Augmenting paper-based learning with mobile phones

Interacting with Computers 21 (2009) 173–185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Interacting with Computers

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / intcom

Augmenting paper-based learning with mobile phones

Po-Yao Chao *, Gwo-Dong ChenDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, No. 300, Jung-da Rd., Jung-li City, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 January 2007Received in revised form 17 December 2008Accepted 28 January 2009Available online 8 February 2009

Keywords:Paper-based learningMobile learningLine numbers

0953-5438/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier B.V. Adoi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.01.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 4227151x353E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.-Y.

(G.-D. Chen).

a b s t r a c t

Paper and traditional books have been serving as useful tools in supporting knowledge-intensive tasksand school learning. Although learning strategies such as selective verbatim note-taking or question-ask-ing may foster intentional recall or resolve comprehension difficulties in paper-based learning practice,improvement in learning may depend on the opportunity and quality of which students apply note-tak-ing, review notes, or enhance comprehension through questioning. This study aims to complement apaper textbook with a mobile phone and to treat the combination as a whole to facilitate verbatimnote-taking, resolving comprehension questions, and receiving reading recommendations. The textbookparagraphs were augmented with line numbers to facilitate coordination between the mobile phone andthe paper textbook. An eight-week comparative study was conducted to explore the use of two readingvehicles. The results and findings show that using a mobile phone to augment paper-based learning istechnically feasible and seems to promote the application of verbatim note-taking and posting compre-hension questions for discussion. However, the results of two course tests indicate that consequent learn-ing improvement seemed inconsistent among the students. A six-week case study was also conducted toexplore the implications of the augmented support to students’ learning practice. The findings show thatmobile phones as learning supportive tools to augment paper-based learning could support students’planning and management of learning strategies or activities. The portability of mobile phones and papertextbooks and the ubiquitous connection of paper-based learning with an online learning communitymay provide the flexibility in planning ahead for suitable learning strategies or activities and mayenhance students’ assessment for management of students’ learning goals.

� 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

For decades, paper and traditional books have been serving asuseful tools that support of knowledge-intensive tasks. The uniquecharacteristics of paper could support reading processes (O’Haraand Sellen, 1997; Sellen and Harper, 2003) and facilitate coopera-tive work among group members (e.g., Luff et al., 1992; Mackay,1999; Nomura et al., 2006). According to Weiss et al. (2000), mosthigh school science teachers in the USA reported using at least onecommercially published textbook in their classes. The use of papertextbooks could help teachers prepare course instruction(McCutcheon, 1981; Thornton, 1991) or could support studentsin collaborative learning tasks (e.g., McDonald et al., 2005; vanBoxtel and van der Linden, 2000). To students, these printed bookscould also be perceived as critical vehicles for acquiring knowledge(Garner, 1992) or principal sources for receiving specific coursecredits (Westhues, 1991).

When studying a lesson from a textbook, students often under-line key sentences or take selective verbatim notes (cf., Wade et al.,

ll rights reserved.

27; fax: +886 3 4273485.Chao), [email protected]

1990). These rehearsal strategies help the students select andacquire important information (Weinstein and Mayer, 1986).Although the adoption of strategies such as underlining text or tak-ing notes could foster the intentional recall of the extracted infor-mation (Amer, 1994; Marxen, 1996), the improvement in learningwould rely on the opportunity and the ways in which students takenotes or review the selected information (Kiewra, 1985). Moreover,students generally encounter comprehension difficulties whenclarifying confusing passages or technical terms in text. An inabil-ity to resolve these difficulties may lead to construction of incom-plete representation of the text (Cain et al., 2001) or a lack ofmotivation to approach current and future learning tasks.

Recently, many Web-based support tools promoting annotationor asynchronous group discussion have been developed to facili-tate reading or collaborative knowledge construction (e.g., Cadizet al., 2000; Guzdial and Turns, 2000; Marshall, 1998; Rau et al.,2004). These online support tools, when employed for educationalpurposes, would potentially improve opportunities for note-takingand add variety to the use of students’ notes. In addition, the toolscould also be used to support the resolution of students’ compre-hension difficulties by bringing students’ questions to public dis-cussion. However, the offer of Web support seems constrained bya learning environment or location, which may be inconsistent

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09535438

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom

174 P.-Y. Chao, G.-D. Chen / Interacting with Computers 21 (2009) 173–185

with the ubiquitous nature of paper-based learning practice. Dueto the high portability of handheld devices, several studies have of-fered ubiquitous online support, allowing users to read digitalmaterials on a handheld device (e.g., Marshall and Ruotolo, 2002;Pettit and KuKulska-Hulme, 2007; Robertson et al., 1997; Waycottand Kukulska-Hulme, 2003). Despite the convenient, ubiquitousaccess to the course materials, participants in these studies also re-ported difficulty in reading or awkward input on a small screen.This physical constraint may force readers in order to flip pagesfrequently to acquire sufficient context for reading orientation(Jones et al., 1999) and would hinder students from acquiring com-prehension by applying effective learning strategies such as under-lining, taking notes, or posting questions. Other studies treatedhandheld devices more as supportive tools than as primary readingvehicles per se to facilitate information organization (e.g., Corlettet al., 2005; Luchini et al., 2003), collaboration (e.g., Pinkwartet al., 2003; Zurita and Nussbaum, 2004), communication withmessages (e.g., Markett et al., 2006; Seppälä and Alamäki, 2003;Thornton and Houser, 2005), or material reference (e.g., Smørdaland Gregory, 2003). However, few of these tools emphasized theidea of facilitating information integration between the supportivetools and the primary information sources, thus possibly overlook-ing the opportunity to minimize the input overhead or amplify thecomplementary use of different information sources. For instance,students could extract important sentences from a textbook bycopying rather than by entering sentences as carry-on notes or asparts of questions in a discussion forum. Summarized supplemen-tary information on a handheld device could also refer back to de-tailed textbook paragraphs to encourage intensive reading forbetter understanding. These potential benefits of reusing or coordi-nating diverse information resources accentuate the need to incor-porate mobile supportive tools with paper documents orsurrounding resources to collaboratively achieve goals of offeringlearning supports.

This study introduces a ubiquitous learning support systemprototype that integrates mobile phones with paper textbooks tofacilitate students’ reading and to promote the resolution of com-prehension questions. By attaching paper pages with line numbers,this design enables coordination between mobile phones and pa-per textbooks, giving students the capabilities to extract sentencesas verbatim notes and to post questions about confusing passagesthrough mobile phones on a discussion forum. Students can thenreceive Short Message Service (SMS) notifications of answers tothe requested questions and can share their extracts or questionswith others. An evaluation that consisted of two studies containingobservations, interviews, diaries, and questionnaires was con-ducted to assess the design and to explore the implications of theseenhanced capabilities for students’ reading practices.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents abrief survey of related research. Following this, we describe pro-posed approaches to incorporating mobile phones with paper docu-ments and learning communities in Section 3. Section 4 presents anoverview of the proposed system, together with the user interfacesof mobile applications and paper documents. To assess the proposedsystem, Section 5 presents the design of the evaluation and the con-sequent results. Section 6 discusses and explores the findings andimplications of the evaluation results. Conclusions are finally drawnin Section 7, along with suggestions for future research.

2. Previous research

Several prototypes incorporating computing devices with paperdocuments have been developed (e.g., Klemmer et al., 2003; Liaoet al., 2005; Luff et al., 2004; Mackay et al., 2002; Parikh et al.,2006; Wellner, 1993; Yeh et al., 2006). These systems demonstrate

the incorporation of computers, handheld devices, or digital penswith physical paper artifacts. DigitalDesk (Wellner, 1993) is a sem-inal prototype that successfully combines the advantages of bothcomputing devices and physical paper documents. Mackay et al.(2002) proposed the a-book prototype to augment biology note-books using mobile devices. This compelling a-book allows usersto associate information scribbled in notebooks with informationfrom external resources through a graphic tablet and a PersonalDigital Assistant (PDA). Books with Voices (Klemmer et al., 2003)is a useful paper book that enables direct, random access to videoclips by scanning tagged barcodes on paper pages. Luff et al. (2004)proposed a useful linking mechanism that allowed users to accessdigital resources simply by hitting anchors on a paper surface usinga co-axial electronic pen. Liao et al. (2005) and Yeh et al. (2006)further allowed manipulation of digital documents by drawingcommand gestures via a digital pen on printouts. These mecha-nisms or techniques, bridging communication between computingdevices and paper documents for information integration, enablelocations on a paper page to serve as useful anchors to electronicresources. Similarly, the proposed system codes locations of sen-tences with line numbers and implicitly permits links to electronicresources. Moreover, the line numbers enable sentences as individ-ual elements for extraction and further manipulation. The pro-posed system aims to integrate the reading vehicles of mobilephones and paper documents while retaining high portability ofthe integrated devices in order to fit the nature of paper-basedlearning.

Systems for integrating handheld devices with heterogeneouscomputing resources have also been developed (e.g., Myers,2001; Pham et al., 2001). Pham et al. (2001) introduced a Compos-ite Device Computing Environment (CDCE) framework thatdynamically integrates small-screen devices with surroundingcomputer resources to augment these small-screen devices withvarious computational capabilities for situated interaction. Myers(2001) introduced the concept of multi-machine user interfaces(MMUIs) for coordination among heterogeneous computing de-vices. Both the CDCE framework and the MMUIs imply a notionin which a handheld device should achieve task goals in collabora-tion with environmental computing resources, rather than per-forming the overall tasks alone.

Data input could be facilitated by indicating indices to text orservices via mobile phone (e.g., Marsden and Jones, 2002; Parikhet al., 2006) or by extracting information from paper via digitalpens (Anoto Group AB; C-Pen; Nokia). Marsden and Jones (2002)proposed a short-cut technique to access hierarchical menus viamobile phone keypads. Users who wanted to access a function inthe hierarchical menus could spell out the function name and pressnumeric keys corresponding to the first two letters of the functionname. Parikh et al. (2006) paired a mobile phone with a paper doc-ument containing visual codes to facilitate data collection fromrural microfinance groups in India. These visual codes were two-dimensional data glyphs that can be recognized by camera-equipped mobile phones. Both the short-cut and data glyphtechniques employ index mechanisms to reduce or to eliminatedata entry into mobile phones. Similarly, line numbers on printedpages act as indices to specific segments of passages for textextraction in this study. Although camera-based digital pensdemonstrate a convenient way to extract information, they gener-ally require special paper with dot patterns for recognition (cf.,Anoto Group Nokia) or probably discourage text annotations on apaper surface for the sake of recognition accuracy (C TechnologyAB, 1999).

The use of SMS messages to facilitate discussion or interactionamong students has been explored (e.g., Bollen et al., 2004; Mark-ett et al., 2006; Salter, 2004). Students have been found to appreci-ate these instant messages during or after a class. Bollen et al.

P.-Y. Chao, G.-D. Chen / Interacting with Computers 21 (2009) 173–185 175

(2004) used PDAs to emulate SMS messaging for the support of dis-cussion in a literature course. These SMS messages were later inte-grated into a graph-based, collaborative discussion tool for furtherreuse. Salter (2004) found that SMS techniques have the potentialto increase effectiveness of and participation in online discussionby distributing alert messages to students in order to help themavoid constantly checking a discussion forum. Both studies demon-strate the integration of SMS techniques into the process of onlinediscussion. Similarly, the proposed system augments a discussionforum with support for immediately reporting status to, and shar-ing appropriate information with, relevant users. This concept ofcomplementing SMS techniques with websites to encourage inter-activity is also included in an SMS message loop technique (Mark-ett et al., 2006). Markett and colleagues used the technique tofacilitate interaction among students and teachers both duringand after class.

3. Linking among paper textbooks, mobile phones, and alearning community

Integrating a mobile phone with paper textbooks to facilitatepaper-based reading and question resolution within a learningcommunity involves challenges. Mechanisms that permit commu-nication between the mobile phone and the paper textbooks arerequired so that students can extract information from a tangiblebook and coordinate reading on mobile phone screens and papertextbooks for different purposes. We assumed that adding linenumbers to paper textbooks would allow the coordination of infor-mation between paper textbooks and mobile phones, which couldfacilitate extracting verbatim sentences as digital notes and resolv-ing comprehension questions. The addition would also lead tocomplementary use of two different vehicles—students would reada large amount of text on paper textbooks, while they would wel-come adaptive, short, and summarized text on mobile phonescreens, such as recommendatory messages or short digital notes.The linking of traditional paper-based learning with an onlinelearning community would help students to develop awarenessof available learning support resources. This section describes theproposed approaches to dealing with these involved challenges.

3.1. Line numbers as a tool for representing information contents

Various visual reference tags permit easy access to certain ser-vices or to information regarding book contents. Some of thesetags, such as page numbers, line numbers, or item symbols, aremore familiar to readers than others. Readers would treat the tagsas integral parts of a book and consequently minimize distraction.The other tags including barcodes or visual codes (e.g., Klemmeret al., 2003; Parikh et al., 2006), tend to be technology friendly,facilitating the incorporation of computing devices, but possiblyreduce readability. Students learning about computer programsor foreign languages are familiar with line numbers tagged besidelines of sentences for reference. These line numbers help synchro-nize the focus of discourse among a teacher and students during alecture, better associate expository text with language examples inlearning materials, and promote exchanges of opinions duringgroup discussion. Furthermore, the line numbers are comprisedof digits and are thus compatible with mobile phone keypads,which are designed for entering numbers. Thus, line numberscould potentially act as a bridge between paper documents andthe electronic world while maintaining the readability of the text.

Almost every sentence in a paper book has a fixed location thatcan be represented by a line number and a number representingthe sentence order within the line. A Location Pair, in which a‘‘#” character concatenates two representations of locations, is em-

ployed to systematically represent specific segments of text. Asshown in Fig. 1, for example, after underlining sentences of interestin a textbook paragraph, a student can make Location Pair‘‘263#273” to represent text from line 26, sentence 3 through line27, sentence 3. With line numbers tagged beside lines of text, stu-dents can identify line numbers easily but will have to manuallycount the sentences within a line. Fortunately, a single line of textseems to have on average 2–3 sentences in most Chinese exposi-tory textbooks, which may impose limited cognitive load on count-ing. For instance, the mean sentence number per line in a chapterof a translated version of the book ‘‘Computer Science: An Over-view” is 2.54 (SD = 1.00) (cf., Brookshear, 2003). As a result, a Loca-tion Pair can serve as a useful tool that allows informationextraction and coordination between a paper textbook and a mo-bile phone.

3.2. Complementary use of mobile phones and paper textbooks

Mobile phones are integrated into student life and are keptclose to people (Divitini et al., 2002). This close integration allowsmobile phones to ubiquitously offer immediate supports and read-ily cooperate with surrounding resources for tasks at hand. Paper isas popular as mobile phones and is also widely used in variouspedagogical and working settings. Luff and Heath (1998) arguedthat paper is not just an independent, but is instead a pervasive re-source that is often used within and alongside digital technologies;it thus becomes an integral feature of using novel technologies.Perry et al. (2001) also found that the high ecological flexibilityof both mobile phones and paper makes them useful for providingaccess to various resources in a mobile context. Consequently, mo-bile phones and paper documents can intimately coexist in studentreading practices and can support each other when a reading activ-ity involves both devices.

Although both a mobile phone and a paper textbook have highportability, their inherent characteristics distinguish them fromeach other in terms of the ways in which users interact with them.Paper documents are static objects that can present high-qualitytext and may produce less visual fatigue than a computer screenwould do (Mayes et al., 2001). They serve the purpose of illustrat-ing a large amount of expository text and of encouraging intensiveand critical reading. Conversely, mobile phones demonstrate com-municative and computational capabilities as interactive devices.They permit immediate responses to user requests for connectingpeople or for managing personal information. When the comple-mentary use of a mobile phone and a paper textbook is consideredfor the purpose of studying, the paper textbook provides detailedinformation for intensive reading, whereas the mobile phone sup-ports the learning process by allowing students to extract verbatimnotes from textbook paragraphs via line numbers, organize thoseextracts, and send comprehension questions to a discussion forum.Therefore, with augmentation of line numbers, a mobile phone anda paper document have the potential to complement each other’sfunctioning to sum up their respective benefits for enhancing thequality of learning tasks.

3.3. Sharing and acquiring learning support in an online learningcommunity

Students may confront difficulties in acquiring appropriate re-sources when they come across confusing passages or seek supple-mentary materials. Although an online discussion forum maysupport an online learning community (Luca, 2004) and may serveas a useful place where help is provided and exchange of opinionsis facilitated (Salter, 2000), it may dampen students’ enthusiasmbecause they will be required to periodically check for new eventsvia their personal computers (Hill and Roldan, 2005). Mobile

Fig. 1. In a textbook paragraph tagged with line numbers beside lines of text, underlined sentences can be represented by specifying line numbers (from line 26 sentence 3 toline 27 sentence 3) to indicate a concerned passage.


phones and text messages have the potential to make a discussionforum active by proactively sending messages to interested stu-dents. For instance, a student uses a mobile phone to extract diffi-cult passages and post questions on a discussion forum. Once anyclassmate replies with opinions or answers, that student will re-ceive a timely notification via an SMS message. Furthermore, thefrequently asked questions and their corresponding answers canbe shared with interested readers who are currently studying thesame paragraphs. This integration of a paper textbook, a mobilephone, and a discussion forum augments a learning community,which also permits the community to support textbook studyingin a more ubiquitous, collaborative manner.

When messages are delivered to students via mobile phones,there is a need to consider the ways in which these messages arepresented. Short, summarized formats with clear structures aregenerally suggested for presenting information on a mobile phonescreen (Buchanan et al., 2001; Jones et al., 1999; Marshall and Ruo-tolo, 2002). Therefore, in this study, the SMS notifications aim topresent brief, structured messages that often consist of three ele-ments: keywords, a range of lines and hyperlinks. The keywordsindicate key concepts in a section or a paragraph of a paper text-book, serving as stimulators for arousing interest and for facilitat-ing elaboration of prior knowledge about the relevant topics. A pairof line numbers covering a range of lines allows one to refer back toa textbook paragraph. The hyperlinks in summarized supplemen-tary information often inform the detailed version of the informa-tion that is available on web pages. By sharing these structuredmessages among community members, the shared messages couldadd tightness to the coordination of information between a papertextbook and a mobile phone, while facilitating asynchronous col-laboration in the online learning community.

4. System description

A ubiquitous learning support system prototype that integratesSmartphones and paper textbooks was developed to facilitatelearning activities for students under various circumstances. Thelearning-supported system aims to promote the learning strategiesof verbatim note-taking and question-asking, as well as to encour-age online discussion and annotation sharing. Fig. 2 illustrates thesystem overview that conceptually depicts essential elements andrelationships among those elements in the system. The paper text-book and the Smartphone should complement each other such thatstudents can extract sentences as verbatim notes, post questionsand receive SMS messages. The Web-based Annotation Tool isthe counterpart of the complementary pair, offering the same

learning support through Web browsers. Unlike Smartphone appli-cations for the complementary pair, the Web-based AnnotationTool allows users to extract sentences with a mouse by highlight-ing text, to post questions by filling a dialogue box with a key-board, and to receive e-mail messages. Changes made fromSmartphone applications are reflected in the Web-based Annota-tion Tool, and vice versa. For example, extracting one sentencethrough Smartphone applications will lead to an added note inthe Web-based Annotation Tool. These two counterparts offer dif-ferent choices of use under a ubiquitous learning environment.Histories of these extracted notes, questions, messages, and evenstudents’ reading progress are stored in the system as Web learn-ing portfolios (Chen et al., 2000). The Web-based Discussion Forumthat gathers diverse opinions and coordinates cooperation amongmembers encourages discussion of the raised questions. The mod-erators of the discussion forum are often subject experts in acourse, such as teaching assistants or capable students, who areable to facilitate discussion in the forum. They frequently reformatand categorize the discussion so that the discussion results and theWeb learning portfolios can be added to the web learning portfoliorepository as shared learning resources. Each shared resource is in-serted with line numbers to indicate its location in a paper text-book and allow the system to relate the resource with students’reading progress. Finally, the system delivers appropriate notifica-tions for answers or recommendation through SMS messages ore-mails to relevant students. Notifications for recommendedresources in the web learning portfolio repository are sent to rele-vant students by automatically matching their reading progresswith recommended resources.

A MiTACTM Mio 8390� Smartphone (see ‘‘Mio 8390 support over-view”, 2006) with a Web-enabled browser was employed to pro-vide students with ubiquitous learning supports. The Smartphoneis powered by the MicrosoftTM Windows Mobile� operating systemand includes the capabilities to surf the Internet via General PocketRadio Service (GPRS) network connectivity. The Smartphone screenis a 2.2 inch TFT LCD with resolution of 176 � 220 (approximately13 � 12 Chinese characters or 25 � 12 English characters, varyingwith font and text size). The Smartphone keypad includes standard12 buttons for dialing numbers and a set of navigation keys forselecting menu items (see Fig. 2).

4.1. Use cases

Augmenting the use of a line-numbered paper textbook with aSmartphone may offer some advantages for the application oflearning strategies that may require reading carefully over longtext or lengthy sentences as input in a constrained environment.

Fig. 2. System architecture of the ubiquitous learning support system


Two use cases in verbatim note-taking, the resolution of questions,and the share of messages are given as follows:

Alan reads paragraphs with a Web-based annotation tool. Hehighlights key sentences with a mouse and the system automati-cally records the sentences in a database. When taking a trainhome, he can use his Smartphone to review these sentences foran approaching exam. This review process may invite the recallof corresponding support details in the paper textbook. The porta-bility of both a paper textbook and a Smartphone makes cross-ref-erencing easy. Alan then starts to take new verbatim notes with thepaper textbook and arranges his notes via the Smartphone. Whenhe discusses the paragraphs with his friends at school, the studygroup refers to passages in a paper textbook by specifying linenumbers. Alan is assigned to collect the key sentences as notesduring the discussion. He uses his Smartphone to extract sentencesthat are commonly understood. After discussion, Alan exports thecollected sentences and e-mails them to other group members.

Jenny encounters a difficult passage addressing ‘override’ con-cept and requires other concrete examples to clarify her confusion.She does not have a desktop computer but she wants to seek helpfrom a discussion forum. Jenny then quotes the difficult text andposts a question on the forum via a Smartphone asking for moreexamples from other capable peers. Before arriving at her univer-sity next day, she receives an SMS message notifying her that someproposed examples are available on the discussion forum. She logsinto the discussion forum in a computer lab and decides to partic-ipate in the discussion. Another student, John, manually posted aquestion about comparison between ‘overload’ and ‘override’ con-cepts in object-oriented programming on the discussion forum aweek ago. The question has been discussed. When Jenny later fin-ishes note-taking on the section, she receives an SMS messagebriefly describing John’s question and a proposed answer. Thisnotification first arouses Jenny’s interest in thinking about the dif-ference between the two concepts and later offers an answer thathelps her to evaluate her understanding.

4.2. Note-taking by extracting sentences as verbatim notes

To allow for ubiquitous reading and for the extraction of verba-tim notes, a Smartphone incorporated with a line-numbered papertextbook should work well, permitting the quick input of extractedsentences while still maintaining comfortable reading. Students

who encounter sentences of interest on a page of the paper text-book can extract these sentences by specifying Location Pairs andretrieve the extracts later on a Smartphone screen regardless ofwhether they are at home, in dormitories, or on buses. For example,Fig. 3 depicts the interfaces for extracting and reviewing verbatimnotes. In a library, one student finishes reading a paragraph in a pa-per textbook. He highlights key sentences from line 20, sentence 1through line 25, sentence 3 with a colored pen on his right hand; hethen uses his left hand to enter the string ‘‘201#253” and push theUnderline button (see Fig. 3a). After he finishes reading a section,the student shifts his focus to extracted notes on the Smartphone.He pops out a brief list of the most recent 10 verbatim notes and de-cides which to browse (see Fig. 3b). The student then reviews one ofhis extracted notes for cues to recall what he had read on the papertextbook (see Fig. 3c). He finds that he has difficulty rememberingthe supporting details. The student then refers back to the textbookby locating the paragraph using the line numbers.

4.3. Posting questions and receiving recommendatory messages

Since students’ comprehension questions are mostly derivedfrom difficult passages in a textbook, the passages offer valuablecontext that could better explain these questions and limit thescope for discussion. Therefore, a comprehension question to beposted on a Web-based discussion forum can include the corre-sponding confusing passage by specifying a Location Pair to auto-matically insert the confusing passage into the post. For example,imagine one student who encounters a comprehension problemin the sentences between line 174 and 176. She enters the LocationPair ‘‘1741#1761” as she would do in verbatim note-taking. Thestudent then pops out a list of question types and selects the ‘‘Don’tunderstand” item (see Fig. 4a). The list of question types mainlyhelps students resolve confusing passages by requesting clarifica-tion, explanation, examples, or the application of certain conceptsor techniques. Students can choose questions from the list or enterfree-text questions. After selecting a question type, she sends theentire question to the discussion forum by pushing the post ques-tion button (see Fig. 3a). Once the question has been discussed, shereceives an SMS notification that includes a keyword, a hyperlink,and a pair of line numbers (see Fig. 4b). The keyword reminds herof her unresolved question. She follows the suggested hyperlink tobrowse a summarized version of the discussion result (Fig. 4c and

Fig. 3. Screenshots of extracting sentences using a Smartphone: (a) a student enters the Location Pair ‘‘201#253” to extract text from line 20 sentence 1 through line 25sentence 3 for verbatim note-taking and (b) a list of recent-ten extracted notes with links to (c) detail sentences.

Fig. 4. Screenshots of posting questions and receiving recommendatory messages using a Smartphone: (a) select a question about a confusing passage; (b) a notificationmessage with a hyperlink to a recommended answer; (c) the top page and (d) the bottom page of a proposed solution; and (e) a guidance message from a teacher toencourage exploration; and (f) a broadcast news to encourage participation.


d). The student finds the message helpful and decides to log on tothe discussion forum to seek more details. A teacher later sees thequestion and the student’s response to the discussion. The teacheranalyzes the student’s learning portfolio and privately sends her aguidance message encouraging the student to refer to another par-agraph in the paper textbook (see Fig. 4e). This message includes akeyword and a pair of line numbers to facilitate the reference. Theteacher also broadcasts a news message to invite more participa-tion in the discussion forum (see Fig. 4f).

5. Evaluation

Hammond (1994) noted that measuring the impact ofinformation technologies on learning is difficult and should consider

various relevant factors. Therefore, in the current phase, the evalua-tion put emphasis on identifying and exploring the augmented mech-anisms that might improve students’ learning. To assess the usabilityof the proposed system incorporating a Smartphone with a line-num-bered paper textbook and explore the implication of the augmentedfunctions, two studies, including a comparative and a case study,were conducted. The eight-week comparative study aimed to under-stand the use of a paper textbook and a Smartphone when studentsstudied course materials by applying strategies of verbatim note-tak-ing and question-asking. However, the six-week case study intendedto explore the implication of the augmented functions on learningpractice. Observations, interviews, system logs, diaries, and question-naires were used during the studies for quantitative and qualitativefeedback about the design and the implication.

Fig. 5. Usage pattern of sentence extraction using Smartphone applications and theWeb-based Annotation Tool. UG means frequencies of extraction via Smartphoneapplications and the Web-based Annotation Tool among Ubiquitous Group; WGmeans Web Group via the Web-based Annotation Tool; UG(M) and UG(W) meansUbiquitous Group via Smartphone applications and Web-based Annotation respec-tively. Note that two course tests were conducted in the fourth and seventh week.


5.1. Study 1: comparative study

The participants were 40 (36 men and 4 women) freshmen(aged 19–20) enrolled in a one-year computer science course—Introduction to Computer Science. They majored in computer sci-ence and had at least a semester experience of computer program-ming. These participants also had experience using mobile phonesand SMS messages. The comparative study was part of the course,since all participants were asked to study assigned paper textbooksand take course tests at the end of the fourth and the seventhweeks. Each participant had one mobile phone and two paper text-books in which line numbers were automatically inserted with aword processor before the textbooks were put into print. Thesepaperback course materials included two chapters: chapter 12and chapter 14 with 26 and 19 pages respectively. Chinese textand C# program examples were included in the materials. Thesecourse materials were transformed into webpage formats for theWeb-based Annotation Tool (see Fig. 2). Twenty of the participantswere randomly assigned to the Web-based Group (WG), whichpermitted students to extract verbatim notes or ask questionsthrough the Web-based Annotation Tool from desktop computers.They could not use Smartphones to extract verbatim notes and toask questions. The other 20 participants joined the UbiquitousGroup (UG). UG students were allowed to use the Web-basedAnnotation Tool as WG students could. Additionally, they coulduse Smartphones to extract verbatim notes and to ask questions.However, due to a GPRS malfunction, five participants reported dif-ficulty in connecting with the proposed system.

In a 2-h introductory session, UG students learned the rules forsegmenting lines of text into sentences by identifying certainpunctuation marks as well as the steps to set up GPRS function.They were encouraged to practice sentence extraction with othertext given for practice. Both WG and UG students had discretionarychoices to select the suitable devices or platforms (paper text-books, the Web-based Annotation Tool, or Smartphones dependingon students’ groups) for studying. They were encouraged to discusscourse materials in the course-based Web-based discussion forum.Appropriate recommendatory messages were later sent to UG stu-dents via SMS messages, or were e-mailed to WG students.

The system records participants’ input data as system logs.These logs include details on when, what, and how the participantshave submitted their requests to the system, which can assist toanalyze how students use their devices in the proposed system.The frequencies with which students extracted sentences for notesor questions via the Smartphone and the Web-based AnnotationTool during the eight-week period may reveal the participants’ ten-dency of preference. To understand how the participants treatedmessages of answers or recommendatory messages on the Smart-phone, the rate of following hyperlinks of the messages and the ra-tio of reviewing extracted notes via the Smartphone alsocontribute to understanding Smartphone use. Finally, scores oftwo course tests were compared to explore the implication inknowledge retention.

A questionnaire was conducted at the end of the study. Thequestionnaire employed a Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongagreement) to 1 (strong disagreement). Forty participants wereasked to complete the questionnaire, but in total 16 UG studentsand 17 WG students completed all the questions in the question-naire (one UG student completed the questionnaire partially). Stu-dents’ paper textbooks and the system logs were observed to findthe implication of the use of line numbers and Smartphones.Twelve UG students and 7 WG students were asked for confirma-tion or were given short interviews regarding their system logs,textbook annotations, or attitude shown on the questionnaire. Thispurposeful sampling served as opportunistic sampling (Creswell,2002) undertaken after the study had begun in order to unfold

events of interest. Therefore, the short interviews were conductedsoon after events had happened. One-to-one and focus group inter-views were both used during the study depending on the events’nature. For instance, a focus group interview was chosen for agroup of students who experienced the same events to exploreshared understanding. For specific persons experiencing specificevents, one-to-on interviews were more appropriate.

5.2. Results and findings of Study 1

The following subsections summarize the collected quantitativeand qualitative data from the comparative study. First, the use ofSmartphones and the Web-based Annotation Tool in verbatimnote-taking is explored. Then, data about posting questions andreceiving recommendatory messages via the two platforms are re-ported. Finally, the scores for the course tests and the added use ofline numbers in paper textbooks are presented.

5.2.1. Verbatim note-takingFig. 5 shows the frequency of note-taking using the Smart-

phones or the Web-based Annotation Tool during the study. UGstudents more frequently extracted sentences as verbatim notesthan WG students did (t = 2.438, p = 0.02). Among UG students,Smartphones were more frequently used than the Web-basedAnnotation Tool during the period between the fourth and seventhweeks; however, the difference was not statistically significant. UGstudents who tended to make good use of their time seemed tohave more opportunities to take verbatim notes via the Smart-phones for course tests. On the basis of a system log, one studentrecalled his use of a Smartphone to filter out familiar points beforea course test:

I arrange my notes in my Smartphone because it takes me aboutan hour on a train to get home. . . I just browse them but find toomany sentences in the Smartphone. Keeping too many key sen-tences means no key sentences. So I delete sentences that I haveunderstood. Now I can focus my attention on unfamiliar pas-sages left in my Smartphone.

Another student reported his use of a Smartphone to prepareprinted notes, describing how he used the notes to monitor hisunderstanding before a course test:

Extracting sentences helps me turn key points in textbook para-graphs into a printed list. Constantly rereading whole para-graphs in a textbook seems inefficient and somewhatpainful. . . Although key points are highlighted in the textbook,the words nearby distract me. I use the list as an outline to


recall the details. If I have trouble remembering the details, Iwill glance at the paragraph [in a paper textbook] for morecues. . .

These printed notes may contribute to the low use of Smart-phones in reviewing verbatim notes. The ratio of extracted notesto the number of times they were browsed was 1–1.5. However,nine (45%) out of the 20 UG students totally had printed out theirextracted notes a total of 46 times. These printed lists of notesseemed more convenient and comfortable to read than did a smallSmartphone screen.

Four UG students who used the Smartphone relatively inten-sively were asked about the reasons why they extracted sentencesvia Smartphones more frequently than they did via the Web-basedAnnotation Tool. The students reported that they regularly under-lined sentences or took notes when reviewing course materials.They provided short reasons as follows: ‘‘I think using a Smart-phone to take notes feels cool and fun; and I can use it anywhereI go.” ‘‘I think it is because I carry the Smartphone most of the time;naturally, have more chance to use it.” ‘‘I often read something on atrain or bus; it is pretty convenient to post a question via mobilephone.” ‘‘My reason is similar to theirs.” One student also describedher difficult experience:

There is something wrong with my Smartphone. Sometimes, Icannot connect to the system, but I can receive SMS messages(the others nod). I am accustomed to extracting sentences rightafter I finish highlighting key sentences in a paragraph. If I can-not extract those sentences at that time due to the networkproblem, it will take me more time to maintain the consistencybetween my Smartphone and paper textbooks next time.

To explore the additional load of note-taking via Smartphones,UG students were asked in the questionnaire whether they agreedwith the statement ‘‘I believe that extracting sentences by enteringline numbers does cause mental or cognitive load.” Three (19%)students out of 16 agreed; 7 (43%) were neutral, and the other 6(38%) disagreed. The questionnaire and interviews reveal that UGstudents may welcome the ubiquitous support in note-taking,whereas some students (19%) also agreed extra load associatedwith entering Location Pairs via a Smartphone, especially whenthe moment of entering was long after the act of highlighting sen-tences in a paper textbook.

Unlike Smartphone support for note-taking, which encouragedUG students to read paragraphs on paper pages, the Web-basedAnnotation Tool aimed to promote reading and note-taking on acomputer screen. However, five out of 7 WG interviewees showedtheir preference for paper textbooks, which introduces a dilemmabetween comfortable reading and digital notes. One WG studentreported his solution:

I seldom read a textbook paragraph on a computer screen. . . butI do like the digital format of notes. Therefore, before coursetests, I use the Web tool only to extract passages that I find dif-ficult or unfamiliar among the underlined sentences in mypaper textbook. . . Then, I will print the extracted passages sothat I can read them.

The dilemma may not exist for students who prefer reading on acomputer screen. One WG student described his use of the Web-based Annotation Tool:

It helps me quickly create notes, as I used to copy and paste textfrom a Web document. I would be happy to see all the contentsof the paper textbook uploaded as Web pages. . . I would notread the paper textbook unless it is needed or when a computeris unavailable. In that case, I will read only the paragraphs that Ihave already read on the Web. . .

5.2.2. Question resolving and recommendatory messagesDuring the study, WG students posted a total of 44 questions on

a discussion forum via the Web-based Annotation Tool, whereasUG students posted 70 questions (42 via a Smartphone, 28 viathe Web-based Annotation Tool). Among the 42 Smartphone-sentposts, 33 (86%) posts included confusing passages and ‘‘Don’tunderstand” or ‘‘Why can be that” questions; the other 6 (14%)posts consisted of confusing passages and questions manually en-tered on Smartphone keypads. UG students were unlikely to postlong questions via a Smartphone; instead, they used the Web-based Annotation Tool to formulate complex ones. The insertionof confusing passages may support discussion while providingdiagnostic information regarding student understanding. Oneteaching assistant described his observations:

I think these posts [sent by a Smartphone] do not just representstudents’ comprehension questions; they are feedback thatpoints out which parts of a textbook are difficult for them. . .

These posts have clear structure; the short questions at the bot-tom describe the reasons why the included text is here. . . Whenstudents read the posts with confusing passages, they mayrehearse important parts of a textbook. . . Students are also curi-ous about why these passages make their classmatesconfused. . .

These inserted elements may also improve students’ engage-ment. One common feature of the five most discussed posts wasthe inclusion of example programs. These program codes conveyedmore concrete information than did the text alone, which may in-vite more discussion.

Students also received notifications of question answers or rec-ommended messages through e-mail or SMS. These notificationsaimed to improve awareness regarding available resources of a dis-cussion forum or paper textbooks. During the study, 176 (85.4%)suggested hyperlinks of 206 SMS notifications were explored byUG students. Surprisingly, only 19 (13.6%) hyperlinks out of 140e-mail notifications were clicked on by WG students. WG intervie-wees reported that they hardly used official e-mail accounts as-signed by the university. They often checked for relevant eventsor exchanged information through a popular Bulletin Board Sys-tem. This low use of e-mail accounts led to a lack of awarenessregarding these notifications.

Question answers or recommended messages may encouragestudents to read on a discussion forum or a paper textbook formore details. One student said, ‘‘The SMS messages bring me upto date. Once I see the messages, I often log on and check the rec-ommended Web pages.” UG students were asked in a question-naire whether they agreed with the statement ‘‘I am willing torefer back to paper textbooks if I find the message interesting orhelpful.” Nine (53%) students out of 17 agreed; 6 (35%) were neu-tral, and the other 2 (12%) disagreed. One student said that shewould highlight these suggested parts of the text in her paper text-book because she thought the recommendation increased the pos-sibility of the text being included in the questions on an exam.

5.2.3. Course tests and added use of line numbersTable 1 shows the results of two course tests on chapters 12 and

14. UG Students had higher grades than WG students on both tests.The term grade of the previous semester of the course was consid-ered as a covariate to conduct an ANCOVA. The difference in themean scores for the test on chapter 12 approached, but did notreach, statistical significance (F = 3.926, p = .055). Similarly, therewas no statistically significant difference for the test on chapter14 (F = 2.643, p = .112). These results indicate that the improve-ment due to Smartphone use seems inconsistent among UGstudents.

Table 1Mean scores of two course tests.

Groupa Test on chapter 12, M (SD) Test on chapter 14, M (SD)

Ubiquitous (UG) 86.80 (10.26) 83.73 (11.37)Web-based (WG) 79.05 (14.38) 77.57 (14.96)

a n = 20 for each group.

Table 2Frequencies of verbatim note-taking and posting questions with Smartphones forpaper-based learning.

Use of Smartphone S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Average

Verbatim note-taking 120 83 175 175 47 22 103Posting questions 7 21 17 8 3 0 9


An analysis of line-numbered paper textbooks demonstratedthat line numbers beside each line of text may have multiple func-tions. In addition to locating text of interest, the line numberscould serve as integral elements of text. The line numbers repre-sented lines of text, thus allowing students to annotate them asnormal text. Six students marked ticks or brackets to highlight en-tire lines or to quote a segment of a paragraph. Another three usedquestion marks or asterisks to indicate their concerns or show con-nections with recommended messages. They found that markingmeaningful marks near the line numbers would draw their atten-tion much more easily than would the act of just embedding thosesigns in the text. These students treated line numbers as meaning-ful elements, not as unreadable codes that distracted their reading.

5.3. Study 2: case study

A teacher and six students (6 men) participated in a case study.The students were selected from 25 students (aged 20–22) in acourse that required all students to learn C++ programming lan-guage. The teacher gave lectures on the course and facilitated stu-dents’ discussion in the Web-based discussion forum, acting as amoderator. These selected students had experience with computerprogramming but did not have experience with C++ programming.They were selected based on an interview that investigated theirprior programming knowledge and their learning habits (4 stu-dents regularly studied course materials, and 2 students studiedonly before course tests). Each student was allocated with oneSmartphone and 6 line-numbered paper textbooks (in total, 223A4 pages) as course materials introducing C++ programming lan-guage. Students learned how to use Smartphone for extracting sen-tences and posting questions during a 2-h introduction. They wereasked to study the paper textbooks and encouraged to discuss var-ious issues in the course-based Web-based discussion forum dur-ing the six-week study. As in the comparative study, studentsreceive recommendatory SMS messages, including relevant ques-tions and progress reports. The latter reports are broadcast mes-sages that display every student’s progress based on the quantityand identity of sentences students extracted from paper textbooks.Students were also required to take course tests every week.

Data were mainly collected from observation, use diaries, regu-lar interviews and system logs. The teacher was interviewed on aweekly basis in his office. Each student was asked to write a usediary and have a 2-h interview every week in their regular readingenvironments. Observation of how the students read with Smart-phones was also made during these contextual interviews. Thecourse tests mainly served as motivation that encouraged studentsto read course materials and to engage in conversation in a discus-sion forum; therefore, we will not report the test scores in the fol-lowing sections.

5.4. Results and findings of Study 2

The use of the Smartphone for verbatim note-taking and post-ing questions is shown in Table 2. The students (S1–S4) who stud-ied course materials on a regular basis used Smartphones morefrequently than did the students (S5, S6) who studied only beforecourse tests. These two kinds of students had different learning

strategies for studying course materials. Consequently, this couldlead to difference in the use and perceived value of verbatimnote-taking with Smartphones. For example, one student (S6) re-ported that he perceived verbatim note-taking as an ‘‘investment”that may benefit him more in the future than at the time ofreading:

I do not think these extracted notes will show their usefulnessimmediately. They leave something that will make reviewsmore efficient in the next time. I would not invest my time innote-taking in a situation where time is limited and I am in ahurry to study.

However, another student (S1) took a relatively positive view ofthe process of verbatim note-taking:

It does take more time than just underlining. Underlining is nat-ural to me, and I did this mostly due to maintain my concentra-tion rather than for other purposes. Now with the knowledgethat what I have extracted becomes part of my notes for furthermanipulation, the decision of which sentences to extract forcesme to think more in context. I find out the main points of a par-agraph, and I take the chance to review the main point everyparagraph after extraction.

The ubiquitous, instant communication of Smartphones and theenhanced connections between individualized, paper-based read-ing practice and an online learning community seemed to influ-ence students’ planning and management of their learningstrategies or activities. Based on interviews, system logs, diaries,and observation, some selected findings were presented as follows:

5.4.1. Planning for learningIn the interviews that took place before Smartphones were

introduced to students, the students reported that reading papertextbooks often required long periods of time and reading placeswith desks. The portability of Smartphones and paper textbookstogether with networked connectivity could provide flexibility inplanning ahead when, where, or how to engage in learning activi-ties. Five students reported that they used Smartphones on trains,living room sofas, or their beds for reading purposes. Some of theseactivities were impromptu at the beginning. However, when theyrealized the augmented functions could alleviate the constraintof time and places, they planned Smartphone use as part of theirdaily reading practice. For instance, one student (S1) regularly tookverbatim notes for course materials with a Smartphone during anhour before bed, which he used to read entertainment materialswhile lying on his bed. Another student (S4) planned ahead touse his Smartphone on a train to extract important sentences.These previously constrained situations may have once preventedthe students isolating important sentences because pens are awk-ward to use in these circumstances. The SMS notifications of ques-tion responses also helped students plan to tackle theircomprehension problems:

If I encounter a comprehension problem that hinders me fromunderstanding the following sections, I post a question withmy Smartphone and then shift my attention to other subjects. . .

I do not have to worry that I may forget a question as before.The SMS messages will remind me to consider the question


again. I will reschedule my reading plans when I get an SMSmessage that tells me someone has given me advice (S2).

These students learned to flexibly use Smartphones to developand adjust their personal learning strategies or plans. This flexibil-ity may provide increased opportunities for students to engage inlearning activities or may facilitate the complementary use of dif-ferent reading vehicles on different occasions.

5.4.2. Management for learningStudents have a need to assess themselves in order to manage

their learning in keeping with their goals. An enhanced awarenessof students’ learning performance could contribute to broaderassessment of their progress. All students (6) reported that SMSprogress reports not only helped them continuously measure theirprogress toward their learning goals (the course tests) but also in-creased their initiative to the study course materials because of afeeling of competition. One student (S4) said:

I surely will glance at others’ progress to know how well theydo. It’s more like an alert, warning me when my progress is slowcompared with the others’ progress. If it is because I am not dil-igent enough, I would spend more time to catch them up. But If Ido study hard, the progress reports do not bother me.

The relevant recommended questions in SMS format also al-lowed students to test their understanding of relevant topics.One student (S1) reported that the recommended questionsencouraged him to evaluate others’ opinions or refer to coursematerials in order to clarify a specific concept of interest. Under-standing what topics or questions students are concerned withcould also help a teacher assess the level of comprehension of spe-cific students or groups for instructional intervention. The teacherexplained: ‘‘This platform allows me to broadcast key points I wantto emphasize. I can see their feedback in the discussion forum, andwe [the teacher and students] can discuss the points in the nextclass”.

Concepts, passages, or questions students were concernedabout were captured during verbatim note-taking and question-asking with a Smartphone in paper-based learning practice. Theawareness of personal or class learning contexts and the immedi-ate connectivity to the learning community through SMS messagesseemed both to facilitate continuous assessment by students orteachers and seemed to sustain or arouse students’ learning moti-vation to learn.

5.4.3. Adaptation of learning strategies to the augmented functionsThe augmented functions provided by Smartphones and line-

numbered paper textbooks may influence the paper-based learn-ing practice of isolating key points or resolving comprehensionquestions. We found that sentences extracted by students viaSmartphones were different from the sentences underlined in pa-per textbooks. The extent of the difference depended on how stu-dents used the extracted notes. Two (S1, S4) students highlighted afew keywords or sentences in paper textbooks and extracted moredetailed but complementary sentences with Smartphones. They re-ported that the highlights in the textbook paragraphs served asstructured reminders that were useful around test time while thedetailed extracted notes were more beneficial for them to reviewat the nights before the tests. Two other students (S2, S3) extractedwhat was underlined in paper textbooks but also extracted addi-tional passages because they expected chances to edit extractednotes: ‘‘I will extract more than what I actually need because Ido not want to miss something important. Deleting sentences ismuch more effortless than entering new sentences when arrangingnotes,” said one student (S3). These students did not just simplyhighlight sentences; they also performed planned extraction that

often required critical and strategic thinking for selection ofsentences.

As in the preceding comparative study students tended to onlypost simple questions with Smartphones due to the input and out-put constraints. Allowing the insertion of confusing text and in-stant connectivity made describing and posting simplecomprehension questions convenient. In addition, SMS notifica-tions allowed timely access to responses. One student (S2)reported:

It is easier to ask for help when I do not understand a wholepassage. You simply quote the passage and annotated ‘‘Don’tunderstand.” It seems that you subscribe to something;response or relevant questions will come to you. . . When I posta question with a Smartphone, I do not perceive that I am initi-ating a dialogue as I am used to in traditional discussion forums.

The student also reported that posting questions on a discussionforum made him feel like he was officially announcing somethingto his classmates. With Smartphones, however, he felt like he wasposting personal questions, due to the stereotypical conception ofmobile phone use. Five students also had the experience of printingout posted questions from the system as complete lists of theirconcerns. Comprehension problems previously represented merelyas question marks beside confusing passages seemed more likelyto be traced or monitored due to Smartphone use.

6. Discussion

The evaluation revealed that line numbers embedded in papertextbooks played a major role in coordinating information amongdifferent reading vehicles and helped students share annotationsamong one another. For verbatim note-taking, in Study 1, althoughboth Smartphone applications and the Web-based Annotation Toolallowed students to extract important sentences as digital notesfor further manipulation, the use frequencies demonstrated thatthe incorporation of a Smartphone with a line-numbered papertextbook may improve the students’ opportunity to take verbatimnotes for course exams. Although the technological novelty and theubiquitous support of a Smartphone were reported as the reasonsfor the increased use, in Study 2, we found that this ubiquitoussupport, together with connections to an online learning commu-nity, could assist students in planning or managing their learningactivities. However, the ubiquitous access to digital notes failedto raise the rate at which the notes were reviewed via Smartphonescreens. This is inconsistent with our initial assumption that stu-dents would welcome shorter text on mobile phone screens (Mar-shall and Ruotolo, 2002). Instead, students chose to print out thedigital notes or question lists to fulfill the needs of ubiquitous ac-cess, easy manipulation, and comfortable reading for paper-basedlearning. Students tended to treat the Smartphone mainly as a toolthat arranged important information to improve their chance ofaccessing it and as one that sustained their connections with alearning community for the enhanced awareness of learningresources or social events.

Students also demonstrated mixed use of a Smartphone and adesktop computer, which offers the potential for a Smartphoneto be a partner with a desktop computer to provide students withlearning support on different occasions. This use pattern seems tocoincide with the notion that a mobile device should extend exist-ing learning tools rather than replacing them (Jones et al., 2004;Waycott and Kukulska-Hulme, 2003). The students’ limited useof the two platforms in verbatim note-taking was also found dur-ing the evaluation. Besides the fact that the imposed load associ-ated with entering a Location Pair and the unstable quality of theGPRS network may contribute to the limited use of the Smart-


phone, students’ learning habits may also affect the use of the sup-portive tools. For example, in Study 2, students who studied regu-larly took more verbatim notes from paper textbooks and seemedmore likely to appreciate Smartphone support.

The interviews and use frequencies of posting questions via aSmartphone or the Web-based Annotation Tool also showed thatSmartphone support may improve the chance to elicit students’comprehension difficulties and complement its use with its Web-based counterpart. Including confusing text in a posted questionseemed to clarify and improve the structure of a Smartphone-se-lected question. The included text together with extracted verba-tim notes could serve as diagnostic cues useful in exploringstudents’ learning context, which could in turn facilitate adaptivelearning for students or instruction adjustment for a teacher.Although Smartphone screens are small, presenting summarizedstructured information with hyperlinks through SMS messagesand allowing a bond with paper textbooks via line numbersseemed to arouse students’ interest or curiosity to read the mes-sages, and may increase their awareness of available resources intextbook paragraphs or on a discussion forum. Students’ willing-ness to refer back to relevant parts of paper textbooks and log ontoweb pages to check details might show that these messages weretreated more as references to available resources than as informa-tion-intensive resources per se. Such a notion is similar to theSatchel system (Lamming et al., 2000), which allowed users to ac-cess small tokens or references in a mobile device while also per-mitting users to read a printed, detailed document by sending adocument token to a computer with a printer. The sharing of learn-ing context information (such as progress reports or relevant ques-tions) through these instant messages could also facilitate learningassessment and assist in maintaining awareness of the resourcesavailable or of the social events happening in a learning commu-nity, which in turn may sustain students’ attention to learningactivities or events of a course.

The results of the comprehension tests showed inconsistentimprovement in terms of knowledge retention due to Smartphoneuse. The inconsistent improvement may reveal that providingubiquitous supportive tools for more opportunities for verbatimnote-taking or asking comprehension questions does not necessar-ily result in better retention. Many relevant factors such as stu-dents’ learning attributes, reading materials, instruction ofreading strategies and task demands can affect the learning perfor-mance (Caverly et al., 2000). One example mentioned in the pre-ceding paragraphs is that students who studied regularly maymore appreciate the supportive tools than students who studiedonly before exams. The choice of covariate also greatly influencesthe result. In the comparative study, scores of pre-test on the givenlearning materials was more valid than term grades of the previoussemester. Therefore, a future study should take on a more sophis-ticated experiment that carefully selects a covariate and controlsrelevant factors in order to explore the learning effects. However,the exposure to new features of a Smartphone and of a line-num-bered paper textbook may encourage students to adjust theirlearning strategies to fit ubiquitous and social learning require-ments. For example, through his mobile phone, a student couldplan ahead the use of idle time to arrange his notes on a train, orcould keep track of new discussion or events on a discussion forumvia SMS messages to seek opportunities for collaboration in alearning community. Students may also learn to annotate linenumbers in a paper textbook to help visually isolate pieces of textor to attach specific passages with social context such as hot dis-cussion or teaching assistant’s recommendation.

Although augmenting with line numbers seemed a feasible wayto integrate the use of mobile phones and paper textbooks, theaugmentation is still limited in scope in the current phase. Thisaugmentation requires the insertion of line numbers into pages,

which involves additional composition processes of before puttingtextbooks into print. Fortunately, a word processor can facilitatethese processes by automatically generating these line numbers.Since the line numbers can represent lines of text for extractionor reference, a mapping table, which can be created using theWeb-based Annotation Tool, is also required to refer to corre-sponding text in electronic formats. Therefore, paper textbooksthat are irregular in page layouts such as poetry books are thoughtunsuitable. For pre-made books without line numbers, insertingline numbers and mapping tables in their new digital editions issuggested for employing the proposed approaches. To accelerateresponses to a published question, this study recommends thatenthusiastic students or teaching assistants partake as moderatorsin a discussion forum to encourage or to supervise the discussion,because the lack of feedback from moderators or other participantswould reduce motivation to participate in discussion (Guan et al.,2006).

7. Conclusion

This paper proposes a learning support system prototype inwhich a mobile phone is incorporated with paper textbooks anda Web-based discussion forum to facilitate selective verbatimnote-taking and comprehension questions resolving in paper-based learning practice. To allow students to ubiquitously extractimportant sentences as digital notes or as parts of posted compre-hension questions from a paper textbook, line numbers were dis-played beside textbook paragraphs as digit indices for locatingand copying sentences via a mobile phone keypad. The comparisonof note-taking use frequencies in the comparative study showedthat although some (19%) students recognized the cognitive loadof entering these line numbers for sentence extraction, the mobilephone support seemed to improve the application of verbatimnote-taking for course exams when compared to its Web-basedcounterpart. Meanwhile, to facilitate posting comprehension ques-tions, a mobile phone was used to automatically insert confusingtext into a post by specifying line numbers to enhance a question’sclarity for publishing the post on the Web-based discussion forum.The comparison of question asking frequencies revealed the in-creased application of posting short comprehension questions onthe forum via a mobile phone to elucidate difficult passages.

This exposure of students’ difficulties, progress, or concernsmay allow a teacher to adjust instruction accordingly while en-abling the system to recommend shared annotations to interestedstudents. However, the increased application of both verbatimnote-taking and posting comprehension questions failed to consis-tently improve learning performance. The results of deliveringmessages also showed that the recommended question answersor relevant annotations informing students with SMS notificationsthat contain hyperlinks or line numbers to remind students ofuseful resources seemed likely (85%) to arouse these students toexplore the recommended notifications.

Further interviews in the case study showed that the mobilephones, as supportive learning tools to augment paper-basedlearning, could support students’ planning and management oftheir learning strategies or activities. The portability of Smart-phones and paper textbooks, together with network connectivity,could provide students with flexibility in planning ahead for suit-able learning strategies or activities, which may in turn providethem with increased opportunities to engage with course materialsor learning events. The ubiquitous, instant connection with thelearning community through instant SMS messages could also en-hance students’ awareness of their own and other students’ learn-ing performance, which may facilitate continuous assessment formanagement of students’ learning goals.


On the basis of the experience of developing mobile applica-tions and the results of the evaluation, two suggestions are pre-sented for system designers who aim to employ mobile phonesto offer learning support in paper-based learning practice. First, adesigner may inform a mobile application with a role as a partnerto other information appliances, such as a desktop computer, a lap-top computer, or even a printed book, to allow complementary useon different occasions. This flexible, integrated use of differentappliances may improve the chance of access to learning supportin ubiquitous learning practice. Moreover, this ubiquitous, multi-platform support could also provide relatively complete diagnosticfeedback that would allow a student to assess her performance anda teacher to adjust his teaching strategies. Second, a designer mayemploy a mobile phone as a discoverer that can explore relevantresources in a learning environment. These resources are proac-tively announced to the students through notifications that pro-vide summarized descriptions suggesting reading on details viamore appropriate reading vehicles. The use of this channel fordelivering adaptive, recommendatory notifications could be inte-grated into class curricula to offer adaptive instruction or guidanceto specific groups of students.

Future work will involve exploring the incorporation of mobilephone cameras with line numbers, which would allow the easycapture of reading reflections that students note as they are read-ing. This integration will permit wider ranges of data to be enteredinto a mobile phone and thus may improve its usability. Since thesample size and time employed for this evaluation were limited, amore sophisticated evaluation for different course subjects and forparticipants with different knowledge background (e.g., Englishtext for non-computer science students) is needed to explore thevariety of learning patterns. In addition, teaching strategies andstudents’ intention regarding the continuous use of such a ubiqui-tous learning support system will also be investigated in futurework.

References

Amer, A.A., 1994. The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on thereading comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes 13 (1),35–45.

Anoto Group AB. Anoto Technology [Electronic Version]. <http://www.anoto.com>(retrieved 13.10.07).

Bollen, L., Eimler, S., Hoppe, U., 2004. SMS-based discussions – technology enhancedcollaboration for a literature course. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEEInternational Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education2004, Taoyuan, Taiwan, pp. 209–210.

Brookshear, J.G., 2003. Data structure. In: Computer Science: An Overview. PearsonEducation, Inc., Boston.

Buchanan, G., Farrant, S., Jones, M., Thimbleby, H., Marsden, G., Pazzani, M., 2001.Improving mobile internet usability. In: Proceedings of the Tenth InternationalWorld Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong, China, pp. 673–680.

C-Pen. C-Pen Stroke of Genius [Electronic Version]. <http://www.cpen.com/>(retrieved 13.10.07).

C Technology AB, 1999. C-Pen User’s Manual [Electronic Version]. <http://www.mindflux.com.au/products/ctech/C_Pen_Manual20.pdf>.

Cadiz, J., Gupta, A., Grudin, J., 2000. Using Web annotations for asynchronouscollaboration around documents. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conferenceon Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 309–318.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J.V., Barnes, M.A., Bryant, P.E., 2001. Comprehension skill,inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory &Cognition 29 (6).

Caverly, D.C., Orlando, V.P., Mullen, J.-A.L., 2000. Textbook study reading. In: Flippo,R.F., Caverly, D.C. (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study StrategyResearch. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 105–148.

Chen, G.-D., Liu, C.-C., Ou, K.-L., Lin, M.-S., 2000. Web learning portfolios: a tool forsupporting performance awareness. Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational 38 (1).

Corlett, D., Sharples, M., Bull, S., Chan, T., 2005. Evaluation of a mobile learningorganiser for university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21,162–170.

Creswell, J.W., 2002. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluatingquantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.

Divitini, M., Haugalokken, O.K., Norevik, P.-A., 2002. Improving communicationthrough mobile technologies: which possibilities? In: Proceedings of the IEEE

International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education(WMTE’02), pp. 86–90.

Garner, R., 1992. Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist 27 (1),53–63.

Guan, Y.-H., Tsai, C.-C., Hwang, F.-K., 2006. Content analysis of online discussion ona senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory.Instructional Science 34 (4), 279–311.

Guzdial, M., Turns, J., 2000. Effective discussion through a computer-mediatedanchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9 (4), 437–469.

Hammond, M., 1994. Measuring the impact of IT on learning. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning 10 (4), 251–260.

Hill, T.R., Roldan, M., 2005. Toward third generation threaded discussions for mobilelearning: opportunities and challenges for ubiquitous collaborativeenvironments. Information Systems Frontiers 7 (1), 55–70.

Jones, C.G., Johnson, D.W., Bentley, J., 2004. Role preference: are handheldcomputers an educational or personal technology. Journal of InformationSystem Education 15 (1), 41–53.

Jones, M., Marsden, G., Mohd-Nasir, N., Boone, K., Buchanan, G., 1999. ImprovingWeb interaction on small displays. Computer Networks 31 (11), 1129–1137.

Kiewra, K.A., 1985. Investigating notetaking and review: a depth of processingalternative. Educational Psychologist 20 (1), 23–32.

Klemmer, S.R., Graham, J., Wolff, G.J., Landay, J.A., 2003. Books with voices: papertranscripts as a physical interface to oral histories. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,USA, pp. 89–96.

Lamming, M., Eldridge, M., Flynn, M., Jones, C., Pendlebury, D., 2000. Satchel:providing access to any document, any time, anywhere. ACM Transactions onComputer–Human Interaction 7 (3), 322–352.

Liao, C., Guimbretière, F., Hinckley, K., 2005. PapierCraft: a command system forinteractive paper. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on UserInterface Software and Technology, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 242–244.

Luca, J., 2004. Using online forums to support a community of learning. In: TheProceedings of the EDMEDIA 2004 Conference.

Luchini, K., Quintana, C., Soloway, E., 2003. Pocket PiCoMap: a case study indesigning and assessing a handheld concept mapping tool for learners. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,Florida, USA, pp. 321–328.

Luff, P., Heath, C., 1998. Mobility in collaboration. In: Proceedings of the CSCW’98Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, Canada. ACMPress, New York, NY, pp. 305–314.

Luff, P., Heath, C., Greatbatch, D., 1992. Tasks-in-interaction: paper and screen baseddocumentation in collaborative activity. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACMConference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW ’92, Toronto,Ontario, Canada, pp. 163–170.

Luff, P., Heath, C., Norrie, M., Signer, B., Herdman, P., 2004. Only touching thesurface: creating affinities between digital content and paper. In: Proceedings ofthe 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago,Illinois, USA, pp. 523–532.

Mackay, W.E., 1999. Is paper safer? The role of paper flight strips in airtraffic control. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 6 (4),311–340.

Mackay, W.E., Pothier, G., Letondal, C., Bøegh, K., Sørensen, H.E., 2002. The missinglink: augmenting biology laboratory notebooks. In: Proceedings of the 15thAnnual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Paris,France, pp. 41–50.

Markett, C., Sánchez, I.A., Weber, S., Tangney, B., 2006. Using short message serviceto encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education 46 (3),280–293.

Marsden, G., Jones, M., 2002. Ubiquitous computing and cellular handset interfaces– are menus the best way forward? South African Computer Journal 28, 67–74.

Marshall, C.C., 1998. Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In: Proceedings ofthe Ninth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Pittsburgh, USA, pp.40–49.

Marshall, C.C., Ruotolo, C., 2002. Reading-in-the-small: a study of reading on smallfactor devices. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference onDigital Libraries, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 56–64.

Marxen, D.E., 1996. Why reading and underlining a passage is a less effective studystrategy than simply rereading the passage. Reading Improvement 33 (2), 88–96.

Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K., Koonce, J.M., 2001. Comprehension and workloaddifferences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics 28 (6), 367–378.

McCutcheon, G., 1981. Elementary school teachers’ planning for social studies andother subject. Theory and Research in Social Education 9 (1), 45–66.

McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., Podmore, V., 2005. Artifacts, tools, and classrooms.Mind, Culture, and Activity 12 (2), 113–127.

Mio 8390 support overview, 2006. [Electronic Version]. <http://www.mio-tech.be/en/support4/8390-support-overview.php> (retrieved 31.07.07).

Myers, B.A., 2001. Using handhelds and PCs together. Communication of the ACM44 (11), 34–41.

Nokia. Nokia SU-1B Digital Pen [Electronic Version]. <http://www.nokiausa.com/A4410909> (retrieved 13.10.07).

Nomura, S., Hutchins, E., Holder, B.E., 2006. The uses of paper in commercial airlineflight operations. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference onComputer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW ’06, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp.249–258.

http://www.anoto.com

http://www.cpen.com/

http://www.mindflux.com.au/products/ctech/C_Pen_Manual20.pdf

http://www.mindflux.com.au/products/ctech/C_Pen_Manual20.pdf

http://www.mio-tech.be/en/support/8390-support-overview.php

http://www.mio-tech.be/en/support/8390-support-overview.php

http://www.nokiausa.com/A4410909

http://www.nokiausa.com/A4410909


O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., 1997. A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents.In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystem, Atlanta, GA, pp. 22–27.

Parikh, T.S., Javid, P., Sasikumar, K., Ghosh, K., 2006. Mobile phones and paperdocuments: evaluating a new approach for capturing microfinance data in ruralIndia. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems CHI ’06, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp. 551–560.

Perry, M., O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., Brown, B., Happer, R., 2001. Dealing with mobility:understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 8 (4), 323–347.

Pettit, J., KuKulska-Hulme, A., 2007. Going with the grain: mobile device in practice.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 23 (1), 17–33.

Pham, T.-L., Schneider, G., Goose, S., Pizano, A., 2001. Composite device computingenvironment: a framework for situated interaction using small screen devices.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5 (1), 25–28.

Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, H.U., Milrad, M., Perez, J., 2003. Educational scenarios forcooperative use of personal digital assistants. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning 19, 383–391.

Rau, P.-L.P., Chen, S.-H., Chin, Y.-T., 2004. Developing Web annotation tools forlearners and instructors. Interacting with Computers 16 (2), 163–181.

Robertson, S., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T., 1997. The use and effectivenessof palmtop computers in education. British Journal of Educational Technology28 (3), 177–189.

Salter, G., 2000. Making use of online discussion groups. Australian EducationalComputing 15 (2), 5–10.

Salter, G., 2004. Convergence of synchronous and asynchronous – push technologymeets online discussions. Paper Presented at the Learning Technologies 2004,Mooloolaba, TAFE.

Sellen, A.J., Harper, R.H.R., 2003. The Myth of the Paperless Office. The MIT Press,Cambridge.

Seppälä, P., Alamäki, H., 2003. Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning 19, 330–335.

Smørdal, O., Gregory, J., 2003. Personal digital assistants in medical education andpractice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19, 320–329.

Thornton, P., Houser, C., 2005. Using mobile phones in English education in Japan.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 217–228.

Thornton, S.J., 1991. Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies.In: Shaver, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching. Macmillan,New York, pp. 237–248.

van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., 2000. The use of textbooks as a tool duringcollaborative physics learning. The Journal of Experimental Education 69 (1),57–76.

Wade, S.E., Trathen, W., Schraw, G., 1990. An analysis of spontaneous studystrategies. Reading Research Quarterly 25 (2), 147–166.

Waycott, J., Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2003. Students’ experiences with PDAs for readingcourse materials. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7, 30–43.

Weinstein, C.E., Mayer, R.E., 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In: Wittrock,M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, third ed. Macmillan, New York,pp. 315–327.

Weiss, I.R., Banilower, E.R., McMahon, K.C., Smith, P.S., 2000. Report of the 2000National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education [Electronic Version].<http://www.horizonresearch.com/reports/2003/insidetheclassroom/looking.php> (retrieved 16.09.07).

Wellner, P., 1993. Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk. Communication of theACM 56 (7), 87–96.

Westhues, K., 1991. Transcending the textbook world. Teaching Sociology 19 (1),87–92.

Yeh, R., Liao, C., Klemmer, S., Guimbretière, F., Lee, B., Kakaradov, B., et al., 2006.ButterflyNet: a mobile capture and access system for field biology research. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 571–580.

Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M., 2004. A constructivist mobile learning environmentsupported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning 20, 235–243.

http://www.horizonresearch.com/reports/2003/insidetheclassroom/looking.php

http://www.horizonresearch.com/reports/2003/insidetheclassroom/looking.php

Documents

Augmenting paper-based learning with mobile phones