Advancing personalized learning is recognized as one of the grand challenges facing engineers in the next century. Technology has provided advancements in instruction which were not previously available, but there is often resistance to adoption of new technologies. Our research group introduced the use of tablet computers in a first year engineering fundamentals course initially as part of a study of students’ problem-solving strategies, a key skill for students to master and succeed in engineering. A custom tablet computer software application called MuseInk© was utilized to capture problem solving procedures in a manner that emulates handwritten solutions, but uses digital ink to record the solutions. This technology permits different classroom activities beyond the use of hand written solutions typical of traditional courses where assignments are completed with pencil and paper, and adds valuable information beyond the final solution. As with any new implementation of technology, there is a period of resistance and a mixture of feelings toward adoption of the technology that must be overcome to get benefit from the technology. As educators work to make instruction more personalized, effective, and interactive, research on the adoption of new technology is imperative to understand what drives these adoption behaviors to better mitigate resistance to technology implementation. Our research group surveyed students on their attitudes and behaviors toward the use of tablet computers and the MuseInk software technology introduced into the classroom. Diffusion theory is used as a framework to examine the technology adoption behaviors. Overall, the attitudes and behaviors associated with the introduction of tablet computers and MuseInk software followed adoption patterns typically seen with typical diffusion of innovations. Introduction Technology has changed the way that business is conducted and therefore has changed skill requirements of new hires, especially in engineering positions. Employers are looking for recent college graduates to be the front-runners of technology driven initiatives more so now than ever before. Technology has also provided opportunity for advancement in personalized learning that was not possible before, but in order for benefits of technology to be realized, it must be successfully adopted. It is an assumption that members of the millennial generation are more comfortable with technology than former generations, which is true on average . However, there are still students entering college without prior experience with technology, which may hinder their success in the classroom and on the job market unless they obtain a level of comfort with technology throughout their college experience. As the level of education has doubled since 1970, with 31% of people age 25-29 holding at least a college degree compared to 16% in 1970, it is important for students to develop technical skills to set them apart from their peers with equivalent educational achievements . While many universities have instituted a laptop or tablet computer mandate for undergraduate and graduate engineering programs, many others do not require computers or laptops. While our institution has a laptop mandate, our research group introduced the use of tablet computers in a first year engineering fundamentals course. Primarily this technology was used for research purposes, as part of a larger project called “CU Thinking” (NSF Award # EEC-0935163) which focuses on students’ problem-solving strategies and their relation to prior knowledge. This is an important skill for engineers, but a very difficult concept to personalize given the varied levels of academic preparation of incoming students. Also, problem-solving paradigms such as Polya’s method lack flexibility in terms of the processes that students must adhere to. However, we recognized the added benefit of increasing student exposure to pen-based technology. A custom tablet computer software application called MuseInk was utilized to capture problem-solving procedures in a manner that emulates handwritten solutions, but uses digital ink to record the solutions . This approach introduces different assessment and instructional capabilities beyond the use of hand written solutions typical of traditional courses where assignments are completed with pencil and paper. Other tablet PC applications like DyKnow and Classroom Presenter allow instructors to incorporate rapid pen-based feedback on select student work live in class, but do not have the capability of capturing, archiving and annotating student Ink and audio commentary in a way that allows detailed analysis of cognitive processes and error types that was needed for our research. The digital Ink software (MuseInk ©) has a playback function that allows students to replay their entire problem solution which facilitates review of and reflection on their work. It is believed that this functionality will help students become more aware of mistakes they made in the process, the strategies they used, and how they organize their work in order to identify areas for improvement. There is also a means for identifying important features within the work by associating tags at specific points in the solution. This can be used for communication from instructor to student such as identifying errors or incorrect assumptions. Audio tags can also be added post-hoc to the Inked solution. This can be used by the students to add reflections on their strategies and approaches, an important practice with respect to students’ professional and intellectual development. It can also be used by instructors to identify specific skills, concepts or errors that the student needs to attend to. Students can leave notes to inform instructors of problems they are having completing work or for themselves to use while studying. Still frame images of the solution can be exported, which students use as they find appropriate such as adding images to an electronic notebook or presentation. Overall, this has the potential to be a powerful pedagogical tool. However, with every technological intervention, as with any new product implementation, there are varying levels of acceptance from users. While getting acquainted with a new product, users encounter a hierarchy of effects: 1) awareness, 2) interest, 3) evaluation, 4) trial, 5) adoption, 6) confirmation . Users progress through the adoption process at different rates. Rogers’s theory of diffusion of innovations describes how some users will adopt a product right away due to seeing high value or meeting an immediate need (innovators, early adopters) . Others follow to adoption later, often after addressing initial concerns or being swayed by additional information about the product or adoption of other people (early majority, late majority). Still others will not adopt the product until the end of the life cycle, possibly too late to experience all the benefits (laggards). The speed of the adoption process can be influenced by 1) communicability, or how well the value of the product is communicated, 2) triability, or how easy it is to try the product, and 3) relative advantage, or how the product is more beneficial than other similar products. In order to assess the success of a new product, it is useful to determine how many users have adopted the product, and how far users have progressed through the adoption process. Products can fail at any stage of the adoption process: at the awareness phase due to selective perceptions, at the interest phase by selective retention, at the evaluation phase by low perceived rewards, at the trial phase due to failure to match needs, and the adoption phase by final decision that the product is not a good value. Post adoption during the confirmation stage, users decide whether or not to continue use based on how well the product continues to meet their needs. Research Objectives The goals of this research initiative were to assess the adoption behaviors and attitudes of the class in response to using of the MuseInk software in the classroom and the progression of attitudes in response to changes in software usage in the classroom across two semesters. Ideally, the whole class will achieve adoption of the software quickly, but to adopt the software, students must reach their own conclusions on the value of the software and its ability to meet their educational needs so adoption of the software cannot be forced. At the end of each semester, a survey was distributed to the class to determine how well the software was adopted by students and determine if adoption rates could be increased through behaviors by the educators, serving a promotional role. Methods Participants and Environment: Students enrolled in a tablet section of a first year engineering course at Clemson University, “Engineering Disciplines and Skills,” participated in this research. Tablet computers were made available in the classroom for the students to use on a regular basis (approximately 10 times during the semester) to complete and submit assignments using the MuseInk software in lieu of paper submissions. Students self-selected their course section, and although participation in the research was voluntary, use of the tablets and MuseInk in the classroom was required. Thirty-six students were enrolled in the spring 2010 section and sixtyone students were enrolled in the fall 2010 section. During the spring 2010 semester, students were only shown how to complete their work on the software. They were not shown how to replay their work, they were not required to install MuseInk on their own computer, and were not required to utilize the image snapshot features, although they were informed of the features. They were only graded on the correctness of solutions, not on their work with MuseInk explicitly. They completed all problem solutions on MuseInk using tablet computers in class only. During the fall 2010 s
[1]
Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.
Five Dimensions of the Industrial Adoption Process
,
1971
.
[2]
Joachim Walther,et al.
Integrating students' learning experiences through deliberate reflective practice
,
2009,
2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
[3]
S. Rogelberg,et al.
Millennials at Work: What We Know and What We Need to Do (If Anything)
,
2010
.
[4]
P. Campbell.
How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method
,
2005
.
[5]
Frank Withey,et al.
CIM Coursebook 06/07 Marketing Fundamentals
,
2006
.
[6]
Gordon Ellis,et al.
Grand challenges for engineering
,
2009,
IEEE Engineering Management Review.
[7]
Alec Levenson,et al.
Millennials and the World of Work: An Economist’s Perspective
,
2010
.
[8]
E. Rogers,et al.
Diffusion of Innovations
,
1964
.