1:1 iPads vs. Shared iPads

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 1

The Effect of 1:1 iPads vs. Shared iPads on the Development of Digital Literacy Skills and Attitudes towards Digital Literacy in Grade One Students

Action Research Sarah Hodgson

Buffalo State, SUNY March 2015

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 2 Abstract

Forty­four Grade One students attending the Canadian International School of Hong Kong participated in an action research study exploring the question, “What is the effect of a 1:1 iPad program compared to a shared iPad program on digital literacy performance and attitudes in young students?” A two group pre/post test design measured student digital literacy achievement and attitude towards digital literacy, with specific focus on the use of personal digital portfolios (iFolios). The experimental group consisted of one Grade One class of twenty­two students who were given unlimited access to iPads on a 1:1 basis. The comparison group consisted of one Grade One class who shared seven iPads between twenty­two students. The two groups were tested at the beginning of the iFolio pilot and again following the implementation of the 1:1 iPad program.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 3 The Effect of 1:1 iPads vs. Shared iPads on the Development of Digital Literacy Skills and Attitudes towards Digital Literacy

Introduction I work in a large international school that is extremely well resourced with regards to technology. There is a 1:1 laptop program in the school from Grade 5 upwards, with students in the lower grades using laptops, and more recently iPads, on shared carts.

I serve on the school’s Learning Technology Council (LTC), which is dedicated to overseeing ‘digital learning infusion’ across the whole school. One area of particular interest to me is the acquisition and improvement of digital literacy skills, specifically in the Early Years.

One of the Grade One classes that I teach is undertaking a 1:1 iPad pilot program. I am very interested in whether, as the students will be able to personalise their learning device, there will be significant improvement in their digital literacy skills. I will be able to compare this class with a similar Grade One class that currently share seven iPads between twenty­two students.

This question is extremely significant as it has the potential to influence, or at least inform, the school’s LTC and senior administration team in their decision making about how to proceed with a 1:1 iPad program with younger students in the school.

I designed this study to see if there was a positive benefit to learning when students were given unlimited access to their own personalised iPad. My hypothesis was if students were part

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 4 of a 1:1 iPad program, their acquisition of and attitude towards digital literacy skills would be higher than students who had to share one iPad between three or four classmates.

I began by investigating a range of literature concerning models of mobile technology adoption, with specific focus on the Apple iPad.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 5 Review of Literature

Given that the first generation iPad device was released as recently as 2010, its adoption in schools has been rapid and, in many cases, improvised. The NMC Horizon Report 2012 (Johnson, Adams & Cummins, 2012, p.4) identified “tablet computing” and “mobile devices & apps” as two related categories on the near­term horizon, predicting that these technologies would be in mainstream schools within the subsequent twelve months. By March 2013, Apple claimed to have sold over eight million iPads to educational institutions worldwide (Haselton, 2013).

Following a small­scale investigation involving the use of iPads in schools, Fagan and Coutts (2012) concluded that “there are benefits to iPads in early childhood education when integrated into the everydayness of an early childhood curriculum in a centre with a strong teaching pedagogy” (p.5). There are a range of reasons that make the Apple iPad an attractive device for younger students. Falloon (2014) noted: Apple’s iPad has received much attention from education commentators citing its unique touch screen, portability, relative low cost and huge array of apps, as offering significant potential to support learning at all levels. (p.1)

Henderson and Yeow (2012) noted that “students were generally very eager to use the device, and able to pick it up and use it intuitively with little instruction” (p.10).​ ​ This may be one contributing factor as to why the iPad has become such a popular device in elementary schools.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 6 Published research in of the effect of the iPad on student learning is limited, however early studies are showing that the implementation of a personalised approach to technology, such as a one student to one device (1:1) program can be more beneficial to learning. Burden, Hopkins, Male, Martin & Trala (2012) state that “personal ‘ownership’ of the device is seen as the single most important factor for successful use of this technology” (p.9). Their findings across eight schools in Scotland suggest that teaching and learning are being transformed by the integration of touch interface technology.

My action research focuses specifically on the development of, and attitudes towards, digital literacy skills through the use of a digital portfolio, called an iFolio. A great number of definitions exist for the term ‘digital literacy’. What follows is one interpretation given by Jones and Flannigan (2006): Digital literacy represents a person’s ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital environment… Literacy includes the ability to read and interpret data (text, sound, images, et. al.) to reproduce data and images through manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments. (p.5)

Turner (2012) states that digital literacy “constitutes a series of developmental levels not unlike reading” and further explains that “Literacy elements go beyond particular software skills to include extension, adaptability, problem­solving, connection and reflection” (p.3).

When investigating digital literacy development in young students, Hsin, Li & Tsai (2014) reported that some researchers “have explored new forms of literacy made possible by the

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 7 development of digital technologies and the internet” (p.93). They explored the skills and competences needed to use technology as well as the students’ perceptions of technology use. It was through this aspect that Hsin, Li & Tsai (2014) were able to look at children’s “computer self­esteem” (p.95).

With regards to the implementation of an iFolio, digital forms of documentation are becoming more commonly used by teachers to record student learning as it occurs. Carr and Lee (as cited in Khoo, Merry, Nguyen, Bennett & MacMillan, p.5) observe that: As part of their assessment practice, many early childhood teachers document children’s learning using narratives and photos in ways that reflect the children’s interests, ways of being and ways of knowing. Digital forms of documentation (using iPods, digital cameras etc.) are commonly integrated into teacher’s work on a daily basis with both teachers and children documenting learning as it occurs.

Henderson and Yeow (2013) recognise that “without a proper learning environment, management and facilitation, the device‘s potential may not be realized” (p.10).

Finding a Focus Through the development of the iFolio initiative at the Canadian International School of Hong Kong (CDNIS), the iPads were placed in the hands of the Grade One students, who were empowered by being involved in the whole process of documenting their own learning journeys.

Previously, the primary method of communication and storage for parent communication

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 8 regarding student learning was a paper binder portfolio, taken home three or four times per year.

Using an application called “Easy Blog Jr”, the Grade One students began to record their own learning experiences in class using a mixture of text, photographic and video media. Each student is able to immediately share these snapshots onto his/her school blog, essentially a digital portfolio (called iFolio) that is accessible by parents and monitored by the classroom teachers.

This action research project will address the question: “What is the effect of a 1:1 iPad program on digital literacy performance and attitudes in young students?” I will attempt to discover whether or not there is any benefit to the students having their own personal device, compared to sharing a device between three or four classmates.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 9 Method

Research Design To answer my research question I used an action research intervention study with a repeated measures two­group pre/post design. The independent variable was the use of iPads in the classroom. The two dependent variables were student performance (digital literacy skills) and student attitude towards digital literacy. There was no attribute variable. The pre­ and post­tests came in two parts: ● Digital Literacy Assessment Rubric (focused on the iFolio) ● Hodgson Attitude Scale

Intervention Each Grade 1 class in the school currently has seven iPads to share between twenty­two to twenty­four students. The intervention will involve “treating” one of these Grade 1 classes with 1:1 iPads. Students will have their own iPad that they are able to access at any time during the school day. During the intervention period, students in both classes will be using iPads as a tool to record their learning in the form of an iFolio (digital portfolio). I plan to observe and record the level of the students’ digital literacy performance within the iFolio at the beginning and end of this treatment. The treatment period to be recorded will span eight weeks. I will compare results between the experimental class (1:1 iPads) and the control class (seven iPads shared between twenty­two students). Students in both classes will be surveyed both before and after the intervention with regards to attitudes towards digital literacy skills.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 10 Sample My sample consists of twenty­two Grade One students. A convenience sample as they are all in the same class at the same school. The students are aged six and seven years old. The class has eleven boys and eleven girls. All students attend the Canadian International School of Hong Kong, an International Baccalaureate accredited international school. There are a range of ethnicities in the class. Further details on the demographics of both the experimental and control groups can be found in Appendix A.

Instrumentation and Data Collection I used both qualitative and quantitative data collection in order to validate my findings through triangulation: ● Digital Literacy Skills Rubric (see Appendix B). I designed a rubric for the students to use as a self­assessment tool. The five categories were based on the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for students as outlined by the ​ International Society for Technology in Education (2014). Students were asked to assess themselves according to the rubric by highlighting the statements that described their digital literacy skills level most accurately. ● Hodgson Attitude Scale (see Appendix C). I designed this Likert­type scale in order to gauge the students’ attitude towards digital literacy, focusing specifically upon the iFolio initiative. Students were asked to respond to ten statements regarding the iFolio by selecting one of four choices: absolutely yes, mostly, not really, and no way. ● Interviews. I interviewed students from both the control and experimental classes.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 11 ● Teacher feedback. Thoughts from the classroom teachers and educational assistants were obtained.

Threats to Validity I determined that​ ​ subject characteristics could be a threat to validity. While both classes are comparable, they are both Grade One classes in the same school, they have a similar mix of ethnic backgrounds, gender and ability range, the primary difference is that each class has a different homeroom teacher. The teacher’s attitude and enthusiasm towards the use of iPads may have an effect on the students.

Another threat to validity could be implementation and researcher bias. I am not sure this would have an effect as I am not the students’ homeroom teacher, so will therefore not have extended contact with either class. I teach both classes as a specialist teacher, therefore having the same amount of contact time with each class. All students involved are not aware they are part of an action research project, therefore removing the likelihood of students performing unnaturally. As mentioned above there may be some differences in the approach to the use of iPads by the homeroom teachers (as there would be in any subject).

With regards to mortality, there was a small possibility of students leaving part way through the study due to the transient nature of an international school student population. I decided that in this case I would remove that particular student’s pre­test data.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 12 Results

To answer my research question I used t test analysis to assess whether or not there were significant differences between the two classes with respect to achievement and attitude.

Achievement An unpaired t test showed no statistically significant differences in improvement in digital literacy skills. The results favoured the control group (t=0.2558, df=41, p=0.7994). Table 1 demonstrates the means and standard deviations for both groups.

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Group Gains (Achievement) Group

Control Group

Experimental Group

Mean

1.73

1.57

SD

2.03

1.96

Figure 1 below shows the mean pre and post­test scores with regard to digital literacy achievement for the control and experimental groups. There is very little difference between the mean gains of both groups.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 13

Figure 1. Bar graph to show mean pre/post tests for each group in achievement

Attitude To attain insight into the effect of the treatment on students’ attitude towards digital literacy, specifically the iFolio, I analysed the gain scores between pre and post administrations of the Hodgson Attitude Scale. An unpaired t test showed no statistically significant differences in improvement, however the mean of the attitudes of the experimental group was 1.54 higher than the control group (t=1.1938, df=42, p=0.2393). Table 2 demonstrates the means and standard deviations for both groups.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Group Gains (Attitude) Group

Control Group

Experimental Group

Mean

­0.95

0.59

SD

4.47

4.11

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 14

Figure 2 below shows the mean pre and post­test scores with regard to attitudes toward digital literacy for the control and experimental groups. Notice that the mean scores for the experimental group are both slightly higher than those of the control group. Also of interest is the slight drop in mean score for the control group. Given the limited time frame between the pre and post­tests, I wonder if there would have been a larger difference if the study had been conducted over an extended period.

Figure 2. Bar graph to show mean pre/post tests for each group in attitude

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 15 Student Voice “It’s a good source of learning. There are games we can play, and also we can learn from them.”

I interviewed a random selection of four students from each class in small group situations. Students from both the control and experimental groups indicated that they much prefered the iFolio to the traditional paper binder portfolio. Most initially cited weight of the objects as the primary reason for this, as well as “it’s more fun”, but when quizzed further they also identified more concrete explanations.

One student referred to workflow efficiency, indicating that it was easier to find posts from a certain subject, for example Literacy, using the iFolio. Many of the students in both groups talked about an advantage of the iFolio being the ability to make video recordings. When explaining why this was another reason that iFolios were better than the traditional binders, a student in the experimental group said “A piece of paper is just a piece of paper. It doesn’t have a ‘play’ button.” Another student from the experimental group explained that by using videos he was able to show exactly what he could do, rather than trying to explain it in writing.

Students also talked about the benefits of the constant accessibility of the iFolio. One student commented that even if her parents were away on a business trip they would still be able to view her learning progress, while another said “You don’t have to wait and wait and wait until you get to take your portfolio home, you can just look at it whenever you want.” Sharing learning progress with parents was a strong theme throughout my conversations with the

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 16 students. One student from the control group said “It’s fun because you can do the learning and then you can get to show it to your parents.”

Another student alluded to the fact that all work on the iFolio was kept ‘safe’ online and could not be lost accidentally. He said “It is good to keep it on the iPad because you can lose your portfolio, the papers. All the information is kept on the iPad.” Students in the experimental group seemed to be more aware of the global nature of the iFolio. One student in this group mentioned that with the traditional paper portfolio it was more difficult to remember comments that parents had made (verbally), whereas with the iFolio the comments are saved and “you can see how people all over the world have commented because they liked your learning.”

With regards to 1:1 iPads versus sharing in a group, students in the control group unanimously agreed with one student who said “It’s frustrating to share.” Sharing and waiting for a turn were the primary reasons the students in both groups gave as problems with sharing devices. Many students explained that they could “learn faster” with their own individual iPad. A number of students also mentioned the potential for work to become mixed up when sharing an iPad. One said “If you have one each it’s better for your learning because you don’t get mixed up.” Indeed, some students had experienced this and talked of the difficulties that had arisen when a student had sent his work to the wrong iFolio.

All students interviewed were unanimously in favour of a 1:1 program. There was only one student comment that indicated a drawback to working on his own device. A student from the control group said “If you don’t know what to do and you are stuck in a problem, there is no one to help you.” While this could indicate a problem with students collaborating when using iPads 1:1, observations of the experimental group students at work do not support this comment.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 17 Teacher Voice Many educators were involved in the iFolio pilot project: classroom teachers, educational assistants, Learning and Teaching Technologies support staff, and specialist teachers. The feedback from each and every one of them is positive and reflects a common belief that even these young students can benefit from the use of iPads for learning.

The classroom teacher of the experimental class has witnessed much positive development in student attitudes ...the switch to a digital portfolio has had a profound impact on my students’ attitudes toward their learning. They are extremely proud of what they accomplish each day and can’t wait to go home and share. They feel confident to explain what they have been doing in school and they see themselves as being in charge of their learning.

She also highlights that “students are increasingly selecting and publishing work on their own”, a significant technological achievement for students aged six and seven years old.

The teacher of the control group also witnessed improvement in student attitudes, particularly in regards to confidence in their use of technology. She noted that ​ “students that were lacking in confidence with technology at the beginning of the year now are comfortable and confident taking the iPad out and uploading onto their blogs”.

While both teachers noticed positive changes in student attitudes towards digital literacy, particularly in the area of confidence in technology skills, the main difference in comments from the two teachers were related to ownership and workflow. The teacher of the experimental class observed her students becoming more independent and taking more ownership of their learning after working with their own personal iPad. She stated that ​ “logistically when they have to share

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 18 iPads, the teacher has to create a way to organize that and schedule it so everyone gets a chance and it just isn't so personalized anymore.” The teacher of the control class confirmed that her students became frustrated with the logistics of sharing a device.

Discussion and Action Plan

The results of this study showed that a 1:1 iPad program had no effect on the development of digital literacy skills in young learners. The results also showed that a 1:1 iPad program had no effect on attitudes towards digital literacy. Both groups scored similarly on both the Digital Literacy Assessment and the Hodgson Attitude Scale. I believe that one major flaw in this study was the Digital Literacy Assessment. Students completed this as a self assessment. I question whether the results would have been different had a teacher assessed analysis been used here. If I were to conduct another study of this sort, I would plan to gauge ‘achievement’ through a more rigorous and teacher assessed test.

Responses from both students and teaching staff who work with the Grade One students on a day to day basis support the 1:1 iPad program and see its benefits far outweigh any disadvantages. Besides observing a marked improvement in the students’ confidence in technology skills, one educator working with the experimental group noted that having a 1:1 iPad program “fosters greater independence and responsibility”. The class teacher of the

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 19 experimental group, who has worked with both models of implementation, affirms that the personalisation aspect of the 1:1 iPad program is an extremely powerful advantage:

There is SO much more personal ownership. Having that actual physical device that students can hold in their hand gives them a tangible link to the virtual iFolio…. Without 1:1 it just isn't possible to get that same buy­in from the kids because it's not so personal, there is not the same kind of ownership; the documentation of their learning is just another thing the teacher is telling you how and when to do.

The classroom teacher of the control group believes that a 1:1 iPad program would be more beneficial to her students, particularly in terms of workflow efficiency. She stated that if her students were to work on their own personal devices the process of digitally recording their learning would be much easier and faster. She observes that At the moment with only 7 ipads to the class we are restricted to using the iPads during centres or group work. There are many opportunities when I would love to have upload the students work immediately for them to make a record but this is impossible.

I will be reporting back to the Learning Technologies Council that, while the data suggests there is no benefit of a 1:1 iPad program with regard to digital literacy achievement and attitude, there are many other benefits that have been identified by both students and teachers. I fully support the school’s decision to expand the 1:1 iPad program to the entire Grade One team

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 20 next academic year. Indeed, I look forward to further participation in and observation of the extended program in action.

I believe the best argument for the adoption of a 1:1 iPad program is the level of personalisation and student ownership of learning it allows. Empowering students to be in charge and take the lead. Enabling students to become teachers. Empowering students to make decisions about their own learning journeys and to take an active role in their development. Enabling students to become content creators as opposed to content consumers, ensuring deeper learning and use of critical thinking skills. Perhaps the prediction that Seymour Papert made in 1980 continues to evolve: Education will become more of a private act, and people with good ideas, different ideas, exciting ideas…. There will be new opportunities for imagination and originality. There might be a renaissance of thinking about education. (p.37)

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 21 References

Fagan, T. & Coutts, T. (2012). To iPad or not to iPad? Christchurch, New Zealand: CORE Education. Retrieved from http://www.core­ed.org/sites/core­ed.org/files/Fagan­Coutts­iPad­research.pdf

Falloon, G. (2014). iPads in the primary school: Emerging findings from research. ​ Australian Computers in Education Conference: Now it's Personal Conference Proceedings​ .

Retrieved from http://www.acec2014.acce.edu.au/sites/2014/files/.../ACEC%20paper%20final.docx

Haselton, T. (2013) Apple: More Than 8 Million iPads Sold to Educational Institutions [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/03/03/apple­8­million­ipad­school/ Henderson, S. & Yeow, J. (2012). iPad in Education: A Case Study of iPad Adoption and Use in a Primary School.. ​ HICSS​ (p./pp. 78­87), : IEEE Computer Society. ISBN: 978­0­7695­4525­7

Hsin, C.­T., Li, M.­C., & Tsai, C.­C. (2014). The Influence of Young Children’s Use of Technology on Their Learning: A Review. ​ Educational Technology & Society​ , 17 (4), 85–99.

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 22

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ​ National educational technology standards for students. ​ Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20­14_iste_standards­s_pdf.pdf

Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K­12 Edition.

Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K­12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Jones, B., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century.

Educause Quarterly​ , ​ 29​ (2), 8­10.

Khoo. E., Merry. R., Nguyen, N.H., Bennett. T., & MacMillan. N. (2013). Early childhood education teachers’ iPad supported practices in young children’s learning and exploration. ​ Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology​ , 25(1­3), 3­20.

Papert, S. (1980). ​ Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas​ . Basic Books, Inc..

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 23 Appendix A

Demographics of Control and Experimental Groups All students attend Grade One at the Canadian International School of Hong Kong

Control Group

Experimental Group

Number of students

22

22

Number of girls

11

11

Number of boys

11

11

Ethnicity:

Hong Kong Chinese

4

7

British

1

3

Indian

1

2

Korean

0

2

American

0

2

American/Chinese

2

2

Dutch

0

1

New Zealander

1

1

Australian/Argentinian

0

1

British/Italian

0

1

Chinese/Singaporean

1

0

Japanese/British

1

0

Australian/Chinese

2

0

Indian/Australian

2

0

Canadian/Chinese

2

0

British/Chinese

2

0

Canadian

2

0

Middle Eastern

1

0

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 24 Appendix B

Digital Literacy Assessment Rubric

1:1 iPads vs Shared iPads 25 Appendix C Hodgson Attitude Scale