IPADS IN THE CLASSROOM: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

E-LEARN: WORLD CONFERENCE ON E -LEARNINGNOVEMBER 14-16 , 2016 , THE WESTIN ALEXANDRIA, USA

PRESENTER: MD. SAIFUDDIN KHALIDAsst. Prof., PhD (HCCI), M.Sc. & B.Sc. (Comp. Sci.),

Motivation

• Explore & emphasize on the technological functionalities, pedagogical design, and barriers to the integration of iPads in Lessons.

• Facilitate reluctant teachers, school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders

• Research Question: What are the technological and pedagogical potentials and problems of integrating iPad in schools?

Why iPad?

Differences: Operating systems,

app market, programming languages, application

programming interfaces (APIs), and other factors.

Methodology

• Method: PRISMA checklist for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Liberati et al., 2009)

• Databases: EBSCOhost (21 databases, including ERIC & Academic Search Premier), Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library

• Keywords: iPad, education, and school• Timeline: January 2010 and September 2014 • Note: Using “K-12” instead of “school” returns duplicates.• Full-papers for screening: 59• Included: 17 peer-reviewed articles• Exclusion: ADHD and autism; contexts of higher educational

institutions; and pre-schools or kindergartens

Analysis and Synthesis

Five broad categories:

1. Functionality and convenience of use2. iPads scaffold the learning process and support

creative problem-solving skills3. Mobile and multi-contextual device for learning4. Digital content creation and consumption: 21st-

century skills5. Barriers to the integration and adoption of iPads

iPads scaffold the learning process and support creative problem-solving skills

Ubiquitous and child-centered

Learning process: creative, relaxed,

and informal

Scaffold the learning process

Metacognition and creative

problem-solving

Enable becoming cooperative and collaborative — learning by doing

Productive learning

(Jahnke & Kumar, 2014)

(Culen and Gasparini , 2012; Falloon, 2013)

(Jahnke & Kumar, 2014;Falloon, 2013)

(Fisher, Lucas, and Galstyan,2013)

(Herrington, Mantei, Herrington, Olney, & Ferry, 2008)

(Mei-Ju, 2014)

Functionality and convenience of useUsabilityPersonalized and engaging

Designs for learning

Content creationAccess and share information or learning contentCommunication and collaboration ResearchAssessment and feedbackGamification and game-based learningCombining the formal and informal learning contextsLearning resource and notebook

Mobile and multi-contextual device for learning

Links professional and personal social contexts

Public “workspace”: users’ real and virtual worlds intertwine

Global knowledge-sharingScheduled and flexible, synchronous and asynchronous

Learning at anytime, anywhere and at own pace

Social technology (device and social aspects)Device usability (device and learner aspects)

Mix environment and everyday life in School projects

Barriers to iPad integration and adoption• Operation and maintenance • Access• Attitude• Distraction• Advertisements• Motivation for learning• Omnipresence• Apps• Security• Miscellaneous: human contact,

ergonomics, bandwidth requirements, startup cost, recurring costs, cheating during exams, and class disruption

Scope of Further Research (Authors): Method of Analysis

• Categorize iPad use in classroom by applying ICT-TPCK framework, i.e.:• Technology (functionality, Usability and UX), • Pedagogy, • Content, • Learners and Context (Anglei, C. & Valanides, N, 2009).

• Pedagogy: as Activity System (Engeström et al., 1999)References• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization,

development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

• Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Scope of Further Research: From reviewed articles

• Kearney et al.’s (2015): Mobile technologies in informal spaces outside school.

• Mei-Ju (2014): Children’s development in the kindergarten.• Falloon & Khoo (2014): Hypothesized, conscious and permanent

compositions by children could improve learning.• to identify, to devise and to compare different frameworks for digital

didactical designs• Mangen, Robinet, Olivier, and Velay (2014): Readers have more

difficulty remembering details and sequence of stories when they read on the tablet instead of on paper. Valid and reliable? If yes, is it desirable?

Scope of Further Research (Authors)

• iPad-integrated pedagogical design of subject-specific lessons. • How can a combination of specific iPad apps and analog resources

be integrated into lessons in different subjects? • What are individual students’ cognitive and social challenges when

engaging in collaborative or cooperative learning with iPads? • How can teachers differentiate teaching activities with iPads? • How can formative and summative evaluation be made convenient for

students and teachers? • Identify or devise and apply frameworks for digital didactic designs.

Scope of Further Research (Authors, Cont.)• UX factors: Text editing, copy-pasting, the lack of arrow keys, multitasking,

file copying.• Empirical studies and reviews on

• the digital didactic designs,• appropriated apps for different subjects, • signature pedagogies, • assessment or feedback, and • evaluation of the application of different digital didactic designs.

• For improved replicability, iPad-integrated case studies should be subject-specific, student-focused and app-appropriated. Research findings from such iPad-integrated pedagogy-focused action research would contribute significantly to the fields of education and educational technology.

Question and Answer

Md. Saifuddin Khalid professorkhalid@gmail.com