Smartphones at Schools? Yes, Why not?

Abstract

During ages, new and innovative learning technologies are often criticized or rejected, while their full acceptance is commonly delayed. As a result, the progress of Smart Learning Environments is noticed nowadays to be delayed, while educator debate about the technology used in classroom effectiveness. Author’s objective is to explore potential factors in order to render modern communication devices such as mobile phones and tablets suitable for learning in schools, taking into consideration possible advantages or disadvantages. In the case that students use mobile devices during learning procedure, a shortage of suitable content as well as adequate integration of educational and edutainment systems employing gamification techniques within the school framework. These factors are considered to be sufficient enough to strengthen and improve learning experience and effectiveness.

Full text

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 1
 Abstract—During ages, new and innovative learning
technologies are often criticized or rejected, while their full
acceptance is commonly delayed. As a result, the progress of
Smart Learning Environments is noticed nowadays to be
delayed, while educator debate about the technology used in
classroom effectiveness. Author’s objective is to explore
potential factors in order to render modern communication
devices such as mobile phones and tablets suitable for learning
in schools, taking into consideration possible advantages or
disadvantages. In the case that students use mobile devices
during learning procedure, a shortage of suitable content as
well as adequate integration of educational and edutainment
systems employing gamification techniques within the school
framework. These factors are considered to be sufficient
enough to strengthen and improve learning experience and
effectiveness.
Index Terms—Advantages of Mobile Devices, Disadvantages
of Mobile Devices, Educational-Edutainment Systems,
Smartphones at Schools, Smart Learning Environments.
I. INTRODUCTION
The perception of brain functions is related to learning
procedure improvement that could be helpful in a better
curricula design [21]. The brain has an extraordinary
capacity to adapt, to modify its structure and function, and
rebuilt itself in response to environmental stimuli, cognitive
demands and learning experiences [13], [26]. Nowadays,
children are born and grown up at a period with
extraordinary digital technological achievements that touch
the boundaries of science fiction of previous years and are
familiar with the language of computers, video games, and
the internet as a native language/mother tongue [40]. Their
skills, attitudes, aspirations, and learning styles reflect the
environment in which they are raised [34]. Children of this
generation, often called “digital natives”, “the Internet
generation”, “Net generation”, “N-Geners” or “N-Gen”
[3],[11],[39], desire fast-paced interaction and graphics-
based environments, they are active in their entertainment
processes, they use their imagination, they seek for highly-
demanding video games and playful environments, they try
and explore digital innovations, and they are clearly able to
use new “smart” devices. They are already immersed in
Published on April 29, 2019.
P. Kaimara is with the Department of Audio and Visual Arts, Ionian
University, Greece (e-mail: a16kaim@ionio.gr).
S-M. Poulimenou is with the Department of Archives, Library Science
and Museology, Ionian University, Greece (e-mail:
poulimenoufaye@gmail.com).
A. Oikonomou is with School of Pedagogical and Technological
Education (ASPETE), Greece (e-mail: anoiko@gmail.com).
I. Deliyannis is with Department of Audio and Visual Arts, Ionian
University, Greece (e-mail: yiannis@ionio.gr).
A. Plerou is with the Bioinformatics and Human Electrophysiology
Laboratory, Department of Informatics, Ionian University, Greece (e-mail:
tplerou@ionio.gr).
technology, cultivate specialized technical skills, and
develop hypertext minds. Their cognitive structures are
parallel, not sequential, and reveal learning preferences for
which traditional education is unprepared, and obviously
seems boring [36], [4], [40]. Focusing on the students of Net
generation, a question is emerging: “Do they really think
differently?” [36]. Keeping these in mind, the challenge is to
promote learning, creativity, and collaboration through
content based on real-world scenarios, using children’s
everyday tools, such as mobile devices.
II. TOWARDS A 21ST CENTURY PEDAGOGY
Not so far away, in 2007, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) reported that the results of extensive
research on the impact of software on the achievements of
students at all grades of education are not so encouraging
[42]. The report concluded that there were no statistically
significant differences between students who used
computers in the classroom with content from their lessons
(reading and mathematics) and students who followed the
traditional method (teacher/pencil-and-paper/print-based
training). This report has led to, even the public opinion, that
introducing computers to schools is a waste of time and
money.
Michael Merzenich [30] noticed that ED conclusion are
not surprising and stated that “this study provides an
alternative way to pile the same old content into a child’s
brain”, and he continued saying that “adding the computer
without changing the strategy adds… nothing”. It is clear
that computers could be used in classrooms under the same
conventional teaching strategies. According to Mary Ann
Wolf stated, integrating technology for instruction is “much
more than putting a piece of software into a classroom” [42].
Nevertheless, while introducing innovative methods in
schools, intentness is needed, both for its impact on learning
outcomes and on childhood development and behavior in
general.
The 21st century is provocative. Schools adapting to a
new pedagogy are about to suggest new learning
environments that combine content with innovative
technologies. Nowadays, skills like reading, writing, and
arithmetic- known traditionally as “the three R's” [19] are
not efficient. Vital students skills are the ability to learn,
communicate, collaborate, participate, explore and create,
often referred “the four Cs”: (a) critical thinking; (b)
communication; (c) collaboration; and (d) creativity [33].
New pedagogical models centered on building supportive,
creative learning relationships use technology and digital
resources as tools that enable and accelerate the new
learning goals [15]. It is worth mentioning that technology
integration in the 21st-century classroom that focuses on the
connection between knowledge about content, pedagogy,
Smartphones at Schools? Yes, Why not?
Polyxeni Kaimara, Sofia-Maria Poulimenou, Andreas Oikonomou, Ioannis Deliyannis & Antonia Plerou

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 2
and technology is called Technological Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge (TPACK). This model is based on
Shulman’s [51] research who introduced the idea of
pedagogical content knowledge by teachers while noticing
that the content and pedagogy are not separated but a part of
one indistinguishable body in the framework of teaching and
learning. Moreover, Pierson’s [37] research lean towards the
relationship between teaching abilities and technology-use
abilities. Specifically, TPACK refers to the dynamic
association of the three categories of knowledge: a) content,
b) pedagogy, and c) technology [31]. The necessity of this
model arose from Mishra’s, and Koehler’s findings,
suggesting the absence of a theoretical basis on which a new
pedagogy could be created serving the integration of
educational technology by teachers.
New learning environments, so-called “smart learning
environments” (SLEs) [8], reflect in a new pedagogy in the
digital era, and underline the significance of technological
design and instruction to support, facilitate, enhance, and
improve learning. SLEs are enriched with suitable digital
content in the context of real-world problems, and are
adaptable, effective, efficient, enjoyable, engage learners
and trainers [50],[20] and are based on a model of three
instructional strategies-guidelines known as e3 for designing
learning environments: effective, efficient, and engaging
[29]. There are three essential elements in a technology-
facilitated smart education environment: teaching presence,
technological presence, and learner presence [56]. Spector
[49] emphasized that SLEs have the potential to empower
educators, students, and instructional designers, and to
personalize learning adapting to their needs and situations.
Personalized learning inspires teachers to design ways of
approaching students individually, focusing on the particular
learner’s interests, goals, progress and problems [48],
following the principles of differentiated instruction, which
support students with learning difficulties or special
educational needs (SEN), different mother language,
cultural, religious and / or socio-economic background, thus
laying the foundations for inclusive education [54]. In
addition, Spector [49] noted a difference between “personal
learning environment” that is constructed and controlled by
the learner, and “personalized learning environment” that
adapts automatically to the interests and needs of individual
learners. Thus, SLEs are ideally suited for struggling
learners, respecting their own pace without distracting their
classmates into an inclusive classroom. The 4th e
(empowerment) enhances self-esteem, metacognition, and
self-regulation. Additionally, SLEs allow teachers, and
students to connect real-world scenarios with school
content, responding to the old question “Why do I need to
know this?” [2].
Nowadays, most children own a mobile device and they
use their mobile to retrieve information [38]. It is worth
wondering how to take advantage of mobile phones benefits
under a well-designed educational content.
III. MOBILE BASED LEARNING
In several students' primary query “Why do I need to
know this?” the answer is "Because it is useful for you", but
in this case, students are not able to be self-motivated and
engaged. The dominant instructional approach in education
worldwide still prevails the “transmission” or “lecture”
model [45] leading most of the learners to boredom. Given
that many of the educational activities planned in schools
are not designed to subdue students' internal interest, a key
question is how to motivate students to value, and engage in
activities without external pressure or rewards, to feel the
freedom of choice, self-regulation, and autonomy [43]. The
common problem for all teachers is that the students cannot
pay attention. Nowadays the problem is not that students
cannot pay attention but that they choose not to pay
attention [36]. However, in the context of “smart education”,
the effort of teachers to gain the attention of their students is
easier, as they show the relevance of learning content, using
materials from their “world” such as digital, especially
mobile, devices with which children are familiar, and
enhance students' self-confidence, and satisfaction. “Smart
education” comprises all of the features that are the basic
principles of Keller's theory for motivation (ARCS-V), i.e.
curiosity, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, self-regulation
[24], [23].
Spector [48] pointed out that a learning environment is
smart when it includes innovative features, and capabilities,
as smart hardware, e.g., smartphones, laptop, and Google
Glass [57] and software, which improve understanding, and
performance, and promote engagement, effectiveness, and
efficiency. But not every smart technology is smart learning
technology [49]. “Smart education” is not a smart device
education, but rather an educational paradigm adaptation for
digital natives. Prensky [41] mentioned: “it is not the tools
themselves that we need to focus on, but rather the creativity
and skills that the tools enable and enhance”. In this
framework, more focus should be given to learners and
content than on devices alone [18]. Leadbeater [25] argued
that a successful educational system depends on
transforming pedagogy and redesigning learning tasks.
Promoting learner's autonomy and creativity is a part of the
new pedagogy. Technologies can support this
transformation of pedagogy and teachers can shift their roles
from “content conveyors to content curators” [46]. The
classroom equipment with tablets or smartphones conducts
the learning literally to the hands of the students while the
teacher is the facilitator and collaborator of the process [16].
Smart devices, such as smartphones, are small, portable, and
affordable, support and engage learners anytime, and
anywhere, and improve learning, often in gameful context
[17],[57]. Mobile device portability affects teaching and
learning by overcoming the use of personal computers. As
Billinghurst [5] pointed out, using mobile devices, new
opportunities are emerging for an extremely interesting
interactive learning experience. Such experience strengthens
cooperative learning as students can sit together and see
each other, and personalized and self-directed learning, as
well [14]. When students work together, the space between
them is used for non-verbal communication, such as glances
and gestures [6].
Although mobile devices have enormous teaching and
learning potential due to their built-in cameras, audio
recorders, navigation GPS and maps, etc, its use should be
in a way that will not impair the sensual experience, and
unmediated learning [52] and have to function as

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 3
supplementary and helpfully tools. For Tal and Gross [52]
there are four requisite conditions for the successful
integration of technology, pedagogy, and learning content:
(1) the courses which delivered by mobile devices should
take place over a sufficient period of time during which the
students should gain the pedagogical basis of the
experiential activity, and familiarize themselves with the
potential of the devices in learning, (2) the location that the
activity takes places should have strong and uninterrupted
signal or Wi-Fi otherwise it will generate irritation and
disruption, which will disturb the learning process, (3) the
activity through the learning platform should be tested many
times in order to be user-friendly and have the desired
learning outcomes, and (4) the model of mobile devices
chosen for experiential learning activities should support the
software used for the application.
Mobile learning can alter the experience of the student,
and depending on learner's profile, the multimedia can
adjust the content, can provide human voice narration by a
pedagogical agent, which according to Park [35] promote
learners’ interest. This possibility is offered successfully
through smartphones taking advantage of the opportunities
which virtual and augmented reality technology gives.
Smartphones can operate as an assistive device through the
multimedia learning applications and assistive technology
could be shifted from "rehabilitative" to learning tool, and
also as a tool to access curriculum for all the students, with
or without disabilities. Voice recognition, provision of audio
or texting, visual and /or tactile feedback upon pressing the
keypad, convert displayed electronic text into speech are
some of the new smartphones' accessibility features for
people with disabilities related to memory, analytical skills,
attention, reading skills, mathematical or computational
comprehension, reading comprehension, and
communication [28]. This technology in a classroom has the
potential to allow differentiated instruction and enrichment
of the learning experience of students with SEN, allows the
learning to be student-centered and creates opportunities for
collaboration that fosters a deeper understanding of the
content [1]. Mobile learning could bridge the gap between
SEN and their typically developing peers, facilitating the
inclusive education.
IV. SHOULD SCHOOLS ALLOW SMARTPHONE USE?
Using technologies and mobile devices like smartphones
as educational tools respectively is also related to the
attitudes, and perceptions of parents, teachers and students
of mainstreaming and special education, attitudes that reflect
the policy-makers. The findings indicate a multifactorial
correlation between social norms and experience in digital
educational environments due to theoretical frameworks of
technology, teachers training in ICT, digital content
implementation as support in the field of special education,
users self-efficacy, and technology addiction fear
[12],[27],[44],[55].
France is considering banning smartphones in schools
because students are simply too distracted. On the other
hand, in some parts of Canada, Australia, Denmark,
Sweden, Spain, Romania and Estonia, students are
encouraged to bring their own devices (BYOD system) to
school for learning, while the acceptance of smartphones in
class varies by local region. In the U.S.A, states and cities
make their own decisions about device usage. And while in
Italian schools, a ban on phones was lifted recently when the
Education Minister referred to smartphones as an
“extraordinary tool to facilitate learning” [10], in Greece,
with recent legislation [58], the use of mobile phones and
electronic devices by students and teachers in schools has
been banned. Teachers, in addition to school-based
electronic devices (PCs, laptops, tablets, interactive boards,
etc.), can also use their own personal electronic equipment
during the teaching process and for its needs as well as in
within the framework of the educational process in general,
in compliance with the security rules and relevant provisions
on the protection of the personal data of students and
teachers.
The debate between the advantages and the disadvantages
of digital devices in the classroom is crucial. One could say
that digital natives cannot be cut off from everyday devices,
and at the opposite, there are the “digital immigrants”, i.e.
the generation of their parents and their teachers, who use
enough, little or not at all the technology that their children
use, since most of them are "unteachable" or they do not
want or even afraid to touch digital devices, as they have
been born and grown up in an environment that was clearly
different from N-Geners. It should, however, be pointed out
that in a few years, there will be no digital immigrants, at
least in this form. If someone will not be involved with
cutting-edge technology, it is likely that this will be only a
matter of choice, and attitudes. It is also worth noting that
digital natives have already entered the education system as
educators, parents, and politicians, which will bring changes
in the approach of the issue, as gradually replacing the
"digital immigrants".
However, it should be pointed out that objections to the
ban on mobiles in schools are not unfounded. These
negative elements associated with mobile phones are mainly
related to the opportunities they offer in communication, or
better by misusing them as a communication medium rather
than as an educational tool: textese (i.e. the abbreviated
language and slang used when sending text messages while
some educators believe that this destroys the language and
children’s ability to write), cheating, cyberbullying, sexting
[53], harmful effects of digital devices (USA Environmental
Protection Agency concerns about long-term exposure to
wireless devices and computer screens), inappropriate
materials, distraction, social disconnect (i.e. beliefs that too
much time with digital devices disconnects students from
face-to-face social activities, family communications, and
nature), social gap (i.e. some schools have the means to
address the digital divide so that all of their students have
access to technology and can improve their technological
skills, meanwhile, other schools cannot afford) [9].
Despite the negative effects that mobile devices may have
in schools, when the conditions and restrictions are not met,
there are remarkable surveys on the usefulness of mobile
devices in schools in the framework of instructional benefits
as: texting, digital cameras and images (supporting the data
collection, scientific visualization, communication,
facilitation of reading, writing, and visual communication
in language arts, mathematical analyses, transformations,

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 4
and providing a context for problem solving in
mathematics, and as a tool for inquiry in social studies),
capture dynamic audio and video recordings-podcasts
(increasing motivation and higher-order thinking and
improving student writing and listening skill) [53], instant
answers, wider access to information, social learning,
teacher advancement [9].
Montrieux and colleagues [32] conducted a research
about tablet devices and concluded that both teachers and
students appreciate the added value of tablet devices,
referring to the ease of use, the speed of accessing different
learning materials, the ability to be able to instantly search
additional information, the ability to take pictures and to
integrate notes, and communication between teachers and
students. An equally important finding was that younger
pupils aged 11 to 14 said they were more positive about the
use of tablets in schools, indicating that the lesson before the
introduction of the tablets was dull. On the other hand older
students aged 15-18 noted the problem of having less of an
overview of the course content and the major issue of
distraction.
After all, to allow mobile digital devices, there should be
guidelines and rules. Students need to be taught safely
online, make judgments about identifying sources of good
quality information, thus cultivating critical thinking, and
being restricted from personal use to the classroom. In other
words, students and educators must develop digital literacy
and policymakers should consider introducing technical and
pedagogical support to facilitate both teachers’ and students’
understanding of the potential of mobile devices in
education [32]. Policymakers should take into account the
lack of adequate learning material, which is a serious
obstacle for schools to successfully implement this
technology. Therefore, researchers, designers, and
educational material producers also have some
responsibility for facilitating the success of these
educational innovations. Without the proper equipment,
training, and support, many teachers will continue to use
mobile phones as a simple device, ignoring the many
opportunities they offer in education.
V. CONCLUSION
Students are using technology to analyze the world, to
access information, to interpret and organize their personal
knowledge, and its representation to others [22]. New
pedagogy purpose is not only to obtain knowledge but
learning process enhancement. Smartphones are suggested
to enhance experiences exchange and multimodality, are
useful for sharing information instantly, as well as to reduce
boundaries between formal and informal learning. New
pedagogy models blended with ICT are involved with
virtual, augmented and mixed reality, 360o videos, etc. In the
case that educational technologies are used appropriately,
multiple forms of learning are promoted, as well as
collaboration, personalization, participation, productivity,
creativity, and many more active skills. Mobile phones are
considered suitable for learning process due to their small
size, portability, affordability, availability, their potential to
engage users anywhere and anytime, as well as their ability
support fast-paced interaction multimedia applications,
video games, and playful environments. Reinforcement of
students' and educators' creativity by allowing them to
design and produce their own content is highly significant.
Therefore mobile devices are suggested as educational tools,
offering opportunities for poor people, and patronizing
inclusion because they promote personalized learning
[49][47]. Author’s future work leans towards providing
evidence that the digital learning materials and mobile
devices are able to enhance the learning process and
promote collaboration with schools in relative educational
issues.
REFERENCES
[1] Antonioli, M., Blake, C., & Sparks, K. (2014). Augmented reality
applications in education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 96-107.
[2] Annetta, L. A. (2010). "The “I's” have it: A framework for serious
educational game design": Correction to Annetta (2010). Review of
General Psychology, 14(3), 250. doi.org/10.1037/a0020505
[3] Barlow, P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.
Retrieved Mar 15, 2018, from https://goo.gl/ftLV8P
[4] Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives”
debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of
educational technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00793.x
[5] Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented Reality in Education, New
Horizons for Learning. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/YdoKmT
[6] Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the
classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56-63.
[7] Chang, M., Kuo, R., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2014). Revised computer game
attitude scale. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computers in Education (pp. 598-607).
[8] Dodds, P., & Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Opportunities for new" smart"
learning environments enabled by next generation Web capabilities
(No. IDA-D-2952). Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria VA.
[9] Debating the Use of Digital Devices in the Classroom, (2018, July).
Retrieved July 25, 2018, from https://goo.gl/g2S3Pb
[10] Driven to distraction: The Device Debate. (2018, April). Retrieved
July 25, 2018, from https://goo.gl/7F1xkP
[11] Egnatoff, W. J. (1999). Book Review of Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing
Up Digital. The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
xii+ 338. ISSN 0-07-063361-4. Web site:
www.growingupdigital.com. Education and Information
Technologies, 4(2), 203-205.
[12] Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., &
Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration
practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-
435.
[13] Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. H., & Feuerstein, R. S. (2013). The cognitive
elements of neural plasticity. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/c3htZC, doi: 10.12744/tnpt.19.03.2013.01
[14] Fokides, E., & Atsikpasi, P. (2017). Tablets in education. Results
from the initiative ETiE, for teaching plants to primary school
students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2545-2563.
[15] Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New
pedagogies for deep learning. Seattle, Washington: Collaborative
Impact.
[16] Grant, P., & Basye, D. (2014). Personalized learning: A guide for
engaging students with technology. International Society for
Technology in Education.
[17] Gros, B. (2016). The design of smart educational environments. Smart
Learning Environments, 3(1), 15. doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0039-x
[18] Gwak D. (2011). The meaning and predict of Smart Learning, Smart
Learning Korea Proceeding, Korean e-Learning Industry Association,
2010
[19] Hildreth, G., & Boynton, P. L. (1947). Learning the Three R's. 2nd ed.
Saint Louis, MO: Educational Publishers, Inc. Retrieved April 15,
2018, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14928-000
[20] Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of
smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning
perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 4.
[21] Jensen, E. (2005) Teaching with the Brain in Mind, Revised 2nd
Edition by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD).

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 5
[22] Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as
designers. ITForum Paper, 1, 67-80.
[23] Kaimara, P., & Deliyannis, I. (2018). Why should I play this game?
The role of motivation in Smart Pedagogy. In Daniela L. (Ed.)
Didactics of Smart Pedagogy. Springer.
[24] Keller, J. M. (2010). Five fundamental requirements for motivation
and volition in technology-assisted distributed learning environments.
Revista Inter Ação, 35(2), 305-322. DOI 10.5216/ia.v35i2.12668
[25] Leadbeater, C. (2008). What’s next? 21 ideas for 21st century
learning. London, UK: The Innovations Unit. Retrieved Mar 15,
2018, from http://charlesleadbeater.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/Next2.pdf
[26] Li, P., Legault, J., & Litcofsky, K. A. (2014). Neuroplasticity as a
function of second language learning: anatomical changes in the
human brain. Cortex, 58, 301-324.
[27] Liu, G. Z., Wu, N. W., & Chen, Y. W. (2013). Identifying emerging
trends for implementing learning technology in special education: A
state-of-the-art review of selected articles published in 2008–2012.
Research in developmental disabilities, 34(10), 3618-3628.
[28] Making Mobile Phones and Services Accessible for Persons with
Disabilities. A joint report of ITU–The International
Telecommunication Union and G3ict–The global initiative for
inclusive ICTs (2012). Retrieved Jul 14, 2018 from
https://goo.gl/QafqnE
[29] Merrill, M. D. (2009). Finding e3 (effective, efficient and engaging)
Instruction. Educational Technology, 49(3), 15-26. Retrieved Mar 23,
2018, from https://goo.gl/qG7Cgp
[30] Merzenich, M. (2007). Computers go to school. Retrieved Jul 14,
2018, from https://www.onthebrain.com/2007/04/computers-go-
school/
[31] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers
college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
[32] Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Schellens, T., & De Marez, L.
(2015). Teaching and learning with mobile technology: A qualitative
explorative study about the introduction of tablet devices in secondary
education. PloS one, 10(12), e0144008.
[33] National Education Association (NEA). (2012). Preparing 21st
century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the four
C’s. Retrieved Mar 23, 2018, from https://goo.gl/NV8Adt
[34] Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. L., & Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Educating
the net generation. Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSE, c2005. Retrieved
Mar 23, 2018, from https://goo.gl/d9tRmF
[35] Park, S. (2015). The Effects of Social Cue Principles on Cognitive
Load, Situational Interest, Motivation, and Achievement in
Pedagogical Agent Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 18(4).
[36] Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently?
On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
[37] Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function
of pedagogical expertise. Journal of research on computing in
education, 33(4), 413-430.
[38] Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost
anything! Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(5). Retrieved Jul
23, 2018, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/107282/
[39] Prensky, M. (2006). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Origins of
Terms. Retrieved Mar 15, 2018, from https://goo.gl/deFXmB
[40] Prensky, M. (2009). Mathisi vasismeni sto psifiako paichnidi.
Arches dynatotites kai paradeigmata efarmogis stin ekpaidefsi kai
katartisi [Digital Game-based Learning, transl. in Greek]. Athens:
Metaichmio.
[41] Prensky, M. (2011). The reformers are leaving our schools in the 20th
century. SNS Newsletter.
[42] Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool
for the 21st century classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220-228.
[43] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational
psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
[44] Rončević-Zubković, B., Količ-Vehovec, S., Kalebić Maglica, B.,
Smojver-Ažić, S., & Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2016). Attitudes of students
and parents towards ICT with regard to the experience of using the
iPad in classroom. Suvremena psihologija, 19(1), 37-46.
[45] Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Teaching and Learning 21st
Century Skills. A Global Cities Education Network Report. New
York, Asia Society. Retrieved Mar 15, 2018, from
http://asiasociety.org/files/rand-0512report.pdf
[46] Scott, C.L. (2015) The futures of learning 3: what kind of pedagogies
for the 21st century? UNESCO education research and foresight,
Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15]. Retrieved Mar 15, 2018,
from https://goo.gl/2oCBgX
[47] Sormunen, K., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2014). Crossing classroom
boundaries in science teaching and learning through the use of
smartphones. Teoksessa, H., Niemi, J., Multisilta, J., & E. Löfström
(toim.). Crossing boundaries for learning–through technology and
human efforts. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, CICERO Learning
Network, 91–109.
[48] Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart
learning environments. Smart learning environments, 1(1), 2.
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0002-7.
[49] Spector, J. M. (2016). The potential of smart technologies for learning
and instruction. International Journal of Smart Technology and
Learning, 1(1), 21-32.
[50] Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Special issue: Effective,
efficient and engaging (E3) learning in the digital age. Distance
Education, 29(2), 153–164.
[51] Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
[52] Tal, H. M., & Gross, M. (2014). Teaching sustainability via
smartphone-enhanced experiential learning in a botanical garden.
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 8(1),
10-15.
[53] Thomas, K., & McGee, C. (2012). The Only Thing We Have to Fear
is... 120 Characters. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To
Improve Learning, 56(1), 19-33. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0550-4
[54] Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon,
T. R.B., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A. & Reynolds, T. (2003).
Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest,
and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of
literature. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119-145.
[55] Zaranis, N., Oikonomidis, V., & Linardakis, M. (2017). Factors
Affecting Greek Kindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teacher to
Support or Oppose ICT Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) in Education. In Research on e-Learning and
ICT in Education (pp. 203-216). Springer International Publishing.
[56] Zhu, Z., Sun, Y., & Riezebos, P. (2016a). Introducing the smart
education framework: Core elements for successful learning in a
digital world. International Journal of Smart Technology and
Learning, 1(1), 53-66.
[57] Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H. & Riezebos, P. (2016b). A research framework
of smart education. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 4.
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2
[58] YPPETH (2018). Chrisi Kiniton Tilefonon kai Ilektronikon Syskevon
stis Scholikes Monades [Use of Mobile Phones and Electronic
Devices in School Units]. Greek Legislation for banning Mobile
Phones from Schools, retrieved September 15, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/pGX8wf

EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Special Issue: CIE 2018
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.CIE.1288 6
Polyxeni Kaimara was born in Florina, Greece, in
1970. She is a PhD Candidate in the Department of
Audio and Visual Arts of the Ionian University in
Corfu, Greece. She holds a Philosophy, Education
and Psychology Bachelor’s Degree (1991) and a
Master's Degree in Developmental and Educational
Psychology (1996) from Department of Psychology,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, a Master's
Degree in Public Health in the field of Behavioral
Studies (2011) at National School of Public Health and a degree in
Counseling and Guidance (2001) at the Pedagogical and Technological
Education. She is a Certified Trainer and Assessor of EOPPEP (The Greek
National Organization for the Certification of Qualifications &
Vocational Guidance) and Trainer of the Institute of Training (INEP) of
National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government.
She has teaching experience as a scientific associate at the
Technological Education Institution of Western Macedonia, Department of
Public Relations and Communication Policy and as a Teacher of
Informatics, at Technological Secondary School at Amynteo-Florina,
Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (2000-2001). From
2001 to 2015, she worked as a psychologist at the Center for Education,
Social Support and Training for People with Disabilities in Florina.
Currently, she is a psychologist at the Psychiatric Hospital in Corfu and at
the same time teaches Educational Psychology at the Department of Audio
and Visual Arts, Ionian University. She is the author of two chapters in the
book “Didactics of Smart Pedagogy, Smart Pedagogy for Technology
Enhanced Learning” Springer International Publishing, Daniela Linda
(Ed.), 2019, and has published more than 10 papers in international
conference proceedings, and books.
Her research interests focus on the design and evaluation of
educational systems for special education and training, the emerging
technology in learning and the implementation of digital games aimed at
designing programs for inclusive education. Her vision is to point out that
the appropriate use of ICT can help to create “a school for all” without
discrimination and exclusion.
Sofia Maria Poulimenou was born in Athens,
Greece in 1978. She received a Bachelor degree in
International and European Relations in 2003 and an
M.Sc. degree in international law and diplomacy in
2006, from Department of International and
European Studies, Panteion University. She is
currently a Ph.D. candidate in World Heritage Sites
Management at the Department of Archives, Library
Science and Museology, Ionian University, Corfu,
Greece.
She has worked as a special advisor to the Mayor of Corfu for three
years (2007-2010) in areas of cultural diplomacy, international cooperation
and cultural tourism, as a special advisor to the Governor of the Region of
Ionian Islands in areas of cultural tourism and European cu-funding
projects (2011-2014) and in Ionian University as the Rector’s collaborator
in the Department of Public and International Relations (2015-2016). She
is currently working at the Ministry of Justice, Single Member First
Instance Court of Corfu.
She is a researcher of the Museology Lab of the Ionian University
(Corfu, Greece) working on heritage promotion and conservation. She also
works with Asst. Prof. Yiannis Deliyannis, in submitting proposals and
running EU-funded projects in the fields of cultural management and
tourism.
Andreas Oikonomou was born in Peristera, a village
of Central Macedonia (Northern Greece), in 1956. He
possesses a BSc in Mathematics and a BSc in
Psychology, MSc in Pure Mathematics (University
“Pierre and Marie Curie”, Paris VI, France), MSc in
Didactic of Science (University “Denis Diderot”, Paris
VII, France), MSc in Psychology, and PhD in Science
of Education (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki).
Andreas is an assistant professor at the
Department of Education (discipline: Developmental Psychology,
Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice) at the Pedagogical and
Technological School of Education, in Thessaloniki. During his 30-year
academic career in the field of Psychology, Pedagogy, Didactic of Science
and Environmental Education, he has been involved in many national and
European projects and has published numerous papers in peer review
journals and conferences
(https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4aLOaqAAAAAJ&hl=el).
For years Dr. Oikonomou worked on political education and training
of young people giving to them tools about citizenship (theories, method,
and techniques) to work with people, engaging and aware others in social
problems to resolve.
Ioannis Deliyannis was born in 1975. He completed
his undergraduate studies in 1997 (B.Sc Computer
Science) and was subsequently offered a scholarship
to pursue a Ph.D. degree in the field of Interactive
Multimedia (2002) at the Computer Science
Department of University of Wales at Swansea. He
worked within the Computational Fluid Dynamics
research team as a research student under the
supervision of Professors P. Townsend and M. F.
Webster. His research work was largely related to multi-media
applications, visualization and web-based technologies applied to complex
scientific fields such as Computational Rheology and the development of
Educational Systems for Research and Interactive Learning. This work was
truly ground-breaking in the field forming a highly respected thesis on the
subject. It led to wide public exposure and a deeper understanding of the
systems involved. This work is actively utilized and extended under the
Institute for Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics (INNFM) and Swansea CFD
research groups.
Dr. Ioannis Deliyannis started working at Ionian University at 2004
teaching at the Department of Informatics and the Department of Audio
and Visual Arts. Today he is an appointed Assistant Professor and Faculty
Member of the Department of Audiovisual Arts at Ionian University,
Corfu, Greece.
His research interests include the application of Interactive and
Multimedia Communication Technologies in the area of AudioVisual Arts.
He is the author of a series of journal and conference publications in the
above fields, followed by a series of books targeting the experimental and
creative aspects of the technologies involved.
Personal website: https://yiannis344.wixsite.com/index
https://inarts.eu/en/lab/staff/deligiannis/
Dr. Antonia Plerou holds a Ph.D. degree obtained
in the Department of Informatics of the Ionian
University in Corfu. She Studied Applied
Mathematics at the Faculty of Sciences at the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and obtained
her Master Degree in Mathematics from the Faculty
of Sciences and Technology of the Greek Open
University. Her research focuses on the fields of
Educational Neuroscience, Cognitive Science and
Learning Difficulties (Dyscalculia, Algorithmic
Thinking Difficulties), Neurofeedback Training, Neuronal Disorders
rehabilitation with Neuroinformatics, and Artificial Intelligence.
She has (co) authored more than 30 articles in international
conferences and journals and 2 book chapters. She is an editorial board
member for several journals and she has been a program committee in
numerous international conferences as well. Her research focuses on the
fields of Educational Neuroscience, Cognitive Science and Learning
Difficulties (Dyscalculia, Algorithmic Thinking Difficulties),
Neurofeedback Training, Neuronal Disorders rehabilitation with
Neuroinformatics, and Artificial Intelligence.
Antonia Plerou currently holds a university scholarship and she is
teaching to undergraduate students of the Department of Informatics of the
Ionian University. Moreover, she was teaching stuff at M.Sc. The program
“Bioinformatics and Neuroinformatics” of the Department of Informatics
of the Ionian University and also advises almost 10 postgraduate theses
on the same program. She is a member of the Bioinformatics and Human
Electrophysiology Laboratory (BiheLab) of the Ionian University with the
field of expertise “Pattern recognition analyst for Neuroeducational
studies”.