iPromise: Researching iPads and Student Achievement

The following post was originally written as a term paper for my Master's course work. (Picture Added)



Central Michigan University
EDU707 Seminar: Issues in Educational Technology
Final Term Paper
February 26th, 2012
Dr. Kathyrn Dirkin

Central Question

The Apple iPad, noted as the “flag-bearer of tablets” (Arthur, 2011), is being heralded by some as a revolutionary tool for learning. However, while the device’s rapid rate of purchase and adoption declare its popularity, what evidence is there that its use will increase student achievement as suggested? This research paper will review and analyze a variety of journal writings concerning the iPad as an educational tool, its features and challenges. Furthermore, this paper will explore what factors appear critical to the iPad’s successful implementation in classrooms, concluding whether or not the device has yet been proven to raise student achievement.

Features

The iPad has a plethora of features that make it very attractive and accessible to most users. The device’s emergence as a robust alternative to laptop and desktop computers is also largely why consumers and educators are interested in using the iPad. Dr. Shelley Kinash notes the device’s features, “It is affordable and lightweight, can be purchased with both Wi-Fi and 3G, thereby expanding the Internet connection options. It has a long battery life, which makes it conveniently wireless both for Internet and power. The size and high resolution of the screen make it viable to read eBooks through applications such as Kindle” (Kinash, 2010). Currently retailing at $499 US, I would argue that the iPad is only “affordable” when compared to the purchase price of a Macbook or high-end PC laptop. And while the iPad’s weight is lighter than, again say a laptop, the weight of new laptops does not necessarily make them difficult to transport. Further Kinash highlights that, “The large memory makes it possible to have an extensive library of educational source materials. The touch screen, icons and intuitive settings make the iPad user friendly. Bluetooth keyboards are available for those who do not like touchscreen keyboards” (2010). Although the disc space is ample for many of its applications, when again compared with laptops, Apple only offers iPads with a limited storage capacity; an entry level 16 GB to a maximum of 64 GB. Apple contends this is because of its forward thinking employment of iCloud technology and the device’s unique OS. The touchscreen interface and keyboard have a difference in feel and physicality that goes beyond ‘preference’ as Kinash suggests, and could stand as a barrier to student with exceptionalities. Kinash rightly states that, “There are apps for every content area imaginable and to expedite many processes”, as the number of apps currently available at Apple’s App store is over 140 000 (Apple, 2012a). Finally, Kinash notes, “The iPad supports multimedia, making the searching and viewing of YouTube videos easy” (2010). This multimedia support, while not unique to the iPad, does seem to be its core draw, with a “9.7-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen Multi-Touch display with IPS technology” (Apple, 2012b), practically the entire front of the device is a visual display interface. Others also see its visual interface as the iPad’s key feature for improved learning experiences, as Robert Meurant observes and speculates, “It is designed for using fingers on a touch screen rather than the physical keyboard and mouse as with PCs, and this is one contributing factor to what will likely prove to be a revolution in education. The effects will likely become particularly evident in language education, because of the integrated multimedia and telecommunications features that have application to language learning” (Meurant, 2010). This supposition appears based on the Mayer’s principle of modality, which states for the sake of increased comprehension, “It is recommend having words in audio format instead of visual text on screen when presenting graphics and words simultaneously” (Clark & Mayers, 2003; Levert, 2006).

Perhaps somewhat conversely to this highlighted multimedia capability, it is also the potential capacity of iPads to replace physical textbooks that many feel is the device’s greatest use to raise student engagement and achievement (Meurant 2010; Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010). While some stakeholders see an opportunity for funding the purchase of iPads in lieu of the budgeting for the purchase of traditional textbooks, there have yet to be substantiated studies that would confirm this claim. Salerno & Vonhof caution of such a rationale, entirely based on cost saving, “We are confident that solely relying on cost savings as a philosophical framework will mislead constituents and may derail efforts when cost savings are not realized” (2011). Instead, and more interestingly there appears to be an expectation that through the employment of the iPad device as an e-reader, textbooks will become increasingly interactive and rich with multimedia features. Publishers of traditional textbooks have already begun to work in partnership with companies such as Apple to develop such resources that go beyond directly generated PDF formats of existing materials. In adopting a digitally based interactive media, researchers believe that instructors and learners will experience a greater opportunity to customize and individualize content. (McCrea, 2010; Valstad, 2010) From this paradigm, also comes an assertion of difference between textbook replacement and textbook transformation, “Many schools have adopted the replacement stage, which entails taking an existing resource and replacing it with a somewhat identical digital resource. The simplest and most known example of this is to replace a paper textbook by the same textbook in PDF/eBook form on for example an iPad. This is useful if the purpose is to “test” out new technology and measure how well it replaces the original resource. However, transformation is when a process, or a resource for that matter, is completely transformed in how it is used, taught or handled” (Valstad, 2010). This “transformation” process is still largely theoretical and only currently being undertaken, but when traditional textbooks are compared to the sort of document annotation and modification that exists with a device such as the iPad, there is a clear case for Valstad’s described “transformation” over “replacement”.

In summary, the multitude of innovative features and different physically interface, have led many to the conclusion that the iPad as a technology is more easily integrated to a learning environment, “Institutional factors, such as dedicated computer classrooms, this is where the iPad truly shines. It does not alter the “way of teaching” in the same sense as what common ICT tools do. There is no need to move the class to the computer room, it is lying there next to the textbooks and it is instantly on. It is less disruptive” (Valstad, 2010).

Challenges

The above summarizes the numerous features of the iPad that many feel make it a better device for computer and communication applications in a learning environment, however its unique attributes also pose a number of specialized challenges for learning, teaching, and assessment. For the purpose of discussing the challenges of deploying and managing iPads in an educational setting, I will be using a model wherein the devices are owned and maintained by the educational institution and only utilized by a number of students throughout the school day. While this model of deployment is a departure from the commercially advertised iPad as a personal lifestyle device, such are the most likely conditions under which iPads are to be employed, given current technology implementation models and budgets.

The iPad’s easy to use operating system and apps mean that the process of saving, storing, and organizing files is virtually unseen. This automation results in students not being able to structure or search folders on their own, as is the usual case with the vast majority of desktop and laptop computers, regardless of their operating system: Windows, Mac, Linux, etc. This hidden file location may be challenging for students who are often very familiar with the traditional hierarchy of PC files and folders. This streamlined saving process can also pose a challenge when considering the issue of backing up and security students’ work. As the iPad is conceived as a personal device with no log-in required and no multi-user log-in possible. If the device is shared amongst classes or students, file security on the device is next to nil. To address this potential glaring security gap, numerous applications such as Dropbox or even Google Docs could be employed, which allow students to save all files to an external, web-based server with user names and passwords. This is an additional process for students, albeit one that is a basic of information communication technology (ICT) skills.

Counter to the claim made by some (McCrea 2010; Kinash 2011), the use of an iPad as an e-reader in lieu of traditional textbooks is not immediately or equally valid to other dedicated e-readers. This is mainly due to the iPad’s LED backlit screen, which has been associated with increased eyestrain. Such a symptom may lead many users unable to read passages beyond 3 or 4 pages (Valstad, 2010). This limited ability to read text passages would likely not contribute to the iPad’s improvement of student achievement. Another questioned use of the iPad is its employment for note taking. Given the unique interface, students require significant time and practice to adopt such a new modality (Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010), often preferring to maintain a paper based methodology that is more familiar and expedient. There is even some concern that the increasingly slick, multi-media presentation capabilities of texts via the iPad could lead students to exert less effort in learning which in turn could results in the student yielding poorer learning strategies in the future. To support this thinking, Valstad presents an interesting analogy, “Non-educators often make the mistake of equating access to information with access to learning. In reality, these are two separate goals. In fact, increasing access to information can actually undermine learning, because it sometimes requires reducing or eliminating the challenge or resistance that is essential to learning. The difference between access to information and access to learning is parallel to the kind of heavy lifting done by a professional mover versus done by a body builder. The professional mover is eager to get the job done as fast as possible with the least amount of work. To accomplish this, the professional mover uses tools as lifts, trucks and other devices to get the job done with minimal wear and tear. The body builder wishes to accomplish something with this job: strengthen his muscles. Therefore, he seeks challenges and lifts weights, and is on the lookout for opportunities to build strength and gain weight, focusing on support muscles not being trained and increase resistance for those that are. The goals of learners are similar to the body builder than to the professional mover.” (Valstad, 2010). This line of thinking challenges the many positive suppositions that the iPad’s many features and functions make it, to continue the analogy, a wheeler cart that makes lifting fast and easy.

One glaring challenge to the use of the iPads in education that I have first hand experience with is the device’s inability to share or mirror its screen through a media projector when using most apps. Designed to only perform such an important sharing functionality through apps such as Keynote, iTunes, and handful of others, teachers and students cannot connect the iPad to a media projector in order for larger audiences to view their screen and work. This is a significant barrier to immediate sharing and on-screen demonstrations and requires a more elaborate mechanism. The only true option to overcome this lack of direct output is jail-breaking, a term for the employment of apps that modify the iPad’s OS, which are not approved or distributed by Apple through their Apps store. While screen sharing can easily be achieved by jail-breaking the device, Apple is rather explicit that this action will yield any existing warrantee for the iPad null and void. The choice to jail-break a device becomes moot in a traditional educational setting where administrative clout for installing programs and apps is often held by IT staff.

Successful Implementation

Despite the anticipation and excitement for Apple’s iPad in an education context, very little of this potential has been substantiated by proof with regards to its actual improvement of student achievement. Currently the majority of articles published have proposed theoretical reasoning for its support of learners’ success based largely on the iPad’s similarity to proven technologies and its numerous progressive features. In researching the topic, a few key elements can be found to be common amongst effective deployment strategies and pedagogies. First, the issue of ownership appears to be central to both deployment and teaching/learning practices. As discussed previously, the design of the iPad is that of a personal device not a multiple user device. In deployment, having many students share one device throughout the school day, week, or term, presents immediate challenges for the security of student work with many popular apps. Therefore the dedication of a single device to a single student appears to be beneficial both to the security of student work as well as the degree of adoption into note taking and use as a study tool (Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010). Providing individual students with their own iPad that can be taken home, may sound financially unsound or risky, but Salerno & Vonhof argue it necessary for true adoption and integration of learning tasks, “Schools must ensure that the pilot program mirrors the final product. Many schools are tempted to launch pilot programs where iPads remain at school and are shared by multiple students. The iPad was not designed to be shared, and piloting iPads in this manner may provide a false and disappointing picture of what a true 1-to-1 program will look like” (Salerno & Vonhof, 2011).

Beyond this somewhat obvious but challenging conclusion, a more general trend in iPad deployment was the necessity of a well supported Learning Management System, or LMS to frame the tasks and tools of course work. Following the reliable infrastructure provided by a robust LMS, pedagogy practices that are aligned with the mobility of iPads and M-learning are recommended (Cochrane 2010; Kinash 2011). Defined as, “the digital support of adaptive, investigative, communicative, collaborative, and productive learning activities in remote locations, proposes a wide variety of environments in which the teacher can operate” (Laurillard, 2007), the features outlined above support that the iPad is very well suited to M-learning.

Conclusion

Despite the many often agreeable speculations on the iPad’s merit as a technological tool for enhanced and improved learning, little if no data has proven this device will raise student achievement. I suspect this is because of the novelty and newness of the technology. This lacking knowledge could be what Matthew Koehler refers to as, “Technological Pedagogical Knowledge”, that is, “Knowledge of the existence, components and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (Koehler, 2011). This explicit articulation of what is lacking in examining whether iPad use leads to improve student achievement may be of small consolation to those seeking substantiated proof. Koehler’s suggestion for further development does however give all interested parties a clear and concise domain in which to pursue the iPad’s promised practicality.

References

Apple Inc. (2012a). Apple ipad 2: See apps and games from the apps store. Retrieved from        http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/

Apple Inc. (2012b). Technical specifications for ipad 2. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Arthur, C. (2011, October 19). Apple sales rise - but fail to soar. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/19/apple-sales-rise-iphone-ipad

Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Edition. ISBN: 0-7879-6051-0

Cochran, Thomas D. (2010) ‘Exploring mobile learning success factors’, ALT-J, 18: 2, 133-148, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687769.2010.494718

Evenstuen, A., Torstein Dalen, J., & Hoff Midtbo, O. (2010). The use of ipad as a learning tool. Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF4260/h10/student-projects/The Use of iPad as a Learning Tool/Final Report HCI.pdf

Kinash, S. (2011). It's mobile, but is it learning?. Education Technology Solutions, Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=tls

Koehler, M. (2011, May 11). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.tpck.org/

Laurillard, D. 2007. Pedagogcal forms of mobile learning: Framing research questions. In Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda, ed. N. Pachler, 33–54. London: WLE Centre, Institute of Education.

Levert, G. (2006, June 19). Designing for mobile learning: Clark and mayer's principles applied. Learning Solutions Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/222/designing-for-mobile-learning-clark-and-mayers-principles-applied/page2

McCrea, B. A. (2010). Measuring the ipad's potential for education. THE Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/01/27/Measuring-the-iPads-Potential-for-Education.aspx?Page=1

Meurant, R. C. (2010). Ipad tablet computing to foster korean efl digital literacy. International Journal of Service, Science and Technology, 3(4), 49-62. Retrieved from http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJUNESST/vol3_no4/4.pdf

Salerno, M. A., & Vonhof, M. (2011). Launching an ipad 1-to-1 program: A primer. THE Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2011/12/14/Launching-an-iPad-1-to-1-Program-A-Primer.aspx?sc_lang=en&p=1

Valstad, H. (2010). Ipad as a pedagogical device. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Retrieved from http://framsikt.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ipad-as-a-pedagogical-device.pdf

My American Educational History Lesson/Confession

This series was the video companion to a text book for one of my courses. In reality I was expected to read the actual book, but I found the stories told through video much more rich and telling. So I returned the book for a full refund! The videos certainly informed me about America's past and heavy influence on the Canadian educational system. The stories and topics made me long to teach history and social studies again. These videos do not have 50, 000, 000 views on YouTube, but are so worth the 4 hours. Please enjoy them and don't tell my prof about the returned textbook.


The Story of American Public Education: The Common School 1770-1890 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



As American as Public School: 1900-1950 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



The Story of American Public Education, A Struggle for Educational Equality 1950-1980 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



The Story of American Public Education, The Bottom Line in Education 1980 to Present from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.

Reflection: The Nature of Learning and Knowledge

I recently posted about a new, improved KWL chart for educators called the KWHLAQ. And while I certainly did not systemically or consciously adopt the structure into my ongoing learning process, I'm coming to realize its value and how its components are shaping my thinking and writing.

The impact may be most visible here in my summer blogging or perhaps in the coming weeks when I am preparing to return to teaching classes this fall. I feel like I'm loaded to the brim with new ideas about my profession and practice, yet I'm also feeling uncertain without one clearly defined path to follow forward. Perhaps it's the reality that my view of technology and education is being expanded daily and the array of possibilities now seems greater than ever. [Sigh]

I've also learned to truly value the summer break, something that many people see as teaching's greatest perk. It's not what made me want to be a teacher, but I'm gaining a deeper understanding of the necessity of reflection and the opportunity that summer gives for this process. I also know that the season is passing, and as blessed as I have been to have had the opportunity to study daily without working, I received a letter in the mail just yesterday concerning the coming first week of school and the myriad of activities, meetings, and assemblies; a reminder that I must put these wonderful ideas into action for them to have value in this world.

And so, I definitely feel as though I'm positioned in the final two sections of the KWHLAQ process: Action and Question. Thankfully, I've gaining in the number of resources and colleagues, on and off line that can aid me in my decision making for pedagogical actions, chiming back with meaningful answers to my earnest questions. I hope to continue my social bookmarking and blogging throughout the coming school year as my thesis project comes into a clearer focus. I'm a big believer in our habits shaping our character, and through my habitual blogging, the person I am has certainly become more knowledgable and yet more inquisitive too. Funny how that happens. I've searched for a source for the following quote, but ironically, I have not yet found its author beyond a website stating, "[knowledge is] a condition in which the more we know, the more we know that we don't know."

At the end of the summer, I think that is all I know.

Image: Auguste Rodin's "The Thinker" photographed by d.Seneste.dk http://www.flickr.com/photos/dseneste/5912382808

1 to 1: Maintaining the Human Connection?

Dean Shareski's recent post on his "Ideas and Thoughts" blog seems to oddly question the push for a 1-to-1 ratio of students and computer devices. Shareski's work may lead one to assume he is in unanimously in favour of increased technological access in education, but he poses a question that I think is intended to keep technologically eager stakeholders in education vision and goals in check. And to me, it's a welcome question.


Given the flurry of comments to this post, I'm pretty sure that some people read this question as a questioning of educators working in a 1-to-1 situation. I do not believe this is the thrust of Shareski's post. He is neither attacking or second guessing the excellent work that can be done by professionals in such a setting. I think he's questioning the bigger picture of pushing so hard for a 1-to-1 environment that we lose sight of the importance in face to face interaction.


Speaking from my own recent (current) experience of pursuing my Masters degree in a completely online format, I feel the lost Shareski laments about. I have never met face to face with my classmates and as a result, I do not feel a strong kinship with them. Certainly we are undergoing similar trials under simultaneous deadlines, but connections that would be made in person cannot be relied upon. In some ways I think that has made this cohort more efficient. We don't "waste time" making small talk, but we also do not learn much about one another beyond a paragraph posted on the first week of class. Now don't get me wrong, this is a graduate level program and I'm confident that each and every one of my cohorts is a well-adjusted adult learner with at least one degree completed. We are not adolescents struggling with identity, popularity, sexuality, trends, and acceptance. But our students often are.


Just like Dean Shareski, I am not about to start lobbying my administration for less computers and old software, but I do want to keep my pursuit of advancing educational technologies in check. All technologies have great potential to bring people together or drive to them apart and fostering human connectedness is more the goal of education than the blind ambition of stuff.

Bring Your Own Device? Nice!

Darren Kuropatwa's recent post on his "A Difference" blog regarding his blueprint for a "BYOD" class really got me thinking about the coming September and the next five or so years, when I begin to assume that every student will have a personal electronic device with them in school. Instead of arguing when and why this should happen, I'll just dream along with Kuropatwa's wish list of apps and work flow.

Well, to be honest, I still don't follow the entire flow of the class, although I do suspect he teaches Math not a computer course per say. Having him outline the way he would like to see his class function if he where in a liberating BYOD situation makes me question why I am not more clear with my own work flow via technology plan in my media literacy course? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the first generation iPads we have have given me a number of hiccups with regards to interaction with our school's Sharepoint portal. But that would be a simple excuse for the time I've been able to put in for work arounds. That said, as I read over Kuropatwa's ideal class, I feel further conviction to abandon the clunky and limited Sharepoint site and instead employ some of the vast number of free Web tools that are out there today. Well, to remain honest, that another of my issues. Yes the Internet is being swarmed with brilliant, free tools, but I almost wish that students would be able to bring their own devices in with them.

Allowing students to take possession of devices for our daily hour of class time is a positive response to their need for technology to be integrated into their education. However (and I do not begrudge the folks who funded our iPad program) the fact is that the devices stay at school and remain the property of the school in the same way a badminton racket is used for a purpose and shared so other can access it too. The big hold up here is that I'm really starting to see the importance of an individual really taking possession of a device to best work with it. I've been blessed with a laptop for the duration of this summer course and have made blogging and other Web 2.0 tools a daily thing. If I had to leave my house to access the Internet and could only do so for an hour a day, how much would I have learned this summer?

Bring your own device to class for technologically supported learning in school? I'm being very serious, quite optimistic, and in no way sarcastic when I say, "That will be the day!"

  

KWL 2.0?

I appreciate hearing new ideas, but I really truly appreciate hearing a new idea that is build upon a proven, sound idea. Such is the case with Silvia Rosenthal Tolisano's blogpost concerning the new, 21st century KWL chart. The KWL chart has been around for a while and as Rosenthal Tolisano suggests, it was certainly time for an "upgrade".

But what is gained? KWHLAQ infuses three processes to the learning process and while the ideas are not particularly new, the additions are welcome in my opinion. K still stands for what is known about the subject, acting as an anticipatory mode. W stands for what information you want to learn. H is a new addition and stands for how the information will be found. L remains to stand for what has been learned. A is a new addition and stands for what action will be taken, asking learners to apply their knowledge. And finally Q stands for questions, as in what new questions are generated by this inquiry.

The easy to memorize acronym is gone, but the additional components do reflect the information literacies that are increasingly necessary in the digital information age. What are your thoughts on this "upgrade"?

Rosenthal Tolisano suggests her new chart ought to hang on your classroom wall.

Flipping Education

I've been reading a lot more lately about the concepts of blended education and flipped classrooms. While the two processes are compatible, I'm really getting on board with the later and have begun aligning my classroom procedures considerably towards flipping. Recently reading Jonathan Bergmann's post retelling the genesis of the idea, I was captured by his earnest conversation with a co-worker that led to the idea's birth. I had a strikingly similar conversation this year past with a colleague that led him to screencasting a number of his lessons and demonstrations. He wasn't doing it to seek out a challenging new pedagogy, it was to save himself some time. While the capturing process is time-consuming at the initial on set, the payoff was immediate and well worth it.

Observing my colleague, I saw that him being freed up from repeatedly lecturing and demonstrating the same concepts and skills during class time to deal more directly one on one with students' concerns. This was an obvious win-win scenario. It was also awesome to see students arrive for class having viewed his tutorials the night previous. The learning had been offloaded, to become the students' responsibility and the teacher's role truly became supportive. That's when I really started thinking about the cleverness of the "flipped" moniker.

For whatever reason, this is the visual representation I see for the flipped model. Imagine an inverted triangle, with the teacher representing the bottom point and the many students sitting precariously above, relying on the teacher to make their learning experience equal to all the others balanced up on top. Now imagine the triangle sitting with the base (students) at the bottom. The teacher is now able to offer each and every student the same basic tutorial or lecture without being smothered by the needs of students to review and recap central concepts. Instead, students are in at the base-level and need to take the weight of ownership in their learning.

Perhaps this visual doesn't work for you, but to me it illustrates the freedom being offered to educators in adopting the inverted, perhaps counter-intuitive classroom procedure. Would it likely be challenging? Yes, myself and my students have to reconfigure the way we do learning and school. Does it mean throwing out everything that has worked in my classes? No, certainly not. Instead, it's a matter of capturing the traditionally repeated instructional elements of my classes and allowing students to view and review them in a take-away format. Am I likely to be "flipping" this semester? I'm certainly going to try the flipping practice in my media literacy course for starters, given the individualistic nature of the course and its employment of 1 to 1 technology. If this practice is successful for me like it was for Bergmann and my colleague, I'll be flipping my other more traditional English courses shortly after. That is, if my students are not "flipping out".