Finding Flow in the Classroom: A Case Study on Instructor Experiences and Likeliness of Continuing to Use Mobile Technology Tools and Gather E-Portfolio Content

  • Warren S. LingerEmail author


The focus of this paper is to investigate instructor flow experiences when using technology tools to aid interactive classroom learning and create e-portfolios. Tasked with developing university graduates with twenty-first century skills like e-portfolios, university instructors are inundated with new and different technologies to help build these skills. Yet, because these technologies are not easy to learn and use, the instructors are not using them to increase interactive learning in their classrooms. This combination of development pressure, too many choices of technology, and lack of technology understanding, is causing instructors to become increasingly anxious about technology. This case illustrates the process of testing and using two primary tools that were free, easy to learn and use, and yet could be combined in several ways to help curate artifacts for e-portfolios. The effect of using these tools showed it was easier to experience flow-like conditions when using them.


Flow Optimal experience Optimal engagement E-portfolio Google Forms Google HyperDocs 


  1. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1988). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT Initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Burnaby, BC: SFU Document Solutions, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhuri, T., & Chan, W. Y. (2016). “Networked learning communities”: A perspective arising from a multidisciplinary community of practice on student e-portfolios. Learning Communities Journal, 8(2), 27–49. Online at: Accessed June 27, 2016.
  5. Chu, S., & Kennedy, D. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collan, M., & Tetard, F. (2007). Lazy user theory of solution selection. In Proceedings of the CELDA 2007 Conference, Algarve, Portugal (pp. 273–278) December 7–9, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, M., & Richlin, L. (Eds.). (2004). Building faculty learning communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Dudeney, G., Hockly, N., & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital literacies: Research and resources in language teaching. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
  14. Hidayanto, A., & Setyady, S. (2014). Impact of collaborative tools utilization on group performance in university students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 88–98.Google Scholar
  15. Hwang, B. (2014). The effects of learning portfolio-based program on learning competencies perceived by pre-service special education teachers. Special Education Research, 13(1), 26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information, 49(3), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linger, W. S. (1997). Putting immediacy to work: Training teachers use immediacy behaviors in their classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Linger, W. S. (2002). The relationship between immediate communication, flow, and motivation to continue learning and to integrate technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Linger, W. S. (2016). Driving interaction and ubiquitous learning with mobile devices: A pilot study. Learning Communities Journal, 8(1), 99–129.Google Scholar
  20. Peppler, K. A., & Solomou, M. (2011). Building creativity: Collaborative learning and creativity in social media environments. On the Horizon, 19(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  22. Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. TechTrends, 57(3), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salvagno, M., Taylor, J., Bobeva, M., & Hutchings, M. (2015). Ubiquitous connectivity and students’ well-being: A situational analysis in a UK University. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 8(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Shroff, R. H., Chaudhuri, T., & Linger, W. (2014). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Promising practices and lessons learnt from a pilot. Paper presented at the eLearning Forum Asia 2014, 28–30 May 2014, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  25. Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Lim, C. P. (2014b). Student ownership of learning using E-portfolios for career development. Journal of Information Systems Technology & Planning, 7(18), 75–90.Google Scholar
  26. Shroff, R. H., Keyes, C., & Linger, W. (2016). A proposed taxonomy of theoretical and pedagogical perspectives of mobile applications to support ubiquitous learning. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 8(4), 23–44.Google Scholar
  27. Westberry, N., & Franken, M. (2012). Co-construction of knowledge in tertiary online settings: An ecology of resources perspective. Instructional Science, 41(1), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Continuing EducationHong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations