Lit Review Final

Using iPads in the Classroom for Literacy, Mathematics, and Assistive Technology
Ashley Wiggins
University of San Francisco
Introduction
The iPad's features make it an appropriate tool for the classroom because of its
physical size, storage capacity, Wi Fi connectivity, mobility, built in camera, accessibility
features, and abundance of available applications (OMalley, Jenkins, Wesley, Donehower,
Rabuck, & Lewis, 2013). Researchers are examining how the iPad is being used in the
classroom to meet the learning standards and the students' needs.
This literature review will examine how iPads have been used in the classroom to meet
literacy and math skills for students with and without disabilities and how the iPad can be
used as assistive technology for students with learning disabilities.
Using iPads to Teach Literacy Skills
Schools are adopting iPads and other tablet devices creating new opportunities to use
technology to teach literacy skills (Northrop & Killeen, 2013). It is important to investigate how
the iPad can foster successful reading practices and can influence student learning. Using the
iPad, students can download books to read text with audio support and use word-by-word
tracking with picture animation (Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012). The
following studies will show how teachers are using iPads to teach literacy to students.
A study, conducted by Beschorner and Hutchison (2013), provided two teachers from
the same school sets of iPads preloaded with literacy applications (apps). The teacher
introduced new apps to the students biweekly; however, the previous apps were never
deleted, and students could return to them. Writing and speaking apps were introduced in the
first and second weeks of the study, and listening and printing awareness were introduced
during the third and fourth weeks. Apps that allowed students to write, speak, and listen were
selected for the fifth, sixth, and seventh weeks. Children used the applications during whole
group lessons, small groups, and one-on-one. One of the most frequently observed one-onone activities was creating digital story books. In small groups, students using the app
Magnetic ABCs would work together to write words they found in the classroom, and listen to
stories together. Whole group activities included how to care for the iPad and check the local
weather.
This study was conducted as a qualitative case study. Twice a week observations were
made, children's digital work samples were reviewed, semi-structured interviews of teachers
were conducted, and parent emails and an informal survey of parents thoughtswere collected
for seven weeks. The results suggest that the iPad can be used in multiple ways as an
instructional tool to support the teaching of emergent literacy in an early childhood classroom
(Beschorner & Hutchison, 2013).
This study concludes that the iPad is a tool that young children can navigate and use
independently, and children can develop emerging knowledge about print in digital contexts
using the iPad. It becomes a social activity for children to talk and work together. (Beschorner
& Hutchison, 2013).
The study shows us how iPads are used as an instructional tool for teaching
literacy in an early childhood classroom, however, the participants were a homogenous
group of middle-class children. Another study should be conducted using a more
diverse population of children. The two teachers used in the study were willing and
excited to integrate the iPads in the classroom. Although some teachers may not be as
willing, or have the knowledge needed to integrate the technology into their classroom.
An additional study conducted by Hutchison et al., (2012), explores how a 4th grade
teacher, with 23 students, integrated iPads into her literacy curriculum and how the
technology was used in the classroom. The teacher agreed to integrate iPads into her literacy
instructions everyday for three weeks. For each lesson, learning goals were determined, then
apps were selected to meet these learning goals. One example of a learning goal was for
students to visualize as they were reading a story. An app was selected for students to create
a digital picture of what they were visualizing as they read. Other learning goals included:
independent reading, sequencing, retelling, cause and effect, and main idea and details. It is
not known how many iPads were provided for the teacher and students to use in the
classroom.
The researchers found that the teacher was able to meet the literacy goals created
using the iPads. It was concluded because the researchers used examples like this: students
learned to digitally communicate with other readers in the class by leaving a sticky note, in the
digital books they read using the iBooks app, for future readers (Hutchison et al., 2012, p.
22). The study does not explain how results were measured or offer results of interviews
conducted with the teacher or students. It does offer three quotations from students about the
learning experience, such as, We could visualize it a lot better! (p. 21). The article does
provide a list of the helpful aspects of iPads for literacy instruction, however, evidence was not
provided about how these lists were made. It is suggested that the tool should enhance
literacy instruction and promote progress toward a literacy learning goal, and not being used
as an add-on to instruction (Hutchison et al., 2012).
Integrating digital technologies into educating literature and teaching students skills
needed for reading, writing, and communicating in digital environments is a priority; however,
many teachers struggle to efficiently and effectively integrate and teach both traditional and
new literacy skills (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). The iPad helps teachers integrate these
literacy standards with many apps connecting reading, writing, listening, and speaking
naturally within one app (Beschorner & Hutchison, 2013). Teachers should carefully evaluate
the apps they select to teach literacy skills and continue to monitor and assess students to
make sure the apps selected are helping to achieve student learning goals.
Using iPads to Teach Mathematical Skills
Using iPads in the classroom allows for differentiated instruction for students and
promotes independence. Apps on the iPad incorporate multiple senses, including auditory,
visual, and tactile. Using multiple sensory inputs reinforces student learning and achieves a
variety of mathematical objectives (Carr, 2012). The next studies focus on using the iPad to
teach mathematics in the classroom for students with and without disabilities.
In a study by OMalley, Jenkins, Wesley, Donehower, Rabuck, and Lewis, 2013, the
effects of a basic math skill application on an iPad to build basic math fluency of students with
moderate to severe disabilities, and the potential advantages of and barriers to using iPads in
academic interventions was investigated. Basic math fluency is the accuracy and speed with
which a student can solve single digit addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division
problems (Poncy, Skinner, & OMara, 2006).
The study was conducted at a special education school in an urban school in
Maryland. It include the entire class of ten 7 th and 8th grade students (3 females, 7 males),
between 12 and 15 years old. All students had a primary diagnosis of autism spectrum
disorder or multiple disabilities. The study supplemented their regular classroom math
instruction.
Surveys were completed to measure the level of access and use of technology in the
classroom and at home. Using the Numbers and Operations Subtest of the Brigance
Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills II students' basic math ability was assessed. Math
probes involving 20 addition and subtraction problems were used to measure basic math
fluency. The baseline phases used paper and pencil to assess, and teachers timed and
scored the students' performance. The intervention phase used an application on the iPad,
Math Racer, to record the students' scores and time to complete 20 addition and subtraction
problems.
The study was conducted over four weeks and started with the baseline phase for one
week, followed by the intervention phase for one week, followed by another baseline phase
for one week, followed by yet another intervention phase for one week. This approach was
chosen because it allows for systematic measurement of individual changes in performance
following an intervention. The dependent variable was the rate of basic math fluency gains,
and the independent variable was the timed math probe. The baseline phases used the pencil
and paper assessment, and the intervention phases used the app, Math Racer.
The results recorded the data of the timed math probes for 3-5 sessions for four
weeks. The data was represented using time series line graphs. OMalley et al., (2013)
compared the level, trend, and variability of data within each phase. Data patterns across the
phases were examined for immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency of data in similar
phases. The data had to document at least three demonstrations of an effect at a minimum of
three different points in time, in order to be identified as effective.
The researchers found the iPad was an effective instructional tool for students with
moderate to severe disabilities. The teachers reported the program was worth the time and
effort invested in the survey, the students showed increased interest in content during the
intervention phases, and would like to continue using the iPads in the classroom. Statistical
and visual analyses showed the students' rate of fluency gains increased during the
intervention phase and regressed to baseline levels when the intervention was removed. A
closer look at each individual students' data revealed that the intervention may have not been
effective for all students.
The statistical analysis of data revealed three noteworthy findings. First, a significant
increase in basic math fluency. During the iPad intervention phase, students were able to
answer more problems correctly per minute. Next, binomial test results from the classwide
data indicated statistically significant differences for both the initial baseline and intervention
phases (p = .063), and the second baseline and intervention phases (p = .063). That is, the
proportion of successes significantly differs from chance (OMalley et al., 2013, p. 11). Third,
mixed results were found comparing the students pre- and posttest math performance.
There was no significant difference in accuracy, but a significant improvement in speed. Most
of the students scored high on the pre-test, which left little room for improvement on the posttest (OMalley et al., 2013).
Using informal observations, semi-structured interviews, and self-report surveys with
teachers and parents, advantages and barriers were identified. Three advantages were
identified. First, teachers rated their perceptions of the iPad intervention as highly acceptable
and effective for classroom instruction. Second, the intervention allowed the students to
master or make progress toward learning goals and objectives that they had not yet been
able to master using traditional instructional methods. Third, the participation in the iPad study
enhanced their teaching skills and improved students' interest in the content (OMalley et al.,
2013).
Four barriers were identified. First, technical support was needed throughout the
intervention, suggesting the teachers would need additional training and support. Second,
survey results indicated a vast range in the ability of teachers to use the iPad. Third, students
had a variety of technology available at home, but usually had a limited use. Fourth, the use,
storage, and maintenance of the iPads took more time and effort than originally thought
(OMalley et al., 2013).
The findings indicate that iPads could be used as an effective and efficient instructional
tool in the classroom to help students with learning disabilities to increase math fluency rates.
Second, teachers saw a positive impact on students engagement using the iPad in the
classroom. Third, a need for professional development to help teachers integrate technology
into the classroom was found (OMalley et al., 2013).
The research was conducted over a four week period. It is not known if the students
retained the information gained during the study or the long-term effects of the academic
progress.
In a study by Carr (2012), the impact of the iPad's use as a 1:1 computing device on
5th grade students' mathematics achievement in two rural elementary schools in Virginia was
examined. One elementary school had 48 fifth grade students participating, and the second
elementary school had 56 fifth grade students participating, all from similar demographic
characteristics. Both classes of 5th graders completed the same Scott Foresman-Addison
Wesley 5th grade mathematics Virginia standards of learning aligned assessment pretest.
The study lasted for one academic quarter. The teacher and students in the control group did
not use the iPads daily during the mathematics class. Their mathematics activities included
playing collaborative learning games, completing worksheets and projects, or using physical
manipulatives. The experimental group used the iPads as 1:1 computing devices. The iPad
was used for at least one mathematics activity daily, including playing game-based learning
applications, reviewing presentations, accessing online video tutorials, or using interactive
manipulatives. At the end of the study, all participating students completed the same Scott
Foresman-Addison Wesley 5th grade mathematics Virginia standards of learning aligned
assessment posttest. The effects of the iPad intervention were measured according to the
mean difference between the pretest and posttest results.
Carr (2012) designed this study based on the research by John Dewey. According to a
student-centered, experiential, theoretical framework, the academic achievement of
students could be influenced through experiences with iPads. When applied to the
present study, experimental theory was the foundation for the hypothesis that the
independent variable of classroom iPad experiences would influence the dependent
variable of students' posttest performance, as based on Dewey's (1922) idea that
students learned through experience. (p. 271)
The two teachers participating in the study have equivalent levels of professional
experience, evaluation practices, and instructional practices. Both had a teaching credential in
the state of Virginia, a bachelor's degree, at least five years of teaching experience, and
taught three 5th grade mathematics courses for approximately 60 minutes five times per
week. In the experimental group, the 5th grade class comprised 56 students, 23 females and
33 males. The control group, the 5th grade students comprised of 48 students, 26 female
students and 22 male students. On average, all students were 10 or 11 years of age.
To measure the mathematics achievement of the 5th grade students over the course of
one academic quarter a pretest and posttest was used. The tests consisted of 50 question
multiple choice cumulative questions, with a numerical scale from 0 to 50, with a maximum
10
possible score of 50.

Both teachers covered mathematical content from the Virginia 5 th grade 2009
standards of learning using the Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley 5th grade textbook series
before the study focusing within the six mathematical strands: (a) number and number sense,
(b) computation and estimation, (c) measurement, (d) geometry, probability and statistics; and
(e) patterns, functions, and algebra. Following the district's 5th grade mathematics
benchmarks, both teachers covered the following instructional content for the previous
academic quarters: (a) place value, (b) adding, subtracting, and multiplying whole numbers
and decimals, (c) dividing with one-digit and two-digit divisors, (d) data, graphs, and
probability, and (e) geometry. The teachers were trained in iPad use, and the iPads were
distributed to the experimental group.
During the study, both teachers covered mathematical content from the Virginia 5th
grade 2009 standards of learning using the Scotts Foresman-Addison Wesley 5th grade
textbook series. Lesson plans were collected from both teachers, to gain insight into what
actually occurred instructionally in the classroom. Both teachers completed a daily diary to
record any deviations from the submitted lesson plans. The included information on iPad
usage, lesson plan implementation, external events or circumstances, and additional related
notes. After the iPad intervention, a posttest occurred.
All 104 students participated in the pretest and posttest assessments. The data was
screened and processed for outliers and skewness to ensure no discrepancies existed.
Carr's (2012) results found: The control group completed the pretest with a mean
pretest score of 55.58%. At the end of the academic quarter, the control group had a
mean posttest score of 62.25%. This is a positive difference of 6.67%. The results
11
indicate a significant change over time from the beginning of the academic quarter to
the end of the academic quarter. The experimental group completed the pretest with a
mean pretest score of 61.05%, which is significantly higher than the control group. The
experimental group had a mean posttest of 67.79%. This is a positive difference of
6.74%. Comparing the growth of the control group and the experimental group, a
difference of 0.07% was identified. (p.276)
The results indicate that no difference in mathematics achievement would exist
between the experimental and control groups, as measured by the 5th grade mathematics
pretest and posttest assessments. The instruction with the supplemental use of the iPad
was not an effective intervention for 5th grade students' mathematics achievement.
The study was conducted over one academic quarter with a small sample size.
Researchers could conduct a similar study over the course of a year and see if there was a
change in results, including multiple schools and classrooms.
Carr's (2012) study does not dismiss the usage of iPads to teach mathematics in
classroom, but rather encourages further investigation into how the iPad is used in the
classroom.
The results of both studies show that the iPads do not increase academic
achievement, but do increase engagement. Effective technology integration into teaching
and learning will require continuous collaboration among teachers, administrators, and
parents in order to promote achievement (OMalley et al., 2013, p.14).
Using iPads as Assistive Technology for Students With Learning Disabilities
Assistive technologies are tools to assist students with special needs to remediate
learning problems and to promote personal independence. These tools can range from
12
spellcheckers, to speech recognition systems and educational software (Maor, Currie, &
Drewry, 2011). The following studies will look at how iPads or tablets are used as an assistive
technology in the classroom.
In a study by Gasparini and Culen (2012), teachers are using iPads as an assistive
technology for students with reading difficulties. Two studies were conducted. One involved
two 4th grade students and the other study involved a university student. In the first case, the
two children, called Iris and Josh, were both age nine. The children do not have a diagnosis.
The first student, Iris, has a twin sister at the school, who excels academically, and Iris is
aware she does not perform as well as her sister at school. Josh may or may not be aware
that he does not perform well at school. The experiment involved the two children with
reading difficulties and a control group.
The class consisted of 26 students in a rural Norwegian school. Five iPads were given
for students to use and one iPad was given to the teacher. Wireless connectivity was added
to the classroom, and digitalized curriculum was obtained from the academic publisher.
Students have some knowledge of English, but are far from fluent. For the study, English was
studied with stories and apps, such as Alice in Wonderland or balloons, to help students
improve their English through play. The class was observed once a week. Students were
excited to be using the iPads in the classroom, and it was observed students enjoyed
enlarging text when reading. Both Iris and Josh prefer to read text on the iPad because of the
ability to enlarge text. Usually if a child enlarges text, it means the child may have reading
difficulties.
iPads were collected to see what kind of content the children had been using. It was
noted that Josh's iPad differed from the others significantly. Josh had organized the content
13
into groups that had to do with language and translating one language to another using
speech (Gasparini and Culn, 2012).
In an interview with the teacher, it was confirmed that both Iris and Josh have difficulty
reading. However since it is confidential, direct inquiry with children was not possible.
Although researchers were allowed to make direct observations and question students
around why they liked to use the iPad. Researchers designed an experiment which engaged
five children; the two students with reading difficulties, Iris and Josh, and three students
without difficulties including Iris' twin sister. The purpose was not to provide statistical
information, but to see what could be done with the use of an iPad. Students were tested in
understanding the text when read from the paper and when they select the text on iPad and
heard it read to them from the app SpeakText. Understanding of the text was measured by
how the children answered eight simple questions after reading or hearing the text. Four of
the questions were retention (memory) based and the other four based on understanding
causes and effects in the story. Students repeated the reading session, followed by the
answering session, twice. Two distinct passages from the same text were selected to read,
approximately equal in length (374 words vs. 380 words).
Results indicated that the students with reading difficulties were able to answer more
questions from the iPad when the story was read to them, and students without reading
difficulties improved their results. The sample size used of five students is very small, and the
experiment should be repeated with a larger sample size. In interviews conducted with the
students, students mentioned they liked being able to zoom in on the text because it helps
reading. The researchers suggest repeating the study with both readings from the iPad, one
of them with the possibility of enlarging the text and the other one with SpeakText app.
14
The results indicate that even though the sample size was small, the assistive
technology was able to help students, with and without difficulties in reading memory and
comprehension. Every students' reading difficulties is unique, and should be assessed to find
how to meet their needs using assistive technology.
In Gasparini and Culn's second study, iPads are used as an assistive technology, for
Mary, a student at the University of Oslo in Norway diagnosed with dyslexia, was studied.
Dyslexia is a learning disorder, it often manifests as a learning disorder marked by
impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words (Gasparini & Culn,
2012, p.28). Mary is highly motivated to work with the iPad.
More than a year was spent with Mary trying to find different approaches to find what
works for her. It is reported that the iPad, used as an assistive technology, made a significant
difference in her academic performance and self-esteem. The iPad did not draw attention to
Mary using it in the classroom, and she could use it in the classroom and at home (Gasparini
and Culn, 2012).
For the descriptive case study, researchers took an active role in making adjustments
for her, as well as observing her in the class. Having interviews both with her and other
stakeholders, such as software producers or anyone else who could help her. Mary was given
an iPad to use in her geology course. In her first interview, it was discovered that she had
difficulty with software crashing, and she did not have Wi-Fi connection at her student
housing. Mary uses a special software that allows her to hear the text and watch it being
highlighted at the same rate as the speech is progressing. It was agreed to try again the
following semester, Spring 2011, when these problems could be worked out. The next
semester, Mary received intensive support to teach her how to use the iAnnotate and other
15
iPad applications, and monthly interviews with the authors were conducted, in order to make
sure more technical problems did not arise. Mary agreed to be observed working with the
iPad in her course lectures, however, she did not want to be observed working in small
groups, because she did not want to be stigmatized for needing assistive technology.
Mary reported an increase use of the iPad for studying, developing her own way of
working with the iPad, and enjoying using it. She used Voice of Daisy to listen to the text and
watch it being highlighted. For articles, she used Speak-It, to cut and paste part of the text to
hear it, and iAnnotate, where she could mark text, annotate it and enlarge it, while
simultaneously listening to it. Being able to highlight text she wanted to hear, and not be
forced to listen to the whole text was very pleasing for Mary. She used color and strikethrough
in her own special way to highlight text.
It was observed that Mary's movements with the iPad had improved, her interest in her
field and confidence in being able to finish her studies had increased, and overall her attitude
towards assistive technology had improved. Assistive technologies have been able to
minimize stigmatization for the ones using it. Each individual with a learning disorder needs to
be assessed to find they ways to address their learning needs using assistive technologies.
In a study by Flores, Musgrove, Renner, Hinton, Strozier, Franklin and Hil (2012), five
elementary students with autism and developmental delays participated. The utility of the iPad
as a communication device by comparing its use to a communication system using picture
cards was investigated. In autism spectrum disorders (ASD), children have deficits in
communication, understanding language, play, development of social skills, and relating to
others (Lindsey-Glenn & Gentry, 2008).
Five elementary students with disabilities from a university-sponsored extended school
16
year program in the southeastern United States were selected to participate in the study.
Each student has an Individualized Educational Program (IEP), which qualifies them for
special education services according to federal and state guidelines. The lead researcher, a
qualified administer of assessments, evaluated the students' cognitive and spoken language
abilities. All five students were male and ranged in age from eight to eleven years old. Their
oral vocabulary included a range of no spoken vocabulary to fewer than ten words. All
participants were able to communicate using a picture system at school, responded to verbal
instructions, and complied with classroom directions (Flores et al., 2012).
The participants were enrolled in different classrooms, with three to five students with
similar age and academic need. The daily schedule included language/reading instruction,
writing instruction, mathematics instruction, a snack activity, and incidental teaching within a
recreational or play activity. In each classroom, there were two graduate students and one
undergraduate students, each majoring in special education. Snack activity occurred during
the second hour of the program and was set at a kidney-shaped table. This time was chosen
to conduct the study because it was a natural time for incidental communication instruction
regarding requests. Students had not had an opportunity to eat for 2 hours (Flores et al.,
2012).
There were the same three snacks each day, pretzels, cheese flavored crackers
shaped like goldfish, and cookies. They were displayed in clear plastic containers, and a drink
was displayed in a clear pitcher. Students requested which snack they wanted using the
picture-based system. The teachers used laminated color pictures cards, which had symbols
for each of the snacks (pretzels, goldfish, cookies, drink) and a request (I want more). Each
child had their own set of cards fastened to velcro in front of their seat, and the cards differed
17
based on the student's use of the system. For example, a student who used phrases had
cards for I-WANT and MORE to pair with snack-related picture communication symbols, but
the student who used one word had picture communication symbols for the snack items only
(Flores et al., 2012, p. 76).
Using an application called Pick A Word on the iPad, color photographs of the snacks
and requests were displayed on the screen. There was a pictures of pretzels, goldfish,
cookies, juice, open hands together depicting the American Sign Language sign for I WANT
and the American Sign Language sign for MORE. Students were allowed to touch
photographs to make requests for snack time, and the voice output corresponded to the
pictures.
Communication behavior was compared under the two conditions: a picture-based
system and an iPad. The conditions were alternated with the picture-based condition for 3
days, iPad condition for 3 days, picture-based condition for 3 days, iPad condition for 3 days,
and ended with the picture-based condition because iPads were not available outside of the
program. Students were familiar with the picture-based system from their previous schools
and underwent training to understand the meaning of the icons and use of the iPad as a
communication tool.
The teacher completed snack procedures the same each day. The teacher started with
a positive comment about the snacks (Yummy snacks!) and told the students they would be
taking turns. The teacher would ask which snack they wanted and if they wanted a drink. The
students would respond using the picture-based system or the iPad, depending on the
condition. The student had 5 seconds to respond to receive the small amount of food and
drink, if the student did not respond within 5 seconds the teacher told the student it would be
18
the next student's turn. After the first round of offering each student a snack, students were
offered more. The activity lasted for 15 minutes, and students had unlimited opportunity to ask
for more snacks.
Data was collected daily by another teacher not doing the snack activity. The frequency
of communication behaviors during conditions in which the iPad and picture-based system
were counted. Teachers were given the defined target behaviors and provided with practice
situations using the picture-based system and the iPad. The results were mixed. Al clearly
showed more communication behaviors when using the iPad. There were no overlapping
data points in adjacent phases for Nick and Max, demonstrating more communication
behaviors using the iPad (Flores et al., 2012, p. 81). The findings suggest that the iPad did
not improve or detract from the students' established skills. There was no clear pattern across
all students, however the teachers preferred using the iPads because it was easier. It was
noted that two students preferred using the iPad over the picture system because one student
threw his picture cards in the trashcan, and the other actively looked around the room for the
iPad during snack time. (Flores et al., 2012).
After the study, teachers were surveyed and responded true or somewhat true to the
following: (a) students appeared to like using the device, (b) using the iPad resulted in faster
communication, and (c) the iPad was easier for students to manipulate.
Although several students and the teachers preferred using the iPad, the study does
not show that the iPad was better than the picture-based system. One issue with the iPad
was the students ability to touch the screen in a particular way to receive the snack they
wanted and hear the sound. This could be addressed with training the students how to
properly touch and use the iPad.
19
The study was limited due to its' small sample size and all males. Only one
communication behavior was requested and observed. The communication behavior had
already been learned using the picture-based system and students were familiar with it. It
would be interesting to see a new communication behavior taught and introduced with both
the iPad and picture-based system.
These studies suggest that assistive technology is able to help learners with
disabilities, as well as all learners in the classroom. Its usage should not be limited to students
requiring assistance, but should be available for students in the classroom. Everyday
technologies (e.g. iPods, iPads, and Smart Phones) offer applications that can serve as
supports to students with intellectual and related development disabilities (Douglas, Wojcik, &
Thompson, 2012).
Conclusion
As detailed in the studies above, iPads are being used to teach literacy and math skills
in the classroom and as assistive technology for students with learning disabilities. A teacher
using iPads to teach literacy skills was found to be able to meet her literacy goals (Hutchison
et al., 2012). Using technology to read, write, and communicate can influence young
children's emerging conceptions of what literacy is and is used for (Beschorner & Hutchison,
2013, p. 16). Using iPads in the classroom to teach mathematics showed an increase in
achievement for students with learning disabilities, but not all students (O'Malley et al., 2013).
Both studies on iPads used to teach mathematics showed increased engagement with all
students (Carr, 2012 and O'Malley et al., 2013). iPads used as assistive technology were able
to address the learning needs of students with learning disabilities (Gasparini and Culen,
20
2012).
The iPad is a new tool in the classroom that has shown increased student engagement
and improved efficiency for teachers (Flores et al., 2012). It has an impact on student's
education, social life and self-esteem because they are not stigmatized for using an assistive
technology (Gasparini and Culen, 2012). Teachers should be provided with professional
development to learn how to integrate the iPads in an effective way (OMalley et al., 2013).
Future studies should be conducted that follow the use of iPads over an extensive period of
time to find how the iPads effect student achievement.
21
References
Beschorner, B. & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a Literacy Teaching Tool in Early Childhood.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(1), 1624.
Carr, J. M., (2012). Does Math Achievement hAPPen When iPads and Game-Based
Learning are Incorporated into Fifth-Grade Mathematics Instruction? Journal of
Information Technology Education, 11, 269286.
Douglas, K. H., Wojcik, B. W., & Thompson, J. R. (2012). Is There an App for That? Journal of
Special Education Technology, 27(2), 5970.
Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A
Comparison of Communication Using the Apple iPad and a Picture-based System.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(2), 7484.
Gasparini, A. A., & Culn, A. L. (2012). Tablet PCs An Assistive Technology for Students
with Reading Difficulties? Presented at the ACHI 2012, The Fifth International
Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 2834.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the Use of the iPad
for Literacy Learning. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 1523.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers Perceptions of Integrating Information and
Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction: A National Survey in the United
States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312333.
Lindsey-Glenn, P. F. & Gentry, J. E. (2008). Improving Vocabulary Skills Through Assistive
Technology: Rick's Story. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(2), 1-11.
Maor, D., Currie, J., & Drewry, R. (2011). The Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies for
Children with Special Needs: A Review of Research-Based Studies. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 283298.
22
OMalley, P., Jenkins, S., Wesley, B., Donehower, C., Rabuck, D., & Lewis, M. E. B. (2013).
Effectiveness of Using iPads to Build Math Fluency. Presented at Council for
Exceptional Children Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas.
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O'Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair: The effects of a
class-wide intervention on elementary students' math fact fluency. Journal of Evidence
Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47-68.

Lit Review Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lit Review Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Using iPads in the Classroom for Literacy, Mathematics, and Assistive Technology

possible score of 50.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen