British

British Journal
Journal ofof Educational
Educational Technology
Technology(2015) Vol 47 No 6 2016 1051–1064
doi:10.1111/bjet.12266
doi:10.1111/bjet.12266

Young pupils’, their teacher’s and classroom assistants’

experiences of iPads in a Northern Ireland school: “Four and
five years old, who would have thought they could do that?”

Linda Clarke and Lesley Abbott

Linda Clarke is a teacher educator at Ulster University. Her research interests are in teacher education, education
technology and geography education. She served as Head of School between 2009 and 2013. Lesley Abbott is
Honorary Fellow in the School of Education, Ulster University. Her research interests include the development of
inclusive schools, the professional needs of beginning teachers and integrated education. She is a holder of the Brian
Simon Research Fellowship. Address for correspondence: Ms Linda Clarke, School of Education, Ulster University
Coleraine, Co. Londonderry BT52 1SA, UK. Email: lm.clarke@ulster.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper describes an iPad project in a Northern Ireland primary school. It evaluates
how the technology impacted on learning in literacy, numeracy and in pupil skills. The
youngest pupils were asked about their iPad experiences using small-group interviews
based on the circle time approach. Their teacher and two classroom assistants were
interviewed about organisational, pedagogical and pupil skill patterns. The teacher
reported improvements and greater readiness in pupils’ ability to grasp initial key con-
cepts in literacy and numeracy, including lower ability and special needs children. Moti-
vation, concentration and confidence grew, as did spontaneous peer collaboration and
the early stages of peer assessment. Classroom assistants had an innovative role in
supporting iPad use and noted improved pupil communication, listening and fine motor
skills. The children said that iPads helped them with writing, counting and drawing.
They understood the purpose of specific apps, how to navigate them and what learning
occurred.

Introduction
The use of iPads in primary and post-primary schools is a rapidly growing information and
communication technology (ICT) development internationally, eg, in the USA and Australia
(Goodwin, 2012; MCG, 2010), in New Zealand (Henderson & Yeow, 2012), in the UK (Burden,
Hopkins, Martin & Trala, 2012; Clark & Luckin, 2013; Copeland, 2011) and in Finland (Rikala,
Vesisenaho & Myllari, 2013). It is now unsurprising that very young children use a computer and
access the Internet, and while Barone (2012, p. 2) estimated that in the USA, “Seventy percent of
4- to 6-year-olds have used a computer and 10% report using a computer daily,” she added that
these figures do not include tablet technology.
Relatively few academic studies exist on young children’s use of touch screen devices and their
educational impact (Goodwin, 2012), what Karsenti and Fievez (2013) called the assumed
benefits. However, they have reached global headlines as an eye-catching innovation allowing
schools to display, and even to maintain, buoyancy in a scenario where they must compete for
pupils. So, can we say that there is more to this innovation than mere headlines, or what Peluso
(2012, p. 126) referred to as “simply a demonstration of allowing technology in the classroom?”
Is it a kind of “flamboyancy” aid, or is there is a learning purpose even with the youngest pupils?
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
21052British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• Relatively few academic articles are published that evaluate the use of iPads in
primary schools, and even fewer on their use with the youngest children in this sector,
as iPad introduction has been so rapid and very much a grassroots development that
was not centrally planned.
• There is, however, a growing body of information in press articles and many interna-
tional “how to” initiatives. The former provides publicity (“flamboyancy”) for schools,
and the latter offers what might be called a “recipe approach” around the important,
distinctive organisational and management issues concerning tablet technology.
What this paper adds
• This paper has employed a novel methodology to gather pupil data: small-group inter-
views employing the circle time approach used by primary pupils in class. Their views
on iPad experience were sought, as were those of their teacher and two classroom
assistants in individual interviews.
• Specific focus was on any identifiable improvements/readiness in children acquiring
initial key concepts in literacy and numeracy, and how these related to gender.
• Approaches were examined to personalised, independent learning when iPads were
integrated into conventional teaching, as well as any discernible growth in pupils’
motivation, concentration, peer collaboration and peer assessment.
• The classroom assistants’ role and the support they give the teacher and pupils within
a technology-rich context were described.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• With many iPad initiatives developing in schools and many thousands of devices being
purchased for use in classrooms worldwide, there is an urgent need for further
research around teaching and learning across all age groups, both primary and post-
primary, with additional emphasis on the potential of tablet technology for pupils with
special educational needs.
• Purposes and impacts, financial and opportunity costs should be investigated by the
school and by the Department of Education.
• Pupils, teachers and learning support staff should be consulted in relation to the
design and effectiveness of the apps and the functionality of the iPads in learning
contexts.

. . . the iPad has become part of the classroom information ecology. It is perhaps no longer viewed as the
brightest colored fish in the aquarium, but it is a healthy small fish swimming in it (Gasparini 2011,
unpublished data, p. 61).
Of course, the deployment of information technology (IT) in schools has faced many barriers. In
academic writing, they relate to the previous waves of continuous improvement described as
“creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 83, in Barnes, 2010) that have attended genera-
tions of technology in schools (Selwyn, 2012). Although iPads, with their “instant on” and touch
screens, may appear user friendly, deployment in school requires specialist equipment (access to
high cost and high bandwidth WiFi and charging stations), organisational structure (download-
ing, charging, security, ownership and child protection) and expertise (knowledge of apps and
operating systems).
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in a Northern
in a Northern Ireland
Ireland school1053
school 3

Concerning their distribution, Burden et al (2012, p. 13) recommended a “full personal owner-
ship” model to support “more seamless and integrated patterns of learning” (see also Clark &
Luckin, 2013). Finnish teachers, in fact, believed that a “low device-to-student ratio” was the
main hindrance to the tablet’s potential benefits (Rikala et al, 2013, in Clark & Luckin, 2014, p.
6). Burden et al (2012) identified three models: class sets with devices kept in school and used for
particular purposes; devices issued to individual pupils who could work across lessons but not
take them home; and the most personalised arrangement whereby pupils each had a personal
iPad for school and home (p. 8), similar to Gasparini’s “short term loan, long term loan, owning”
model (2011, unpublished data, p. 56).
Tablet computers in compulsory education were intended to support and extend existing practice,
promote curriculum access, foster better communication (pupil–teacher interaction and whole
class presentations), increase collaborative learning and improve motivation (BECTA, 2005). The
technology implies huge financial investment and “is not without its controversies” (Clark &
Luckin, 2013, p. 2). There are significant demands on teachers’ time in respect of planning and
preparation: “. . . evaluating and procuring educational apps, determining relevance to the . . .
curriculum and then installing these on individual student devices” (Goodwin, 2012, p. 5).
In the USA, the introduction of touch screen technology “has introduced a first generation of
tools that afford remarkable access and potential for creative use among young children” (MCG,
2010, p. 3). MCG showed that initial reactions to iPad use by 60 2- and 8-year-old pupils were
fascination and immediate engagement, part of a generation that wants “entertainment and play
in all aspects of their life” (Tapscott, 2009, p. 35, in O’Rourke, Main & Ellis, 2013). The technol-
ogy facilitated natural learning (trial and error), independence and enthusiasm within sequen-
tially progressive levels. Goodwin (2012, p. 4) stated, though, that research has “failed to keep
pace with the emergence of apps” and that there is little empirical evidence of their value for
learning, even though marketed as educational (ibid., p. 4, citing Shuler, 2012). Nevertheless, she
reported positive outcomes among 90 pupils using 75 iPads in three Australian primary schools:
. . . optimal use of the iPads was attained when students used content-creation “productivity” apps as this
developed higher order thinking skills and provided creative and individualised opportunities for students to
express their understanding. (p. 6)
They can also increase productivity in the classroom “by making things easier and accessible, and
to a certain extent, possibly enhancing learning through the use of applications” (Henderson &
Yeow, 2012, p. 83). Benefits for older pupils (aged 9–12) in New Zealand sharing 48 iPads (five to
six in each classroom) were researching topics using the web browsing function and presenting
typed findings using the Keynote app. Younger children (5–6 years) learned the basics of reading
and writing with maths and spelling games. Peer collaboration was noted and attributed to the
iPad’s portability and ease of use, although sharing could lead to some monopolisation. The
“novelty effect” was not an issue in pupil engagement as they were “very intuitive when it [came]
to their technology” (p. 84) and could help both their peers and teachers. Indeed, there are said
to be “mutual benefits when teachers and students learn together collaboratively,” which may be
transferable to different contexts (Burden et al, 2012, p. 89).
Both reading and confidence improved among 25 Norwegian primary pupils sharing five iPads
(with one for the teacher), particularly the less able. Lieberman, Bates and So (2009, citing Bers,
New & Boudreau, 2006) reported more collaborative and social interaction skills with well-
designed digital technology. Differentiation was also facilitated according to a Canadian pilot
study: “In its short existence as a learning tool, the iPad has enabled teachers to promote . . .
differentiated learning” (Chatz, 2011), as shown by Shuler (2009) and more recently by Clark
and Luckin (2013).
Mobile technology allows “significant opportunities for genuinely supporting differentiated,
autonomous, and individualised learning” (Shuler, 2009, p. 5).
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
41054British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

An English study praised the “ubiquitous, anytime anyplace access” of tablet technology
(Copeland, 2011, p. 2) and the easily available resources. Across three projects in 14 schools
focusing on literacy, numeracy, science and cross-curricular work, favourable aspects for Key
Stage 2 pupils (ages 7–11) included the development of ICT skills “without actually teaching ICT”
(p. 3), the usefulness of Internet access and taking iPads home each day. Pupils’ confidence and
research skills improved, with a “noticeable growth in independent learning” (p. 4). Concerning
very young pupils, a Canadian school that provided 30 tablet computers showed that, “Even the
youngest children . . . are using iPads as they learn to write the letters of the alphabet, pull them
together into words and tackle basic addition and subtraction, with colourful and interactive
applications that make learning feel like fun” (The Vancouver Sun, 2011). Teachers, though, spent
time resolving minor technical problems, and there were limitations inputting large amounts of
text due to small screen size. A good wireless infrastructure was essential.
An evaluation of iPad use involving 365 pupils in five primary and three post-primary Scottish
schools found that it facilitated many core elements of the Curriculum for Excellence and more
routine learning activities. Personal ownership of the device was once more the single most
important factor for successful use (Burden et al, 2012, p. 9). This “critical element,” in turn,
increased motivation and engagement, and responsibility for learning (p. 9). Again, the technol-
ogy allowed teachers to differentiate and spontaneous peer coaching to take place—“a real
learning community” (p. 10). Moreover, they found that the devices allowed them to foster
independent learning (Clark & Luckin, 2013).
In relation to gender, Marks et al (n.d.) reported that among upper primary children in Scotland,
“cognitive, emotional and general engagement were higher in lessons based on iPads than those
which were not,” with a particularly significant increase in engagement levels among boys. These
were compared with those noted in girls and strengthened the potential of tablet devices in
classrooms for helping to address male achievement.
However, Goodwin (2012) found, similarly, that while pupil engagement and motivation “had
increased exponentially” with iPad use in three New South Wales primary schools (p. 48), there
were no observable gender differences (p. 59). McPhee, Marks and Marks (2013), researching 8-
to 11-year-old children in Scotland, recommended further investigation of gender differences
“to ascertain whether any increase in engagement is translated into academic achievement”
(p. 448).
Nevertheless, the device on its own does not guarantee learning (MCG, 2010, p. 5), and “the one
factor that [drives] quality teaching, enthusiastic students and engagement in learning . . . [is]
quality teachers.” They must integrate the technology into the curriculum and evaluate its
effectiveness (DEECD, 2011). Liu (2013, p. 52) concluded, too, that continuous professional
development is necessary “in technology-rich environments,” but Peluso (2012) warned that not
all teachers understand the learning implications. There is thus a need for “professional learning
opportunities to focus on directing teachers how to locate and appraise the educational value of
apps” (Goodwin, 2012, p. 12). In Northern Ireland (NI), the local Creative Learning Centres offer
support and training in digital literacy (CLC, 2013). They suggested that mobile technology is
making a difference regarding inter alia pupil engagement, literacy and numeracy outcomes, the
development of ICT skills, and collaborative learning.
The value of classroom assistants (CAs) is widely documented (Blatchford, Russell, Bassett,
Brown & Martin, 2007; Moran & Abbott, 2002), and they now oversee and support pupils’ use of
tablet technology (BECTA, 2005, p. 5). Their deployment is increasingly important in supporting
teachers and pupils using iPads, although scant research exists on their roles. CAs in Australia
were part of a classroom team with ongoing professional development, including the technologi-
cal help needed for supporting special needs pupils (also under-researched) (Watts, Brennan &
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in a Northern
in a Northern Ireland
Ireland school1055
school 5

Phelps, 2013). The CAs received iPads and worked “in flexible and responsive ways” (p. 6), such
access said to be critical to maximising their effectiveness. They responded spontaneously to
integration as, as one said, “you can’t expect the iPad to sing and dance by itself ” (p. 13); spoke
positively about their attractiveness for primary pupils (size, weight, intuitive interface and
instant start-up) especially for those with specific disabilities; and noted a significant improve-
ment in concentration, cooperation, enjoyment and risk-taking. In England, teaching assistants
reported that, as well as supporting their own role, interactive technologies such as iPads for
pupils with additional needs, “could offer a non-stigmatising tool that could be used to comple-
ment or replace existing support strategies” (Tunney & Ryan, 2012, p. 182).

The study
This research originated from an initiative by an innovative primary school head teacher in the
10th most socio-economically deprived area of NI, UK (NISRA, 2010). Few pupils owned or had
access to iPads, and the aim was to equip them with the technological skills needed for today’s
society. It was the first NI primary school to provide one-to-one tablet computers for, initially, 65
of its 584 pupils, and now all its pupils are “truly 1:1” (Academia, the technology group, 2014).
The authors were invited to devise a mechanism to evaluate iPad use by a Primary 1 (P1; 4–5
years) and a Primary 7 (10–11 years) class.
At the time of the study, every P1 pupil had received an iPad, kept in school for security reasons
and with a cover bearing their name. They assumed daily ownership of it and shared only if
charging was needed. This is done on a central charging station in the classroom and new
software applications (apps) are downloaded by the teacher and CAs. The school has a conven-
tional wired C2K network (Classroom 2000—the government-managed IT service for schools in
NI) but purchased a router for the wireless access to the Internet required by the iPads.
This paper describes the experiences of the P1 pupils, their teacher and two CAs. As a single case
study of one class in one school, the findings must be tentatively interpreted. The aim was to
evaluate the impacts of iPad use in literacy and numeracy, and the objectives were to: identify any
improvements/greater readiness in acquiring initial sounds and blends in phonics and writing,
and the initial key concepts of number, shapes and measures; determine whether any such
improvements were gender-related; ascertain any development in pupil skills such as increased
independent learning, motivation and concentration on completion of tasks; and discern any
growth in peer collaboration and peer assessment.
To ascertain definitively improvement and growth would ideally have required a form of baseline
data against which change could be measured. However, this was not possible since, firstly, the
school had not gathered this kind of data at the outset; secondly, the researchers were approached
with just 3 months of the summer term remaining and had limited access to the pupils and,
thirdly, obtaining ethical approval from two University ethics committees for research with chil-
dren is a lengthy process.

Methodology
For the 4- to 5-year-old pupils, small-group interviews were conducted using the circle time
technique. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011, p. 433) support the use of “a more routine,
everyday activity” for children taking part in research, as they are less likely to be intimidated
among their peers than on a one-to-one basis (Lewis, 1992, p. 416). Group interviews are a
means of “understanding children’s worlds” (Darbyshire, MacDougall & Schiller, 2005, p. 19),
better use is made of time and pupils are only briefly absent from class (Lewis, 1992).
Circle time requires children to respond only when holding a particular object (Miller & Moran,
2007; Mosley, 1996) (here, a “magic stone”). The Mosley Model of circle time has introductory,
middle and closing phases (citing Mosley, 1996, pp. 99–102). The introductory phase has an
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
61056British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

icebreaker (here, each child’s favourite colour); and the middle phase is when the children’s voices
are heard (the small-group interviews). Each interview was closed by thanking the pupils “[with]
an emphasis on . . . a calm and peaceful atmosphere . . .” (ibid., p. 20). Although circle time is a
large group activity (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden & Bell, 2002, p. 14), the small-
group interviews enabled a novel methodology while using the same organisational structure
and retaining key elements.
The 27 pupils had used iPads for 1 hour daily since January of their first school year, and data
collection took place in June. Their teacher divided her class into four small groups thereby
avoiding the researcher trying to determine the “most productive groupings” (Lewis, 1992, p.
418). She seated the children around the researcher in an alcove immediately outside her class-
room, a natural setting (Cohen et al, 2011, p. 375). Each interview lasted 10 minutes with six to
seven in each group. Because piloting was not possible, the teacher confirmed that the content
and language level of the pupil questions were appropriate. The 25 P1 pupils present were asked
three questions: what they liked best and least about iPads, and their perceptions of four apps
identified by their teacher. Three apps related to literacy and one to numeracy.
Analysis of the largest data set, the four pupil group interviews, was done by checking the
transcriptions for accuracy, identifying and coding themes by reading and re-reading the data,
analysing and interpreting the emerging patterns (Braun & Clark, 2006). All 28 interviews were
digitally recorded then transcribed with a confidentiality agreement. Sub-headings corresponded
to interview questions. Extracts were used throughout “compellingly” to illustrate the narrative
(ibid., p. 23).
The teacher and the two CAs consented to participate in one-to-one, 45-minute, semi-structured
interviews. The teacher was asked about organisational and pedagogical issues, and all three
spoke about social and learning skills, and iPad use in literacy and numeracy. Triangulation to
validate the data was possible because of responses from what Cohen et al (2011) call different
actors: the pupils, the teacher and the CAs.
Strict guidelines govern the conduct of research with children to protect both them and the
researchers (Alderson, 2005), although it is desirable to obtain their views (Fielding & Bragg,
2003; Johnston, 2005) as they can speak for themselves (Barker & Weller, 2003; Hood, Kelley &
Mayall, 1996). Indeed, “. . . it may be oppressive and unethical not to invite [them] to aid
research” (Darbyshire, 2000, in Neill, 2005, 47).
Full ethical approval was granted by the University’s Research Ethics Committee, and the children
were again asked just before the interview if they were happy to answer questions, what Lewis
(2002) calls “explicit continuation of assent” to allow a genuine right to withdraw.

Findings: Pupils
What pupils liked most
Concerning what they liked best about iPads, pupils could give more than one favourite aspect.
Their answers covered literacy, numeracy, art and games, and apps were either identified by name
or activities were described (Table 1).
A small number liked the instructions given: “It makes you draw”; “It tells you what to do”; “It
helps you”; one saying the opposite, “You control it”. Extracts were, for example:

Literacy
Playing on the writing game, Blobblewrite.
I like Book Creator because you learn how to do your work—put your pictures in and make it big.
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in a Northern
in a Northern Ireland
Ireland school1057
school 7

Table 1: What pupils liked best about iPads (raw figures)

Blobblewrite (the tracing of numbers and lower-case letters by copying the “blobbles”) 8
Colouring and drawing 8
Maths games 6
More than one favourite (not specified) 6
Toy Story (an interactive reading experience including games, movie clips and colouring pages) 4
All games 3
Book Creator (making picture or art books and sharing with friends) 1
First Words app 1

Numeracy
The number plane because that’s a wee game you can play with numbers.
Whenever you hit a number, it counts and it brings you onto a game.

Art/drawing
[The app] makes you draw. You pick a colour, you draw a picture.
You get to play a game, you get to control it, you get to move it.

What pupils did not like

Thirteen of the 25 pupils emphasised that there was nothing they did not like about iPads (“I like
everything”); some adding that they helped with class work. Things not liked by six of the
remaining 12 children were tasks in specific apps that they found difficult: Blobblewrite (3), Book
Creator (2) and First Words (1):
Blobblewrite because it’s hard to find a sentence.
Book Creator because you have to work. It’s hard.
The other six did not like having to share an iPad during charging, possibly because it curtailed
individual use of the devices to which they were accustomed.
Sometimes they need charged—you’ve got to share someone else’s with them.
I don’t like sharing.

Views on four literacy and numeracy apps

The pupils explained what they could do with four frequently used apps. First, they described Book
Creator, recounting the steps involved, saving their work, and the end result. They understood its
purpose: to make books by drawing pictures, colouring in, learning to make sounds and follow
directions within the app, showing that they also knew how to navigate.
You can get a picture, then you colour it in, then you save it.
You click on a word and then you draw it.
You have to do recordings and put your pictures into your book, then it goes on your book shelf.
The person has to talk on it, then you press save, then it does the sounds for you.
You can make books and whatever pictures you make . . . put it in Book Creator.
Three pupils described the process in a threaded conversation: “You have to hit a wee recorder. Then
you say something. Then your voice just talks.”
Second, Blobblewrite helped with words, writing and sounds, and pupils readily verbalised the
process, demonstrating understanding of basic aspects of literacy.
Write your letters and the wee man shows you how to do it.
. . . you copy where he goes all the time and if you don’t, you get one wrong.
Blobblewrite [is] good because it’s a drawing game and [it’s] fun as well.
You have to share and learn.
You have to stay in the lines . . . draw very easily.
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
81058British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

Again, three pupils joined in explaining respectively: “It makes you learn your sounds. The wee man
tells you how to do it. And you’ve got to follow him.”
Third, there was comparable understanding of the ABC Phonics app.
You can make a word with sounds. You press the sound that’s next, then when it comes up, you can press the
other sound.
It helps you read.
It helps you write because it tells you what word to put on.
You have to look at the words, then tap out the word and then it makes, like, j-u-g.
It’s a wee bit hard. Loads of sounds and words, but it helps you do better.
Fourthly, the children knew how Mathomatix helped with shape, pattern and number, and how
to get a correct answer, also referring to sounds and games. However, unlike the three literacy
apps, one-fifth could not remember what this app did.
It helps you to learn how to do numbers.
I would say the wee patterns . . . multicoloured or different colours, but I think there’s 22, and 22 comes
down to 21 . . .
There’s this wee donkey. . . . If you get it wrong he gets lightened [hit by lightning]. If you get it right it rains.
You have to count them because there’s a wee number like 4 and you have to put food on the train.
If you get it right, you get a trophy.
I won all of the trophies and I got all the awards on my panda, owl and zebra ones.

Findings: Teacher and CAs

Curriculum
The P1 teacher was selective with her bank of core apps, as not all were educational although
marketed as such. One challenge was the use of US, not UK, English; another was the upper case
letters in some apps and on the standard iPad keyboard, not suitable for young children and with
no flexibility for change: “. . . the children are only getting used to lower case letters, how to write
and recognise them.”
The CAs explained how they helped by downloading new apps, ensuring iPads were fully charged
and distributing them to pupils. They supported the teacher by helping individual pupils, circu-
lating to help a child locate and work on the correct app and taking reading groups. They
reinforced pupil learning, eg, checking that they understood the steps involved in performing
tasks on the iPad.

Teaching strategies
Concerning teaching strategies to embed iPad use, the teacher had already implemented inter-
active whiteboards: “. . . the iPad just connects to [it],” and her teaching approaches had not
really changed. Integrating the tablet computers meant identifying apps to reinforce learning by
conventional methods:
. . . things like letter sounds . . . bigger and smaller numbers in the maths apps, shape recognition, drawing
shapes . . . apps that mirrored what we were already doing in a book or in pencil and paper exercises.
The CAs instinctively knew which apps would be used once the teacher explained the day’s tasks
to the pupils: “so integrated into our work.”
Challenges were technological, pedagogical or concerned and iPad management. Early, practical
issues included considerable time spent installing and updating apps, and keeping the iPads
charged with no WiFi. Pedagogical matters were, first, that the iPads initially had a standard set
of 10 apps; however, children quickly became familiar with them and needed to be extended: “We
wanted to push them a little bit further . . . get new apps.” Second, regarding differentiation, some
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in a Northern
in a Northern Ireland
Ireland school1059
school 9

content-based apps had different levels to suit individual children and some could extend abler
pupils:
Blobblewrite is quite simple . . . initial sounds and handwriting, whereas ABC Phonics brings them on a
stage further where they have to do a bit of word building.
When apps did not provide extension activities, traditional tasks were set: “There has to be a
balance.” One CA explained that although some pupils needed extra support it was not necessar-
ily associated with the technology: “You’d be directing them, but they need that direction no
matter what they’re doing.” An important aim of such support was to give the pupil a sense of
achievement by guiding without actually doing the work for them: “. . . something they can see
that they’re proud of.”

Improvements/greater readiness in acquiring key concepts in literacy and numeracy

First, regarding pupils’ readiness to acquire initial key concepts in literacy, the teacher said that
using iPads had resulted in improvement in sounds and blends in phonics, and writing, attribut-
ing this directly to the constant reinforcement from apps. As an experienced practitioner (of 15
years) she made favourable comparisons with previous pupil cohorts.
Across the board, handwriting with directionality, return sweep . . . I can only put it down to the iPads. . . .
the pupils’ handwriting compared to last year and the year before, is really, really good.
She also spoke of reinforcement using the traditional whiteboard, “but the fact that they have a
bit of structure with the iPad, the apps demonstrate for them how to write the letters” and, as the
other CA said, “the children can see what they’re doing.” Unexpectedly marked progress had been
noted by the teacher as a result of iPad use by the small number of less able or special needs
children, which she measured carefully.
. . . his initial letter sounds have come on brilliantly. . . . used another app called Splingo . . . lots of positional
language. . . .
(Another child) now knows 22 of 26 initial letter sounds . . . I have checked and checked, and I retested him
because I thought maybe it was a fluke on the first day.
A few pupils were “struggling learners,” but with much structure and support from the CAs and
the teacher, they took to the iPads quite quickly. One CA described how children unable to write
with a pencil could “get it right” with the tablet: “a sense of purpose” and “I can do it.”
Second, in regard to improvements in numeracy, using the Mathomatix app, the pupils learned
about bigger and smaller numbers, the number before and the number after: “Quite challenging
concepts . . . but they’re fantastic . . . using those mathematical apps.” A CA spoke of “brilliant”
improvements in maths: “It’s making it fun, but they’re learning at the same time.”

Gender and the use of iPads

As for gender generally in respect of literacy and numeracy, the teacher stated that boys were now
performing a little better in literacy: “. . . improving as opposed to traditional boys in P1.” In
numeracy, it was felt that the girls’ skills were noticeably better since using the mathematics apps,
as “Sometimes boys and maths go well together,” reflecting a degree of gender stereotyping. One
CA added that boys generally found it harder to concentrate than girls, but the mathematics apps
had helped them to focus and engage.
Pupil skills
Some new skills arose from iPad use. P1 learning was “really structured,” but with tablet tech-
nology, there was scope for children to choose independently from different apps for extension
activities following a task:
I’d give them two or three apps that they can choose to practise their sounds or writing . . . in their own
independent sentences . . . a lot of ownership of their learning.
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
10
1060 British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

Similarly, a CA referred to pupils using apps independently to reinforce learning:

. . . the ones that are a bit more advanced at putting all the sounds together and making a word . . . can do
that themselves.

Motivation
Concerning gender, the teacher found boys to be very motivated by the technology: “. . . much
more engaged than in the traditional class with no iPads.” With boys who lost concentration
quickly and then distracted their friends, there was “less of that”, directly attributed to iPad use.
Girls, in her experience, were easy to motivate.
The teacher noted definite improvement in focusing on, and completing, traditional tasks with
the iPad, seen as a very powerful motivator with the promise of using it bringing better results.
One special needs child now stayed on task much better using an iPad, but the teacher was wary
of overuse as social skills had to be maintained too: “. . . very agenda driven and I do use it as a carrot
and stick, ‘Get your traditional activity completed’, then you can get your iPad. . . .”
The CAs also saw more confidence and better listening skills among pupils who had difficulties
with concentration and writing prior to iPad use: “. . . now they’re able to do their work.” Such
skills were felt to be because iPads were so appealing, the children did not tire of them and there
were bright colours and music—“a very tactile device.” Moreover, communication skills had
increased even among particularly quiet pupils, such as sharing their iBooks in class.
Lastly, both CAs noted an improvement in pupils’ fine motor skills, and dexterity in the use and
care of the tablet computer.
. . . using their fingers to trace around things, how to turn it on, turn it off, even the little keypad . . . how to
put the cover on properly, even how to carry it carefully. . . .

Peer collaboration and peer assessment

Regarding increased peer collaboration, pupils now proactively shared knowledge and helped
each other—“they would be great support to each other . . . show each other short-cuts or ‘Oh,
this is how you do this’”, with generally improved behaviour among boys. Help was spontane-
ously offered if problems occurred, as the teacher said:
. . . using the First Word app, some were having difficulty selecting high frequency words, and someone else
was coming over and showing them. It was great . . . kind of makes me redundant!
Similarly, both CAs reiterated that group work was always good, but iPads improved it further:
. . . they’re probably working in a group better when they’re on their iPads, on their apps . . . helping each
other.
Both also referred to spontaneous, mutual help and better peer relationships:
If one is stuck in an app and they don’t know a word or something and then one of the pupils would say . . .
‘No, you do this here’ . . . they learn from each other . . . lovely to see that they’re helping each other . . . not
ignoring and . . . being nasty.
. . . they would chat . . . ‘What are you doing?’, ‘Let me see your pictures’, ‘I will show you how to do that’ . . .
very keen and very interested in what everybody else is doing and they love when the books are put on the
whiteboard so that they can share their work with everybody. . . .
Gender-wise, one CA said girls tended to help each other more than boys who “wanted to play
games and stuff.” The other, like the teacher, felt that boys were more motivated to complete class
work if iPad use was the reward: “You can use the iPad for five or ten minutes . . . a real incentive
for those boys to get their work done and to get it done properly.”
The teacher described peer assessment as “a skill they are still developing” using the “two stars
and a wish” strategy. Pupils chose two positive things like, “Your pictures are really good and you
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in ainNorthern
a Northern Ireland
Ireland school 1061
school 11

wrote the words to match the pictures”, then suggested “but next time maybe you could. . . .” This
was applied to all work, not only iPads.
It is important to include her remarks on ICT and the speed with which children learned about
tablet technology usage:
They would surprise you. . . . within a session, they were discovering the short-cuts for themselves. Their ICT
skills are amazing—they can go in and pick up an e-mail that I’ve sent them, download some photographs,
insert them into a book, send their book to an iBook, and share their iBooks. Four and five years old, who
would have thought they could do that?
The teacher believed this was because it was instant; there were no cables, passwords or login
details and was highly engaging for the children: “a very desirable device.”
One CA highlighted the speed of pupil progress with the resource, “a little toy” they could use
with immediate results. She praised the teacher’s part in the familiarisation process whereby the
CAs learned from her technical knowledge and, by her example, the children learned. Successful
iPad use owed much to cooperation between the teacher and the CAs.

Discussion and recommendations

This paper examined the impacts of iPad use on 25 young children as reported by their teacher,
the CAs and the pupils themselves. The study sought to examine aspects of literacy and numeracy
and also pupils’ skills as learners (independence, motivation, concentration, collaboration and
peer assessment).
Using one iPad per pupil with a pre-loaded bank of core apps that were considered by the school
to be genuinely educational (see Shuler, 2012), these pupils’ readiness in acquiring initial key
concepts in literacy and numeracy improved, including struggling learners who made unexpect-
edly good progress (see Watts et al, 2013). This was attributed to strategies that incorporated
constant reinforcement from the apps with traditional classroom activities, such as whiteboard
use (see Goodwin, 2012). In maths, girls overall were deemed to have improved more than boys
who, in keeping with gender stereotyping (eg, Vekiri, 2013), often did well in maths although the
apps helped them to concentrate much better.
Independent learning developed when pupils selected apps for extension tasks. Motivation and
thus behaviour were improved, especially among boys, with greater efforts to complete traditional
activities in order to use the iPad (Henderson & Yeow, 2012). Peer collaboration increased such as
the sharing of new skills and knowledge, and pupils helped each other unprompted, fostering the
early development of peer assessment. Clark and Luckin (2013, p. 12), in fact, reported that “the
iPad can contribute to better quality collaborative, co-operative or cross-contextual learning
experiences.” ICT skills were acquired without necessarily being taught (see Copeland, 2011).
The children said that the iPads enabled them to learn, write, count, make patterns and do art
work, using what they saw as “games” (see Tapscott, 2009). Negative comments were minimal
and related to aspects of learning some found difficult, or to the sharing of iPads during charging,
thereby limiting normal usage. When asked about four specific apps, they articulated their
purpose, how to navigate, the steps involved to complete tasks and the need to save their work.
Challenges for the teacher were some incompatibilities with apps (eg, US English usage and
upper-case keyboard letters), time spent updating and installing them, as found by Copeland
(2011), and identifying those that mirrored paper and pencil exercises and supported differen-
tiation. The class teacher sought to embed the iPads into conventional teaching and learning. The
CAs supported the teacher to help pupils use iPads, forming a strong team. They noted better fine
motor skills and dexterity with the device, discernible growth in confidence, increased commu-
nication (see BECTA, 2005) including listening skills, and improved group work.
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
12
1062 British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

Because tablet computers are being extended across the school, their strategic use could be linked
to staff development plans for other learning areas (eg, science) and be differentiated in a planned
way throughout the primary age range (4–11 years) (Liu, 2013; Peluso, 2012). Steps are already
being taken to enable in-school and intra-school, collegial, professional development including
joint staff training in local secondary schools for which this school is a feeder primary. This
provides an opportunity for staff and pupils to share information (Burden et al, 2012) including
what works less well, like apps not living up to their promise. It may be that a School Learning
Community could be established in which the continuation of tablet use might best be supported
by training for staff, pupils and CAs (Watts et al, 2013), to be provided by the two Key Stage ICT
Coordinators in order to extend further the pedagogical repertoire of iPads and their protean
range of affordances.
These developments provide obvious avenues for future research. In this study, despite their
young age, the pupils verbalised their understanding of the relatively abstract concepts involved,
with circle time as a familiar vehicle for sharing their feelings about iPads with just 6 months’
experience, a methodology that is to be commended for further use and development alongside
the larger scale empirical studies. This should accompany the now much wider deployment
of iPads in NI schools. Given the scale of this, iTeach quoted a figure of 67 000 of these in use
across 712 schools (private email)—there are 326 965 pupils and 1187 schools (Department
of Education [DE], 2014)—there is an urgent need for more extensive studies. Is it time for
both Apple and the Department of Education to support robust, independent, local studies of the
purposes and impacts of iPads in schools across the full age range?
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the school, the P1 teacher, the CAs and the
P1 pupils in the conduct of this research. In particular, they would like to thank the Principal
sincerely for his advice and cooperation in facilitating the collection of data.
Open data, ethics and conflicts of interest
The data can be accessed on request in hard copy by email (lm.clarke@ulster.ac.uk).
The research was conducted in accordance with the British Educational Research Association’s
revised ethical guidelines (BERA, 2011). Since the study involved human participants, University
policy required it to be reviewed through two committees: the Research Governance Filter Com-
mittee for Education and the University’s Research Ethics Committee.
Voluntary informed consent was obtained from the Principal, the parents, the teachers and the
classroom assistants, together with assent (including rolling assent) from the P1 pupils. The small
group interviews took place within sight, but out of earshot, of the teacher. They were told that
they could withdraw at any time without giving a reason. The researcher did not ask for the
children’s names and any reference to them (or their teacher’s name) during the interviews were
anonymised in the raw data.
Lastly, the authors can state explicitly that there was no conflict of interest in the work reported
here.
Educational apps
ABC Phonics app (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/abc-pocketphonics-letter-sounds/
id299342927?mt=8)
Blobblewrite (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blobblewritehd/id415656729?mt=8)
Book Creator (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/book-creator-for-ipad/id442378070?mt=8)
iBooks (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/ibooks/id364709193?mt=8)
First Words (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/first-words-sampler/id312571156?mt=8)
©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association
 Experiences
Experiences of iPads
of iPads in ainNorthern
a Northern Ireland
Ireland school 1063
school 13

Toy Story (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/toy-story-read-along/id364376920?mt=8)

Paint Me 3D Airplanes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paint-me-3d-airplanes/id473226622
?mt=8)
Splingo (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/splingos-language-universe/id457526530?mt=8)
References
Academia, the technology group (2014). Case Study: St Oliver Plunkett Primary School go 1:1 with the iPad.
Retrieved April 2, 2015, from http://www.academia.co.uk/case-study-st-oliver-plunkett-primary-school/
Alderson, P. (2005). Designing research with children. In A. Farrell (Ed.), Ethical research with children
(pp. 27–36). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Barker, J. & Weller, S. (2003). “Is it fun?” Developing children-centred research methods. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 1, 33–58.
Barnes, A. (2010). A new framework for IT investment decisions. Hampshire: Harriman House.
Barone, D. (2012). Exploring home and school involvement of young children with Web 2.0 and social
media. Research in the Schools, 19, 1, 1–11.
Bers, M., New, R. & Boudreau, L. (2006). Teaching and learning when no one is expert: children and parents
exploring technology. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 6, 2, 1–19.
BERA (2011). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. London: British Educational Research Asso-
ciation. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/
ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2011
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P. & Martin, C. (2007). The role and effects of teaching
assistants in English primary schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000–2003. Results from the Class Size and
Pupil-Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 Project. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 1, 5–26.
Braun, V. & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2,
77–101.
British Educational and Communications Technology Agency (BECTA) (2005). Tablet PCs in schools. A review
of literature and selected projects. Coventry: British Educational and Communications Technology Agency.
Burden, K., Hopkins, T., Martin, S. & Trala, C. (2012). iPad Scotland evaluation. Hull: Faculty of Education,
University of Hull.
Chatz, N. (2011). Primary iPad pilot. Vancouver Talmud Torah School, Canada. Retrieved April, 19, 2012,
from http://ipadpilot.blogspot.co.uk/p/project-info.html
Clark, W. & Luckin, R. (2013). What the research says: iPads in the classroom. London: Institute of Education.
Clarke, B. & Svanaes, S. (2014). An updated literature review on the use of tablets in education. Retrieved
January, 21, 2015, from http://www.e-learningfoundation.com/Websites/elearningfoundation/images/
PDF%20Documents/T4S-Use-of-Tablets-in-Education.pdf
CLC (2013). Future classrooms—introducing mobile technology. Armagh, Northern Ireland: Creative Learning
Centres.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Copeland, C. (2011). Southwark primary schools iPad primary report. Southwark: Southwark City Learning
Centre.
Darbyshire, P. (2000). Guest editorial: from research on children to research with children. Neonatal, Paedi-
atric and Child Health Nursing, 3, 1, 2–3.
Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C. & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children:
more insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5, 4, 417–436.
Department of Education (DE) (2014) Northern Ireland Summary Data. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from
http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/facts-and-figures-new/education-statistics/32_statistics_and_research
-numbersofschoolsandpupils_pg/32_statistics_and_research-northernirelandsummarydata_pg.htm
DEECD (2011). iPads for learning—in their hands. Victoria, Australia: Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.ipadsforeducation.vic.edu.au/
Fielding, M. & Bragg, S. (2003). Students as researchers: making a difference. Cambridge, UK: Pearson.
Gasparini, A. A. (2011). Touch, learn, play—what children do with an iPad in the classroom. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, University of Oslo. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/
handle/10852/9015/Gasparini.pdf?sequence=2
Goodwin, K. (2012). Use of tablet technology in the classroom. Phase 1 iPad trial. Strathfield, NSW: NSW
Curriculum and Learning Innovation Centre.
Henderson, S. & Yeow, J. (2012). iPad in education: a case study of iPad adoption and use in a primary
school. HICSS ′12 Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
pp. 78–87.
C©2015
V 2015British
British Educational
Educational Research Association
14
1064 British Journal
British of Educational
Journal Technology
of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 6 2016

Hood, S., Kelley, P. & Mayall, B. (1996). Children as research subjects: a risky enterprise. Children and Society,
10, 129–144.
Johnston, J. (2005) Pupil voice and research: a narrative review. ARECLS-E Journal, 2.
Karsenti, T. & Fievez, A. (2013). The iPad in education: uses, benefits, and challenges—a survey of 6,057 students
and 302 teachers in Quebec, Canada. Montreal, QC: CRIFPE. Linguistic revision: Gabriel.
Lewis, A. (1992). Group child interviews as a research tool. British Educational Research Journal, 18, 4,
413–421.
Lewis, A. (2002). Accessing, through research interviews, the views of children with difficulties in learning.
Support for Learning, 17, 3, 111–116.
Lieberman, D. A., Bates, C. H. & So, J. (2009). Young children’s learning with digital media. Computers in
Schools, 26, 4, 271–283.
Liu, S.-H. (2013). Teacher professional development for technology integration in a primary school learning
community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 1, 37–54.
Marks, D., Laxton, T., McPhee, I., Cremlin, L., Sneider, A. & Marks, L. (n.d.) The Online Educational
Research Journal (OERJ). Retrieved January 25, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/2950037/
Does_use_of_touch_screen_computer_technology_improve_classroom_engagement_in_children
McPhee, I., Marks, D. & Marks, L. (2013) Examining the impact of the Apple iPad on male and female class
engagement in a primary school in Scotland. ICICTE Proceedings, 443–451.
MCG (2010). Young children, apps & iPad. New York: Michael Cohen Group LLC (on behalf of US Department
of Education).
Miller, D. & Moran, T. (2007). Theory and practice in self-esteem enhancement: circle-time and efficacy-
based approaches—a controlled evaluation. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 6, 601–615.
Moran, A. & Abbott, L. (2002). Developing inclusive schools: the pivotal role of teaching assistants in
promoting inclusion in special and mainstream schools in Northern Ireland. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 17, 2, 161–173.
Mosley, J. (1996). Quality circle time in primary classrooms. Cambridge: LDA.
Neill, S. (2005). Research with children: a critical review of the guidelines. Journal of Child Health Care, 9, 1,
46–58.
NISRA (2010). Northern Ireland multiple deprivation measure 2010. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and
Research Agency.
O’Rourke, J., Main, S. & Ellis, M. (2013). ‘It doesn’t seem like work, it seems like good fun’: perceptions of
primary students on the use of Handheld Games Consoles in mathematics classes. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 22, 1, 103–120.
Peluso, D. C. C. (2012). The fast-paced iPad revolution: can educators stay up to date and relevant about
these ubiquitous devices? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 125–127.
Rikala, J., Vesisenaho, M. & Myllari, J. (2013). Actual and potential pedagogical use of tablets in schools.
Human Technology, 9, 2, 113–131.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Selwyn, N. (2012). Education and technology: key issues and debates. London: Continuum.
Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential. Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. Retrieved
April 1, 2013, from www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/pockets_of_potential
_1_.pdf
Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: an analysis of the education category of the iTunes app store. Retrieved April 1,
2013, from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ilearnii.pdf
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R. & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the
early years. London: Institute of Education, University of London and Department of Educational Studies.
University of Oxford.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown-up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The Vancouver Sun (2011). iPods, iPads and Smart Boards make learning fun at one Vancouver school.
Retrieved April, 26, 2013, from http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/01/14/ipads-ipods-and-smart
-boards-make
Tunney, R. & Ryan, M. (2012). Can iDevices help teaching assistants support pupils with ASD? Journal of
Assistive Technologies, 6, 3, 182–191.
Vekiri, I. (2013). Users and experts: Greek primary teachers’ views about boys, girls, ICTs and computing.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 1, 73–87.
Watts, L., Brennan, S. & Phelps, R. (2013). iPadiCan: trialling iPads to support primary and secondary
students with disabilities. Australian Educational Computing, 27, 2, 4–12.

©
C 2015 British
V British Educational
EducationalResearch
ResearchAssociation
Association