Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 613–628 | Cite as

Mobile Devices and Apps as Scaffolds to Science Learning in the Primary Classroom

  • Garry FalloonEmail author


Considerable work over many years has explored the contribution technology can make to science learning, at all levels of education. In the school sector, historically this has focused on the use of fixed, desktop-based or semi-mobile laptop systems for purposes such as experiment data collection or analysis, or as a means of engaging or motivating interest in science. However, the advent of mobile devices such as iPads supported by a huge array of low or no cost apps, means that new opportunities are becoming available for teachers to explore how these resources may be useful for supporting ‘hands on’ science learning. This article reports outcomes from a study of primary (elementary) school students’ use of a series of apps integrated with practical science activities, in a topic exploring Energy concepts. It used an innovative display capture tool to examine how the students used the apps and features of their iPads to scaffold their practical work at different stages during the experiments. Results identify device functions and app-based scaffolds that assisted these students to structure their experiments, understand procedures, think about the influence of variables and communicate and share outcomes. However, they also discovered limitations in the apps’ ability to support conceptual knowledge development, identifying the critical role of teachers and the importance of task structure and design to ensuring conceptual knowledge objectives are met.


Apps Tablets iPad Scaffold Science Conceptual Procedural Cognitive Competence Knowledge 



The author gratefully acknowledges the funding support of the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI) for undertaking this study.


  1. Ahmed S, Parsons D (2013) Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom. Comput Educ 63:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronin S, Floyd K (2013) Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. Teach Except Child 45(4):34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Devolder A, van Braak J, Tondeur J (2012) Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. J Comput Assist Learn 28(6):557–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellis J (1984) A rationale for using computers in science education. Am Biol Teach 46(4):200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Falloon G (2013) Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning. Comput Educ 68:505–521Google Scholar
  6. Falloon GW (2015) What’s the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Comput Educ 84:62–77Google Scholar
  7. Falloon G, Khoo E (2014) Exploring young students’ talk in iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Comput Educ 77:13–28. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.008
  8. Gilbert J, Bull A (2013) Building a future-oriented science education system in New Zealand: how are we doing? New Zealand Council for Educational Research Press, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Government of Western Australia, (2015). A Science Statement for Western Australia Accessed 23 July 2016
  10. Hannafin M, Land S, Oliver K (1999) Open learning environments: foundations, methods, and models. In: Reigeluth C (ed) Instructional design theories and models, vol 2. NJ: Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 115–140Google Scholar
  11. Hartley J (1988) Learning from computer-based learning in science. Stud Sci Educ 15(1):55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang G, Tsai C, Chu H, Kinshuk, Chen C (2012) A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a Science Park. Australas J Educ Technol 28(5):931–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonassen D, Reeves T (1996) Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In: Jonassen D (ed) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp 693–719Google Scholar
  14. Kara I (2008) The effect on retention of computer assisted instruction in science education. J Instr Psychol 35(4):357–364Google Scholar
  15. Khan S (2011) New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. J Sci Educ Technol 20(3):215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim M, Hannafin M (2011a) Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enriched science classrooms: a qualitative case study. Instr Sci 39(3):255–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim M, Hannafin M (2011b) Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced environments (TELEs): bridging research and theory with practice. Comput Educ 56:403–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim M, Hannafin M, Bryan L (2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Sci Educ 91(6):1010–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirschner P, Erkens G (2006) Cognitive tools and Mindtools for collaborative learning. J Educ Comput Res 35(2):199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubicek, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: new possibilities for science education. Can J Learn Technol, 31(1). Accessed 21 July 2016
  21. Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leglise, R. (2014). Science experiments for kids on iPad: learn science apps for kids. PR Worldwide. Accessed June 16 2016
  23. Looi C, Sun D, Xie W (2015) Exploring students’ progression in an inquiry science curriculum enabled by mobile learning. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 8(1):43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meluso A, Zheng M, Spires H, Lester J (2012) Enhancing 5th graders’ science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Comput Educ 59:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller B, Krockover G, Doughty T (2013) Using iPads to teach inquiry science to students with a moderate to severe intellectual disability: a pilot study. J Res Sci Teach 50(8):887–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2015). National Statement of science investment (2015–2025). New Zealand Government. Accessed May 25 2016
  27. Ministry of Education (2007) The New Zealand curriculum. Learning Media Ltd., WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD, (2007). Innovation and growth: rationale for an innovation strategy. Paris: OECD Publications. Accessed May 5 2016
  29. OECD, (2014). What students know and can do: student performance in mathematics, reading and science (volume 1). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264208780-3-en. Accessed May 11 2016
  30. Osman K, Vebrianto R (2013) Fostering science process skills and improving achievement through the use of multiple media. J Balt Sci Educ 12(2):191–204Google Scholar
  31. Sharma P, Hannafin M (2007) Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interact Learn Environ 15(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Song Y (2014) ‘Bring your own device (BYOD)’ for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Comput Educ 74:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone C (1993) What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In: Forman E, Minick N, Stone C (eds) Contexts for learning: sociocultural dynamics in children ‘s development. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 169–183Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace D, Witus A (2013) Integrating iPad Technology in Earth Science K-12 outreach courses: field and classroom applications. J Geosci Educ 61(4):385–395Google Scholar
  36. Watson, R., Crawford, M., & Farley, S. (2003). Strategic approaches to science and technology development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-3026. Accessed 21 June 2016
  37. Weller H (1996) Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Science 28(4):461–486Google Scholar
  38. Wilson R, Goodman J, Bradbury L, Gross L (2013) Exploring the use of iPads to investigate forces and motion in an elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 13(2):105–126Google Scholar
  39. Windschitl M (2000) Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educ Technol Res Dev 48(2):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winn J (1994) Promises and challenges of Scaffolded instruction. Learn Disabil Q 17:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood D, Bruner J, Ross G (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu, H.L. (2010). Scaffolding in Technology-Enhanced Science Education (PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, United States of America). Accessed June 15 2016
  43. Zydney J, Warner Z (2016) Mobile apps for science learning: review of research. Comput Educ 94:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Educational StudiesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations