iPads and Their Potential to Revolutionize Learning

Camille McFarlane Faculty of Education University of British Columbia Canada camille.mcfarlane@gmail.com

Abstract: The iPad is an educational technology tool with the potential to revolutionize learning. In order for the iPad to be effective, educators must identify its affordances and examine school goals. Bates and Pooles (2003) SECTIONS framework is applied in order to evaluate the iPads applicability to education: student profile, ease of use, cost, teaching and learning, interaction and interactivity, organizational issues, novelty, and speed of technology change. A literature review reveals the importance of assessing the impact of the iPad in a learning environment prior to implementation.

Introduction
Will the iPad be the tool society has been looking for to revolutionize education? This question has framed my inquiry into the iPad and its application in the learning environment. It appears the iPad is an innovative tool altering societys communication and knowledge landscapes. Technology and the iPad itself is changing and improving at a rapid pace and like many topics in educational technology, it is difficult to comprehensively assess its merits in a learning environment. I have chosen to assess the iPad based on implementation process and its current and potential impact on teaching and learning. As a trendy piece of technology, the iPad has been adopted in schools around the world. Educators have purchased iPads with the hope of revolutionizing their classrooms without fully assessing their learning environments or identifying tool purposes. This has resulted in mixed outcomes of iPad use. iPads have the potential to revolutionize learning, not because they will drastically improve test results, rather they engage twenty-first century learners via a digital and interactive medium requiring critical thinking, creativity and collaboration, as well as personalization of learning.

Background
Seventeen years ago Barlow (1996) suggested there was a digital divide between young people (natives) who grew up with computer technology and those who were just being introduced to it (immigrants). Marc Prensky (2001) expanded on this concept to describe how teachers, digital immigrants, must begin communicating to students through their digital language. If this was not done, teachers would be ineffective and a generation of knowledge would be lost (Prensky, 2001). The education system is still struggling to bridge this divide. I would suggest it is not the fault of teachers, rather the inability of the educational institution to be malleable, thereby altering instructional methods and learning philosophies to implement and support new learning technologies. Instead of adapting old traditional methods to new pieces of technology (i.e. lecture via the blackboard, to overhead projector, to powerpoint, to smartboard, to iPad), we must adapt instructional design to utilize the capabilities of the medium and engage students (Kozma, 1994). This paper explores iPad use and the process educators must go through to ensure this learning medium provides a meaningful learning experience. The iPad has been lauded to revolutionize education. This technological deterministic stance has placed unsubstantiated pressure on iPads to be a catalyst for fundamental and sustained change and improvement (Melhuish & Falloon, 2012, p. 2-3). Simply placing iPads in the hands of students will not change education (Peluso, 2012) and it is essential educators and administrators understand the learning possibilities and effects with iPads before their implementation.

Implementation

Many educators and policy makers believe that technology can be a catalyst for educational reform. They suggest that the use of technology in classrooms will shift the roles of teachers and students, and cause teachers to act more like facilitators (Dexter, Anderson & Becker as cited in Crichton, Peglar & White, 2011). This technological deterministic view has diminished the success of educational technology implementation. Administrators have placed unrealistic expectations on tools, without designing project goals, nor providing adequate support. Clark (1994) argued educators must utilize the least expensive tool in the classroom to facilitate learning. iPads are relatively inexpensive compared to desktop computers and laptops; however, are they being purchased for schools because they are trendy, or do they effectively transform education and provide learning opportunities not available in any other education tool? In my review of the literature, I found little evidence of ipad strategic planning by schools and school boards, rather decisions seemed to be made to purchase iPads and then determine how they will be used. Mishra and Koehlers Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework illustrates a process teachers can undergo to ensure they are integrating technology for the purpose of curricula and not for the sake of technology (Koehler, 2011). In three studies (Hutchinson, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford 2012, Bennett, 2011, Crichton et al., 2011) this framework was used to enable teachers to create new instructional and curricular learning possibilities with the iPad and then assess their comfort level using the technology. TPACK provides a framework for teachers once technology is already in the classroom; however, it does not determine whether iPads should be purchased and used in schools. Bates and Pooles (2003) SECTIONS framework for technology implementation outlines a process for educational institutions to follow before adopting a technology tool. The authors have determined nine qualifiers to be examined before technology implementation: student profile, ease of use, cost (financial and time), teaching and learning, interaction and interactivity, organizational issues, novelty, and speed of technology change. By applying Bates and Pooles (2003) SECTIONS framework, I will synthesize the reviewed literature and gain valuable information about whether iPads have the potential to revolutionize education.

Students and Ease of Use Digital natives use technology every day and iPads could bridge the gap between home and school configure Research indicates students and teachers are excited about iPads and find the compact mobile-learning tool to engage and motivate students (Hutchinson et al., 2012, Melhuish & Falloon, 2012, Peluso, 2012). The touchscreen technology is intuitive, allowing even young learners technology access. The iPad combines multiple technologies (computer, camera, video, books) into one easily manipulated compact portable tool. The iPad was not designed for class use, only for individual use (Crichton et al., 2012), subsequently generating multiple challenges for teachers and educational technologists. Challenges for iPad use lie within the administration of the iPad: charging class sets, submitting and assessing projects, purchasing of apps for class use, logging in, and safety (Crichton et al., 2011). Teachers must rethink how they disseminate technology for purposeful use.

Cost Cost has been identified as a benefit for using iPads because they are relatively inexpensive compared to laptops, while still enabling the user anytime learning (Crichton et al., 2011, Melhuish & Falloon, 2012). The 2012 iPad mini is touted by Apple as an educational tool, starting at $329 and the iPad 2 for $399 for 16GB, with only wifi Internet access (Apple Inc., 2012). Educators then need to purchase docking, charging and locking systems, set aside funds for repairs and replacements, purchase APPS and an iPad management system. Other costs may arise, such as converting files and purchasing eBooks. These costs may be offset by the decreased photocopying and reduced purchasing of traditional textbooks and books. Another cost for successful implementation is professional development. PD is essential for teachers to effectively integrate iPads into their classroom curriculum (Crichton et al., 2011, Melhuish & Falloon, 2012). Once implemented, iPad costs of resources and time may be negligible because it would increase the productivity of students and teachers, move the school towards an environmentally friendly paper-free school, reallocate previous technology funds and support personalized learning.

Teaching and Learning There are currently five iPad teaching and learning models in schools. Depending on funds available, schools have chosen to purchase a class set of iPads, iPads only for the teachers, a few to be signed out for use in a class, one to one ratio, or a bring your own device (BYOD) model. There are benefits and drawbacks for each model and it is important administrators and educators have clear goals for teaching and learning before purchasing them. Magley (2011) and Foote (2012) have witnessed successful one-to-one iPad implementation. In both schools it was noted that increased engagement, collaboration and personalization of learning occurred, yet neither had extensive quantitative evidence of increased student learning. A popular trend has been to purchase one class set as a pilot and then review the results of project implementation. Crichton et al. (2011) found when used in this manner, iPads become one of many technological tools used in the classroom. Bennett (2011) argues a class set encourages traditional, whole-class instruction, whereas a few or just one iPad encourages individualized instruction. Teachers could use one iPad as they moved around discussing concepts, to project on the screen, or as an interactive whiteboard. As well, having only a few iPads would encourage collaboration, communication and problem solving in small group work or as a centre activity (Bennett, 2011). Schools adopting BYOD programs have found technologies have become an inherent and essential part of how students learn (Peluso, 2012, p. 2). Whichever model is chosen, it is essential to understand how the use of an iPad impacts learning. The iPad can both benefit and detract from effective teaching and learning. If the iPad is approached as a tool for individual use, then it will have difficulty supporting constructivist approaches to learning. If the I is removed from iPad (Crichton et al., 2011), then teachers have the potential to redesign the iPads use in the classroom and approach it from the possibility of collaborative, inquiry, and problem-based learning (Bennett, 2011). The iPad, like other mobile devices, has the potential for real-time learning, supporting students in discovering and producing content (Melhuish & Falloon, 2012). Effective learning can occur using iPads. Magley (2011) found the iPad increases student production; enhances 21 st Century skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity; increases access to resources; improves formative assessment through the use of polls; increases engagement; and supports teachers in changing from delivering content to facilitating learning. The challenge is creating ways for learners to interact effectively with content and applications, which is not individualist and based on behaviourist principles. In a 2011 study, Murray and Olcese found the majority of iPad apps are behaviourist in design and require low-level thinking skills. As educators become more familiar with iPads and applications, and begin designing their own apps and having students design applications to demonstrate knowledge construction, there should be a shift in learning approaches available in the app store. The key for effective learning is recognizing applications that support the construction of knowledge versus a recall application. By using Blooms Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) teachers can deciphe r the skills required by apps. To move beyond rote memorization teachers utilize constructivist principles in lessons, therefore they should choose applications focusing on creation, evaluation and analysis. There are apps facilitating knowledge construction via creating a video, cartoon, comic book, podcast or puppet show. Tolisano (2012) developed a visual with key teaching and learning apps and their Blooms Taxonomy level. For example: iBook and eClicker are apps for remembering; Idea Sketch and Pages for understanding; Keynote and Visualize for applying; Popplet and iThoughts HD for analyzing; Mobile RSS and Flipboard for evaluating; and Animoto and iMovie for creating (Tolisano, 2012). Perhaps the greatest affordance of an iPad for teaching and learning is its portability. The potential of mobile learning (m-learning) for real-time experiential learning is endless (Melhuish & Falloon, 2012). It may just be that it is the portability of the iPad that revolutionizes learning. Students can take their iPad and record visually and orally their experiences both in and out of the school. Melhuish and Falloon (2012) argue that due to mobility, iPads have the potential to facilitate constructivist learning principles and enhance collaboration, student autonomy, metacognition, authenticity and problem-solving, and encourage teachers to become facilitators.

Interaction and Interactivity M-learning also increases interaction with content and individuals, while encouraging authentic knowledge construction. M-learning is often concerned with enabling social interactivity and connectivity. Mobile devices connect us to other people, other devices, other networks, and other technologies (Klopher et al. as referenced by Melhuish & Falloon, 2012, p. 4). Students are able to interact with content at their own pace and on their own time. Kinesthetic, visual and auditory learners are able to interact with content and collaborate in their preferred learning style (Bennett, 2011). As a result of the touch-screen, inclusion of a camera and audio recorder, as well as the ability to access learner preference apps, I suggest iPads have the capabilities of providing all learners with equal

access and opportunity to interact with content, experts and peers. For this category, the iPads inherent design focus on the individual ensures differentiation and personalization of learning, including the opportunity to fulfill Universal Design for Learnings (UDL) three guidelines of multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement (CAST, 2011).

Organizational Issues The iPad poses numerous organizational issues. Schools and teachers need to be committed to implementing iPad projects by providing appropriate financial and time resources. Specific challenges occur as a result of the iTunes app store and downloading and purchasing apps to be used on all iPads. As well, syncing, managing, maintaining and charging the tools take time and organization (Crichton et al., 2011). When implementing a one-to-one iPad program schools also need to have an iPad management system, such as Casper, enabling teachers and administers remote access to iPads for updates, networking and monitoring (Magley, 2011).

Novelty and Speed of Technology Change iPads have been chosen for use in schools often initially because of media hype (Crichton et al., 2011, Melhuish & Falloon, 2010). When adopting novel technologies, functional value is the least considered element[whereas] emotional, epistemic (curiosity/desire), social values are the deciding factor (Crichton et al ., 2011, p. 28). Educators and students are eager to use an exciting novel gadget; however, iPad use and application choice may not be based on sound educational theory. Since computer technology and now iPads have continued developing at a rapid pace there will always be a new technological tool. For example, in the space of two and a half years since the original iPad was released, the iPad has decreased in size, added front and back cameras, increased memory, gained a faster processor, retina display, and clearer picture. In the Fall of 2012 an iPad mini was released with an education target audience (Apple Inc., 2012). stualtern

Benefits
There are multiple benefits to implementing an iPad program in schools. Most notably is increased student engagement. Educators cannot underestimate the power of engaged students. Although I have found little statistical evidence of increased learning, resulting from iPads, there is substantial qualitative evidence available in the iPads short life-span. This could be a result of different skills and knowledge being constructed, whereas standardized tests generally assess factual learning and not skills (Magley, 2011). If used effectively with a constructivist approach, students should be learning higher level thinking skills and not just recalling facts. The possibility to create and disseminate personalized content via iPads empowers student learning. Teachers in a literacy project in Ohio found students using iPads were more engaged, they did not feel like they were doing school work, and they were more creative through the use of apps such as Toontastic and Stripdesigner (Saine, 2012). Consequently, student understanding of literary concepts and concept incorporation into their writing increased over prior years (Saine, 2012). When used as a digital book or e-text, the iPad has proven to also engage struggling readers by easily integrating reading strategies (Hutchinson et al., 2011). Hutchinson et al (2011) found that using the iPads for literacy instruction supported student learning [and enabled students] to demonstrate unique and creative ways of responding to text using a technology tool that offers some unique affordances (p. 23). This indicates another strength of the iPad: the alteration of pedagogy. When students are part of a one-toone iPad project or use a class-set, they expect to use the iPad each day in their learning. This results in teachers having to rethink their classroom approach and alter their pedagogy appropriately (Foote, 2012, Magley, 2012). The iPad may also encourage extension of curriculum for both teachers and students as they can inquire and create instantly using the portable and accessible tool (Hutchinson et al., 2012). Teachers who had previously thought technology was too time consuming or an add-on found the iPad enhanced instruction due to easy navigation, collaborative problem-solving, differentiation by application, quick start-up and shut-down, and language options (Hutchinson et al., 2012). With appropriate PD, teachers would be able to use iPads in assisting schools with the fulfillment of strategic goals, possibly altering teaching approaches and student learning experiences.

Benefits of the iPad over traditional desktop computers and laptops include portability and compactability. Teachers are able to teach on the go and share resources with students immediately. They can turn powerpoints into videos (SlideShark app), work on a whiteboard anywhere in the class (Showme app), use mirror imaging (Apple TV), and decrease photocopying (iBooks, LMS, digital projects and notes). Students can complete most tasks digitally via applications and web access, while experiencing authentic learning and communication with experts around the world (Facetime or Skype apps) (Varnardo as interviewed by Novello, 2012). As well, the portable iPad increases student productivity because learning is extended beyond the class period (Foote, 2012). Since iPads have been designed for individual use, they can contribute to the personalization of learning. With multiple choices for accessing information and demonstrating learning, teachers are able to easily differentiate instruction (Crichton et al., 2011, Hutchinson et al., 2012). iPads, when used in a one-to-one ratio, enable students to personalize their iPads and their learning; thus creating an individually tailored learning experience (Magley, 2012, Melhuish & Falloon, 2010) previously coordinated by the teacher.

Considerations
Even after careful review and application of the Bates and Poole SECTIONS model, educators need to be aware of the challenges that may occur with iPad use. iPads provide almost instant engagement for students. However, teachers need to be thoughtful in their use, to ensure edutainment is not solely occurring (Melhuish & Falloon, 2010), and that they are being used for knowledge construction and curricular goals. How will teachers ensure students are focused and using iPads appropriately? Teachers and schools need to design an iPad use protocol and mandate. The teachers role in the classroom does change, not only from instructor to facilitator and guide, but also to technology manager. Teachers must troubleshoot problems (Crichton et al., 2011, Hutchinson et al., 2012) and negotiate solutions for students. For example: iPads do not store data in the same manner laptops do. It is difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve lost data and content sharing for collaboration and assessment is difficult (Crichton et al., 2011). Teachers need to be willing to renegotiate how students save and share work (Hutchinson et al., 2012). The iPad is not a laptop; saving, editing and collaboration has to occur through different avenues than in the traditional Microsoft Suite. Teachers must utilize cloud services and PDF annotate apps. Various other challenges have been observed in iPad implementation projects. Bennett (2011) identified the following challenges in iPad use: organizing and managing iPads; focus on lower-level thinking skills; and firewalls, school networks, wifi, and 3G pose challenges to internet access and sharing of information. Most researchers found purchasing, administering and choosing appropriate applications to be a challenge for teachers (Bennett, 2011, Crichton et al., 2011, Hutchinson et al., 2012). Perhaps the greatest consideration is cyber safety (Melhuish & Falloon, 2010, Crichton et al., 2011). Digital literacy is an important component of 21 st century skills, consequently it is essential schools have digital safety guidelines which all students must adhere to. In order for successful implementation, professional development needs to occur (Crichton et al., 2011, Foote, 2012, Hutchinson et al., 2012, Novello, 2012, Peluso, 2012). This can be provided through PD days, workshops, mentoring, exploration time, and conferences. Although many new teachers are considered digital natives, they still have difficulties applying the appropriate pedagogy to technology use (Crichton et al., 2011), thus it is essential they, like students, receive appropriate training in iPad use. Teachers using iPads need to be motivated and willing to try new things. Pedagogy will not change and learning will not occur if teachers are not willing to learn and explore the educational possibilities of iPads.

Conclusion
Educators and administrators need to remember the iPad was designed for individual use (Crichton et al., 2012). Once this is established, teachers and educators must assess how the iPad will assist learning in their environment. The Bates and Poole model indicates iPads are an appropriate choice for use in schools, dependent on the goals of the administrators and teachers. Based on my SECTIONS analysis the benefits of accessibility, ease of use, cost, interactivity, and organization outweigh the challenges posed by iPad implementation. It is essential the iPad not be adopted solely because it is a novel technology. Rather, it must be chosen because of its ability to increase student engagement and learning through constructivist principles of differentiation, personalization, inquiry, collaboration and authentic learning. Educators have been waiting for a technology tool to live up to

expectations, and I believe the iPad has this potential. With the appropriate administrative support, motivated teachers, and educational goals, iPads in school can support and enable personalization of learning.

References
Apple Inc. (2012). iPad with retina display. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/ Barlow, J.P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Retrieved from https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html Bates, A. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A framework for selecting and using technology. Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success, (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Bennett, K. (2011). Less than a class set. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(4), p. 23-27. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Crichton, S., Pegler, K. & White, D. (2012). Personal devices in public settings: Lessons learned from an iPod touch/iPad project. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 23-31. Foote, C. (2012). The evolution of a 1:1 iPad program. Internet Schools, 19(1), 14-18. Hutchinson, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012) Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), p. 15-23. Koehler, M. (2011). What is TPACK? Retrieved from http://tpack.org/ Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. Magley, G. (2011). Grade 8 mobile one-to-one with iPads. Millis Public Schools Evaluation Report. Retrieved from http://www.millis.k12.ma.us/node/982 Melhuish, K. & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3), p. 1-16. Murray, O. & Olcese, N. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not. Tech Trends, 55(6), 42-48. Novello, J. (2012). Using technology in the classroom: An interview with Pam Varnado. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(4), p. 12-15. Peluso, D. (2012). The fast-paced iPad revolution: Can educators stay up to date and relevant about these ubiquitous devices? The British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), p. 125-127. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part2.pdf Saine, P. (2012). iPods, iPads, and the SMARTBoard: Transforming literacy instruction and student learning. The New England Reading Journal, 47(2), p.74-79. Tolisano, S.R. (2012). iPad apps and Blooms taxonomy. Retrieved from http://langwitches.org/blog/2012/03/31/ipad-apps-and-blooms-taxonomy/