammunition in arguing for a
switch from graphing calculators,
a definite one-trick pony, to hand-
held devices. Here then, are our
candidates for some effective
handheld applications.
PicoMap. PicoMap is a con-
cept mapping tool for handheld
devices. Figure 1 presents several
PicoMaps created by 10- to 12-
year-olds in Detroit during a unit
on the physics of heavy machin-
ery. PicoMap goes beyond paper-
and-pencil concept maps in the
following ways:
• First, children beam their
PicoMaps to each other. For
example, children will pair up
and, in a group brainstorming
activity about, say, water quality,
one child will identify sources of
chemical pollution (nitrates) in
their local river while the other
child will identify sources of
physical pollution (sewage).
Then the children beam each
other their ideas to support the
ensuing discussion.
• Since each child has a handheld
device ready-at-hand, children
naturally revise their PicoMaps.
In contrast, if their documents
are on a desktop computer
accessed only one hour per
week, children will not engage in
the critically important process
of iterating and revising their
documents.
Children can print out their
PicoMaps, allowing the teacher to
track what the children are doing
and give feedback, while parents
use the printouts for refrigerator
decorations. Classroom manage-
ment issues are not to be taken
lightly; making printing straight-
forward makes teachers comfort-
able with having each of their 30
students equipped with a hand-
held device. (If only syncing 30
handheld devices to one desktop
computer was as simple.)
Palm sheets. For better or
worse, worksheets are a fixture in
K–12 classrooms. But a handheld
device’s worksheet has numerous
advantages over its paper cousin:
the handheld device can immedi-
ately check a student’s input and
provide feedback. After the data
from the worksheet are transferred
to a desktop computer, the data
can be automatically aggregated
and and graphs presented that
depict all the students’ answers.
Figure 2 shows an 11-year-old fill-
ing out an Air Quality Inventory
worksheet.
Cooties. How do germs spread?
Drawing on the work at the MIT
Media Lab with SmartBadges, we
developed a socio-kinesthetic sim-
ulation on handheld devices to
help children understand this
process. Children “meet” each
other by walking around a class-
room with a handheld device and
beaming each other either a digi-
Log On Education
Figure 1. Examples of PicoMaps created by students.
tal-germ-free or a digital-germ-
laden message. (The teacher sets
up the initial conditions for the
experiment, distributing digital-
germs via beam to the children’s
handheld devices.) After the
spread of the digital-infection, stu-
dents can study the transmission
pattern of the “meetings” by view-
ing a PicoMap depicting the his-
tory of the meetings. This exercise
enables children to see that meet-
ing one person really means meet-
ing all the people who that person
has met previously. Based on this
experience, it is much easier to
understand how disease spreads
and how difficult it is to deter-
mine how a disease is spread in a
population.
Fling-It. Inasmuch as children
don’t necessarily have ready access
to desktop machines with the
Internet at school or at home, they
need to be able to take away with
them at least some of the content
when they do get the opportunity
to access the Internet. So, after
finding a useful Web site, a child
can click on the Fling-It icon and
that Web page is scrunched down
and sent to their handheld device
which is sitting in a cradle next to
a desktop computer.
Typically, it’s been found that
11- to 14-year-old children are not
big on reading. (The reasons for
this situation need examination,
but that’s for another time.) But if
the Internet is going to have an
impact on learning, there is no
escaping the need to read. Perhaps,
at home, with adults and siblings
to help and with Fling-It-provided
reading material on their handheld
device, these children will find
reading more approachable.
CritterVille. CritterVille is an
ecosystem populated by creatures
created by students on their hand-
held device. The actions of a Crit-
ter are transmitted wirelessly to the
Web site that hosts CritterVille;
the implications of one Critter’s
actions then is distributed wire-
lessly to Critters on other hand-
held devices. One learns pretty
quickly how difficult it is to keep
one’s critter alive and healthy in a
complex ecosystem.
Children will not use all the
applications all the time. The goal,
however, is to have enough educa-
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 19
Figure 2. Filling out an inventory worksheet.
tional applications available to
support a range of learning oppor-
tunities.
Preliminary Observations
From the Field
“This is the funnest day of the
week.” That observation is repre-
sentative of how the students feel
about using the Palm computers
and Handspring computers in
about a dozen classrooms in
Detroit, Hartland, and Ann
Arbor, MI. There is essentially no
hesitancy and no intimidation; the
kids press the on button and start
tapping away. They pick up
PicoMap in a snap. Now, making
a good concept map is still an
acquired skill (for example,
putting meaningful labels on links
and getting the directionality
straight is definitely difficult for
the children), but PicoMap per se
is invisible. To make writing
extended paragraphs easier, the
children oftentimes plop their
palm computer into a keyboard.
And the children treat their hand-
held devices with respect and care;
while a few have felt the force of
gravity, it is as likely that an adult
did the dropping as did a child.
But in truth, few of the teach-
ers using the handheld devices
would share the sentiment
expressed at the outset of this sec-
tion. From hardware breakdowns
to curricular questions, integrating
handheld devices into the every-
day fabric of the classroom is a
challenge. Some teachers reserve
the handheld devices solely for
doing a three-day stint with
Cooties during a communicable
disease unit, while others, who
regularly do concept mapping
with their children, use the hand-
held devices on a more routine
basis. In some of the classes, the
children are permitted to take
their handheld computers home,
where some schoolwork does
occur, but, to be completely can-
did, game playing is the dominant
activity.
When PCs were introduced
into the school, children took to
them, while educators felt the
challenges. As handheld devices
are being introduced into the
school, children are gobbling them
up while educators are again feel-
ing the pressures. Why will the
use of handheld devices in K–12
be different from the use of per-
sonal computers in K–12?
Conclusion
As long as the ratio of computers
to children remains in the multi-
ple children to one, we are not
going to see major use of comput-
ing technologies in K–12 schools.
Extracting benefits for learning
and teaching of using computing
and Internet technologies in such
a situation requires a dispropor-
tionate amount of effort. And, the
ratio of children to computers is
not going to dramatically decrease
in the next five years.
K–12 will take computing
technologies seriously only when
they are as available as pencils.
When computing technology is
literally ready-at-hand, when stu-
dents whip out handheld devices
from their backpacks and desks
instead of pencils and paper, only
then will education and educators
move to using the technology in a
routine, day-in, day-out manner.
And, with the cost of handheld
devices down to acceptable con-
sumer price levels, the prolifera-
tion of these handheld devices will
skyrocket over the next five years.
The mainframe computer, the
personal computer, and the Inter-
net are tidal waves that have
wrought profound change in all
manner of organizations. But those
technologies have only lapped gen-
tly at K–12’s shores. It is appropri-
ately ironic, however, that those
technologies that fit into the palm
of a child’s hand—the pencil, the
paperback book—are really the
technologies that bring about revo-
lutions in education.
References
1. Becker, H. Who’s wired and who’s not, 2000;
www.gse.uci.edu/doehome/DeptInfo/
Faculty/Becker/packard/saveall.html#top.
2. Becker, H.J., Ravitz, J.L., and Wong,Y.
Teacher and teacher-directed student use of
computers and software. Report #3, Teaching,
Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Sur-
vey. Center for Research on Information Tech-
nology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine, Calif. (Sept. 1999).
3. Cordes, C., Miller, E. Fool’s Gold: A critical
look at computers in childhood. Alliance For
Childhood, 1999; www.allianceforchildhood.
net/.
4. Healy, J. Failure to Connect: How Computers
Affect Our Children’s Minds and What We Do
About It. Simon and Schuster, New York,
1998.
5. Marx, R.W., Blumnefled P., Krajick, J., Fish-
man, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., and Tal, T.
Inquiry-based science in the middle grades:
Assessment of student learning in the context
of systemic reform. University of Michigan
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban
Schools. In preparation, 2000.
6. Soloway, E., Becker, H., Norris, C., Topp, N.
Teachers and technology: Easing the way.
Commun. ACM 43, 6 (Jun. 2000).
7. Stoll, C. Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on
the Information Highway. Doubleday, New
York, 1995.
Elliot Soloway (Soloway@Umich.edu) is
a professor in the College of Engineering, School
of Information and School of Educations,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cathleen Norris (Norris@unt.edu) is a
professor in the Department of Technology and
Cognition in the College of Education at the
University of North Texas, Denton.
Ron Marx, Phyllis Blumenfeld,
and Joe Krajcik ({ronmarx, blumenfe,
krajcik}@umich.edu) are professors in the School
of Education at the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Barry Fishman (fishman@umich.edu) is an
assistant professor in the School of Education at
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
© 2001 ACM 0002-0782/01/0600 $5.00
c
20 June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
... Recent advances in mobile devices and technologies have expanded the boundaries and pedagogies of traditional learning [1,2]. Innovative learning experiences that can take place beyond school settings have emerged, such as informal learning with a mobile museum guide [3] or for environmental awareness [4], experiential learning on a field trip [5,6], situated and active learning with mobile game [7]. ...
Article
In this paper, we report on the findings with regard to classroom activities and their time use in a number of mobile technology-mediated classrooms at Hong Kong. The data was collected from a mobile learning project specifically designed to promote students’ group and independent learning across a range of subject disciplines through using mobile devices within school environment. A total of 30 lessons in 10 primary and secondary schools were videotaped and analyzed. Results indicate that mobile devices can support establishing a well-balanced structure of classroom activities controlled by both teachers and students, where about 40% of the total class time was allocated to direct teaching and 40% was assigned to students’ learning in independent and/or collaborative ways.
... During the questioning phase, students practiced thinking about unclear aspects and formulating relevant questions. In the final report, they synthesized their findings into a coherent understanding of the topic [26]. ...
Article
The aim of our research was to investigate the impact of the use of mobile devices in mobile technology (MT)-enabled experiential learning (EL). Methods/Analysis: The basis of the research was an experiment. Quantitative data included pretest and post-test results of two groups of students (ELs and regular education students). Qualitative data consisted of individual analysis of a final questionnaire composed of 37 items, some of which were open-ended. A 5-point Likert scale was used for evaluation, and some questions were open-ended. Findings: The results showed that the average knowledge gained in the EL group's post-test increased compared to the regular class. We found that after the photographing/note-taking phase, students with the ability to use mobile devices generally lost interest in further observation. We also found that both groups had great difficulty in the question design and comparison sections, in finding answers to the prepared questions. Novelty/Improvement:it became apparent that the teaching process needed to be modified. The photo-taking phase should be done after close observation so that the sensory experience is not replaced by mobile devices. The comparison phase did not show a significant result in any of the observed viewpoints and can be omitted. The sensory experience, sound recording, requires some modifications, more effectively applied in the classroom environment, as ambient noise was a problem in the teaching process. Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2024-SIED1-017 Full Text: PDF
Fool’s Gold: A critical look at computers in childhood
  • C Cordes
  • E Miller
Cordes, C., Miller, E. Fool’s Gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. Alliance For Childhood, 1999; www.allianceforchildhood. net/
Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software
  • H J Becker
  • J L Ravitz
  • Y Wong
Becker, H.J., Ravitz, J.L., and Wong,Y. Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Report #3, Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine, Calif. (Sept. 1999).
Who's wired and who's not, 2000; www.gse.uci
  • H Becker
Becker, H. Who's wired and who's not, 2000; www.gse.uci.edu/doehome/DeptInfo/ Faculty/Becker/packard/saveall.html#top.
Becker H. Who's wired and who's not 2000
  • H Becker
Fool's Gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. Alliance For Childhood 1999; www.allianceforchildhood. net/. Cordes C. Miller E. Fool's Gold: A critical look at computers in childhood
  • C Cordes
  • E Miller
Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of student learning in the context of systemic reform. University of Michigan Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools
  • R W Marx
  • P Blumnefled
  • J Krajick
  • B Fishman
  • E Soloway
  • R Geier