Skip to main content

The Impact of Introducing iPads in Teacher Education: A Case Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Leadership
  • 1058 Accesses

Abstract

While continuing apace, deploying 1:1 technologies in educational institutions is characterised by inconsistent implementational effectiveness. For every study that points to the potential of personalised classroom technologies, another highlights their failures. Among the most pronounced problems are the inadequate digital capabilities of teachers. This case study examined how deploying 1:1 iPads in an undergraduate Individual Teacher Education (ITE) degree influenced the digital competencies of its participants. An online survey was disseminated twice—at the beginning of the 2019 academic year and one semester later—to a cohort (n = 184) of ITE students who participated in the eLearning Programme at the School of Education at the University of Adelaide and a control group (n = 178). Additional data from the participant groups were also collected. The digital capabilities of the experimental group improved significantly across the study’s time frame, whereas they remained static for the control group. The amount of printing per experimental group participant (an indicator of the extent of the digitisation of participants’ processes) was markedly lower than that of the control group. The study concluded that a comprehensive, multifaceted programme targeting the digital capabilities of ITE students assisted in achieving the aim. This case study presents findings of practical relevance to ITE institutions on how digital capabilities and their application to teaching and learning can be enhanced in their programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adhikari, J., Scogings, C., Anuradha, M., & Sofat, I. (2017). Evolving digital divides in information literacy and learning outcomes. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(4), 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J., Beetham, H., Heathcote, L., Pyke, S., Royals, J., Santandreeu Calogne, D., Symonds, D., & Thomson, L. (2017). The University of Adelaide digital capabilities framework. Retrieved from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/learning-enhancement-innovation/digital-capabilities/docs/FINAL_Digital_Capabilites_framework.pdf.

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, H., & Joint Information Systems Committee. (2017). Building digital capabilities: The six elements defined. Retrieved from http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6611/1/JFL0066F_DIGIGAP_MOD_IND_FRAME.PDF.

  • Benade, L. (2017). Being a teacher in the 21st century. Singapore: Springer Nature.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bert-Jaap, K. (2006). Should ICT regulation be technology-neutral? IT & Law Series, 9, 77–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheok, M. L., Wong, S. L., Mohd Ayub, A. F., & Mahmud, R. (2016). Understanding teacher educators’ beliefs and use of information and communication technologies in teacher training institute. In J. Luaran, J. Sardi, A. Aziz, & N. Alias (Eds.), Envisioning the future of online learning. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a framework for creative pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22 (24637). http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.24637.

  • Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2013). FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users’ quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Computers & Education, 69, 38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drennan, G., & Moll, I. (2018). A conceptual understanding of how educational technology coaches help teachers integrate iPad affordances into their teaching. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(2), 122–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erstad, O., Eickelmann, B., & Eichhorn, K. (2015). Preparing teachers for schooling in the digital age: a meta-perspective on existing strategies and future challenges. Educational Information Technology, 20, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9431-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, H., Murphy, A., Johnson, C., Carter, B. Lane, M.l., Midgley, W., Hafeez-Baig, Abdul an Dekeyser, S., & Koronios, A. (2015). How do students use their mobile devices to support learning? A case study from an Australian regional university. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 15(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francom, G., & Moon, A. (2018). Enhancing educational technology confidence among teacher candidates: benefits of and lessons learned from a 1:1 device university—elementary school partnership. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 423–440, https://doi.org/10.28945/4129.

  • Hasse, C. (2017). Technological literacy for teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iarossi, G. (2006). The power of survey design: A user’s guide for managing surveys, interpreting results and influencing respondents. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, J., & Luaran, J. E. (2016). iPad-Agogy: Expanding or limiting pedagogical skills? In J. Luaran, J. Sardi, A. Aziz, & N. Alias (Eds.), Envisioning the future of online learning. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, C., & van der Merwe, P. (2015). Teaching practice in the 21st century: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3, 190–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Information Systems Committee. (2017). Developing students’ digital literacy. Retrieved from uk/system/files/next-generation-and-digital-natives.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. B. (2009). The digital disconnect: Uncovering barriers that sustain the phenomena of unplugged teachers in a technological era. LSU Doctoral Dissertations, 2420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., et al. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher (education ed.). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, D., Talaei-Khoei, A., & Ghapanchi, A. H. (2018). A paradigm shift for bring your own device (BYOD). Association for Information Systems, Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Company Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. W. B., Lievens, F., De Fruyt, F., Zettler, I., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). Assessing meaningful within-person variability in Likert-scale rated personality descriptions: an IRT tree approach. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuiggan, S., Kosturko, L., McQuiggan, J., & Sabourin, J. (2015). Mobile learning: A handbook for developers, educators and learners. Hboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, L., Hodson, S., Poschen, M., & Tedds, J. (2013). Gathering evidence of benefits: A structured approach from the JISC managing research data program. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(2), 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, L., Barton, S., & Nguyen, L. (2015). iPad in higher education–hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 1324–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.

  • Okeke, O., van Wyk, M., & Phasha, N. (2014). Schooling, society and inclusive education. Goodwood: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paiva, J., Morais, C., Costa, L., & Pinheiro, A. (2016). The shift from “e-learning” to “learning”: Invisible technology and the dropping of the “e”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html.

  • Read, M. (2012). The JISC. Alexandria, 23(3), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.7227/ALX.23.3.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safar, A. H. (2018). BYOD in higher education: A case study of Kuwait University. Journals of Educators Online, 15(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha, S., & Deb, S. (2019). BYOD support multimodal classroom interaction. Procedia Computer Science, 167(2020), 1533–1542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, S. P., Lopez-Belmonte, J., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., Reche, J. M. S. and Cabrera, A. F. (2020). Effect of bring-your-ow-device program on flipped learning in higher education students. Sustainability, 12(3729).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W., Revilla, M., Krosnick, J. A., & Shaeffer, E. M. (2010). Comparing questions with agree/disagree response options to questions with item-specific response options. Survey Research Methods, 4(1), 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of ‘one-to-one’ classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. A. (2017). The impact of technology exposure on student perceptions of a 1:1 program. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2281–2309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9541-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundgren, M. (2017). Blurring time and place in higher education with bring your own device applications: a literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3081–3119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, E. K., Mauchline, A. L., France, D., Powell, V., Whalley, W. B., & Park, J. (2018). Would bring your own device (BYOD) be welcomed by undergraduate students to support their learning during fieldwork? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 42(3), 356–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. (2013). Credible checklists and quality questionnaires. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Associate Professor Edward Palmer for guidance in the first stages of this research. Thanks also to Dr. I Gusti Ngurah Darmawan for assistance with the statistical method pertaining to this chapter. I also recognise Associate Professor Mathew White and Professor Faye McCallum for their oversight of the editing processes for this manuscript. A draft of this chapter was presented at the 2019 Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter Barbieri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Established in 1993 as a membership organisation across several tertiary institutions in the United Kingdom, JISC has developed a range of frameworks to parse the interplay between technologies and both industry and education partners (Read, 2012). Of most interest to this study are the three frameworks that JISC has developed in relation to digital capabilities for teachers, learners, and educational institutions, which it defines as ‘the capabilities fit for someone living, learning and working in a digital society’ (Beetham, 2017). These JISC frameworks were mapped against the Certified Member of the Association for Learning Technology framework as well as the UK Professional Standards Framework and were validated by studies exploring their applicability in tertiary institutions (Molloy, Hodson, Poschen, & Tedds, 2013). The three learning technology frameworks propose six elements to digital capabilities:

  • ICT proficiency

  • Information, data, and media literacies (critical use)

  • Digital learning and development (development)

  • Digital creation, problem solving, and innovation (creative production)

  • Digital communication, collaboration, and participation (participation)

  • Digital identity and well-being (self-actualising).

While each of these elements is identified as a distinct entity, JISC highlights their complementary and interrelated nature. To suit its local context, the University of Adelaide adapted the JISC digital capabilities frameworks to arrive at the Adelaide Digital Capabilities Framework (Bailey et al., 2017). Similar to the JISC framework, the Adelaide Digital Capabilities Framework features six elements:

  • ICT proficiency and productivity

  • Information, media, and data literacy

  • Digital learning and development

  • Digital creation, problem solving, and innovation

  • Collaboration, communication, and participation

  • Digital identity and well-being.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barbieri, W. (2020). The Impact of Introducing iPads in Teacher Education: A Case Study. In: White, M.A., McCallum, F. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Leadership. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-6666-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-6667-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics