Exploring Tablet Computing in Teacher Education: The UT COE iPad Working Group Karen French, Michelle Read, Detra Price-Dennis, Hyo-Jin Yoon, Haydee Rodriguez, Joan Hughes, and Barbara Pazey The University of Texas at Austin USA
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: The College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin has formed a crossdisciplinary working group to explore the uses and learning implications of incorporating iPad tablet computers into classroom activities in higher education settings. At this roundtable, representatives from the working group and the instructional technology support team with whom they are working will discuss with their peers what they have learned about implementing a project of this kind in a teacher education program. Presenters will engage participants in an active discussion of their own experience, knowledge and ideas. Topics will include implications for teaching methods, student response and outcomes, and the logistics required to ensure the success of an initiative of this kind.
Introduction
Technological Context: the Rise of the iPad Apple Inc. first introduced the iPad to consumers in the spring of 2010, and within a year, introduced a second iteration of the device. Similar in look and feel to the wildly popular iPhone, the 9.7” iPad is a touch-screen tablet that reacts to a user’s finger or stylus (Apple.com 2011). While it has an onscreen keyboard, external keyboards can also be attached. The iPad 2 includes both a front and rear camera for taking still pictures, video, and for use as a webcam. Thousands of apps have been developed for the iPad. Some of these are versions of iPhone applications, but many are programmed specifically for iPad. The sheer number of available applications gives the iPad a clear advantage over Android and Windows-based tablets in the educational market. The sheer number of iPads in circulation also gives Apple an advantage. In fact, 3 million had sold within the first three months alone (Murphy 2011). Both K12 and higher education institutions took interest in the iPad’s potential ability to compliment instruction in the classroom. Before the official launch of the iPad, scholarly bloggers and researchers were already debating its possible affordances in teaching and learning. Larry Cuban is quoted in a NY Times (2011) article as saying, “iPads are marvelous tools to engage kids, but then the novelty wears off, and you get into hard-core issues of teaching and learning.”(Hu 2011) On January 4, 2011, a mere 8 months after the original iPad was released, the NY Times reported that students in Roslyn Heights, New York were carrying iPads to school (Hu 2011). These were not gifts from their parents or Santa. Instead, the devices were given out like textbooks through the school. The schools argued that sending home iPads instead of textbooks, would allow students access to not only reading and practice materials, but the Internet for emailing teachers and finding teacher’s websites. Additionally, they felt the device could act as a digital portfolio for each student (Hu 2011). This is not an isolated event. Students in Millburn, New Jersey, the New York City public schools, Chicago public schools Virginia, California, and even kindergarteners in Arizona had received or gained access to iPads at the time of this NY Times publication in January, 2011. Textbook providers such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt are working with Apple to provide ebook versions, and offering to conduct comparison studies on student performance in paper vs. electronic format (Hu 2011).
- 2799 -
In higher education, Murphy (2011) identified 36 college and universities utilizing iPads with students in ways consistent with six author-identified typologies including: course materials, enrollment administration, collaboration, content generation, research and productivity tools. In other words, these iPads were being used for far more than book replacement. However, it was the author’s observation that the primary function at the time was for delivery of course materials, followed by content generation and collaboration, with research purposes were only reported by 13.8% and use of productivity tools by 1% (Murphy 2011). Murphy (2011) also observes that universities do not appear to be building curriculum around PPD (Post PC Devices). Additionally, Reed College conducted a study on iPad use as book replacements in fall 2010 (Marmarelli & Ringle 2011). They had just completed a similar to study with the Amazon Kindle DX the year before, and wanted to compare findings. Data were collected via surveys, free-form email and group interviews. Students and faculty reported iPad advantages as: legibility due to screen size, contrast and resolution; quick response time on the touchscreen; portability; battery life; durability; and paper savings. Students also like the ability to switch between texts, navigate, and highlight and annotate within reading materials. Drawbacks included temptation to switch to off-task behavior as reported by students, poor pdf distribution and syncing, file systems, and using the onscreen keyboard (Marmarelli & Ringle 2011). Institutional Context: Working Groups in the UT COE In the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin, the strategy used to examine emerging technologies and their use in teaching and learning is the formation of faculty working groups organized and facilitated by the College’s instructional technology support team. In Summer 2011, the College funded a pilot initiative to explore the potential uses of iPads in higher education classrooms. Funding paid for iPads for the members of the working group, $100 worth of iPad apps per working group member, and a classroom set of iPads with a charging cart. In addition, a graduate research assistant position was dedicated to supporting the logistics of purchasing, technical support, and check out. The working group consists of faculty representing specializations and from across the College including Language and Literacy Studies, Kinesiology, Science and Mathematics Education, Bilingual Education, Instructional Technology, Special Education, Educational Administration, and Educational Psychology. The group meets every other week to plan implementation activities, reflect on lessons learned, coordinate research efforts, and share technical tips and tricks. The team tracks field notes using a shared blog, and they are conducting a self-study and student study that will culminate in a report for the College in Summer 2012.
Discussion In this roundtable, the team will present the study as a work-in-progress, but also spend time discussing with other participants the myriad of lessons learned related to logistics and policy. We have already learned that implementing an iPad project in a higher education setting is a complex process, and questions that initially seemed simple, like “How do I buy an app?” require policy clarifications and business negotiations. Our goal in bringing this session together is to share those lessons with our colleagues and to learn from peers who have similar experience or complementary areas of expertise. iPads are relatively new to teacher education, but they compare in many ways to other mobile devices, including smartphones, netbooks, and notebook computers. While not the primary focus of the presentation, the team also welcomes discussion related to the use of working groups in promoting the diffusion of innovative educational technology practices among teacher educators. Thus, the audience for this discussion is much broader than those who are interested in implementing a similar iPad initiative.
References Hu, W. (2011, January 4). Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the iPad. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html Marmarelli, T., & Ringle, M. (2011). The Reed College iPad Study. Portland, Oregon, USA: The Reed Institute.
- 2800 -
Murphy, G. D. (2011). Post-PC devises: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in tertiary environment. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1), pp. 18-32.
- 2801 -
