Teacher practices during Year 4 of a one‐to‐one mobile learning initiative
Abstract
This study examines the ways in which all nine middle school teachers in a private school for boys in the United States integrated mobile devices with content and pedagogy 4 years into the implementation of a one‐to‐one initiative. It also examines teacher perceptions of the benefits and challenges related to the implementation of mobile devices in real classroom contexts. Data were collected from multiple sources including teacher lesson plans, classroom observations, and interviews. Data collection and analysis were situated in the framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which is used to examine teacher knowledge and observed evidence of TPACK during classroom instruction. Results indicated that teachers were able to draw connections among mobile devices, content, and pedagogy to support student experiences. Results, however, indicated variability in teacher practice and pointed to the important role of continuous professional learning. Findings have implications for researchers and practitioners involved in the design and implementation of one‐to‐one initiatives.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic:
- The use of mobile devices in educational institutions around the world has grown rapidly in the last decade.
- Mobile learning has the potential to support teaching and student outcomes.
- Effective use of mobile devices requires alignment with curriculum content and sound pedagogy.
What this paper adds:
- Mobile initiatives can help teachers understand how to design and implement lessons that incorporate technology with meaningful curriculum goals and sound instructional strategies.
- Teachers assigned value to the use of mobile devices to support flexibility and choice, access to information, and new teacher roles.
Implications for practice and/or policy:
- Efforts should be made to help teachers utilize mobile devices in ways that support student access to authentic content, collaboration, and knowledge construction.
- Efforts should be made to support the continuous professional development of teachers in mobile initiatives.
1 INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of mobile devices has prompted school systems around the world to explore new educational pathways through one‐to‐one initiatives. A mobile device is a lightweight computer that usually comes with a touch screen, wireless network capabilities, and occasionally a keyboard (Viswanathan, 2015). Examples of mobile devices include tablets and smartphones. One‐to‐one initiatives typically focus on providing each student with a mobile device that could be used for educational purposes both in and outside the school. A popular mobile device is Apple's iPad, which features a plethora of software programs called apps that could be used across a variety of subjects and grade levels.
Although the purposes of one‐to‐one initiatives vary across institutions, they are typically viewed as a vehicle to improving the quality of instruction, supporting 21st century pedagogy and skill development, and enhancing student outcomes (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014; Muir, 2007). Typically, 21st century pedagogy refers to the design of dynamic learning environments that support teacher–student partnership and student‐centred learning (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2014). Research indicates, however, that simply providing teacher and student access to mobile devices does not assure their use in pedagogically desirable ways (Falloon, 2015). In fact, harnessing the power of mobile technology to support pedagogical shift has proven to be challenging, prompting a number of districts and schools to abandon one‐to‐one initiatives after failing to deliver on their promise (Harper & Milman, 2016).
In order to realize the potential of mobile technologies, it is important to gain a better understanding of the ways in which they can be used in conjunction with content and pedagogy to support students' classroom experiences. In recent years, the framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has increasingly being employed as a lens for unpacking the way teachers integrate technology in teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The framework posits that effective technology integration requires teachers to understand and negotiate the relationships between content, best practices for teaching content, and technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit‐Leftwich, 2010; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Yet, few studies to date have examined the ways in which teachers utilize mobile devices to support the integration of content, pedagogy and technology suggested by the TPACK framework (e.g., Beeson, Journell, & Ayers, 2014).
Further, research has yet to explore the integration of mobile devices in teaching and learning given unlimited one‐to‐one access over a long time. With the exemption of a few longitudinal studies related to the ways in which earlier generations of mobile devices, such as laptops were integrated in teaching and learning (see Mouza & Lavigne, 2012; Swallow, 2015), most research focuses on investigations conducted over a period of one semester or year (e.g., Mouza, 2008; Mouza & Barrett‐Greenly, 2015; Liu et al., 2016). This poses a challenge because findings from earlier studies indicate that the experiences of teachers in one‐to‐one initiatives are not continuously positive and may be characterized by decline and dissatisfaction after the first year (Liu et al., 2016; Swallow, 2015). Therefore, examinations that focus beyond the first year of one‐to‐one initiatives are critical.
Finally, existing research typically examines the use of mobile devices in a “controlled” environment where researchers assumed a rather active role in teaching. As a result, Haßler, Major, and Hennessy (2015) strongly recommend studies that involve use of mobile technologies, such as iPads and other tablets, with practitioners and their students over a sustained time. In this work, we address these gaps by investigating the ways in which a group of middle school teachers outside of a controlled environment integrated iPads with content and pedagogy in a one‐to‐one initiative. We utilize TPACK as a lens for examining the integration of iPads in order to understand the ways in which teachers negotiated the relationships between content, pedagogy and technology in real classroom contexts. Although we do not follow a true longitudinal design, we move beyond the first year to examine teacher practices during Year 4 of the one‐to‐one initiative. Relatedly, we focus on the following questions:
- What types of apps did teachers utilize into their instruction 4 years into a mobile one‐to‐one initiative?
- How did teachers integrate iPads and educational apps into their instruction, given long‐term and unlimited access to mobile devises? To what extent was iPad integration connected with specific content and pedagogical strategies, as suggested by the TPACK framework, to support teaching and learning in middle school content area instruction?
- What were teachers' perceptions regarding the benefits and challenges of using mobile devices and educational apps in the classroom?
1.1 Theoretical framework
This work is situated in the theoretical framework of TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As noted, TPACK is a form of knowledge required for effective teaching with technology, which interweaves three key knowledge bases focusing on technology, content, and pedagogy. Specifically, the TPACK framework (see Figure 1) outlines seven overlapping categories of knowledge that teachers should employ to teach today's students effectively. In addition to the three distinct knowledge bases of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK), the TPACK framework acknowledges the intersections of these domains, including pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
The TPACK framework acknowledges that teachers must have more than just working knowledge and skills needed to use specific technologies for educational purposes. Rather, teachers must pay equal attention to technology, content, and pedagogy as they are used in service of learning objectives (Wetzel & Marshall, 2011). With technologies that can readily connect students to resources and opportunities far beyond the classroom walls, it is up to the teacher to decide how, when, and for what content to deploy these powerful tools. As a result, TPACK can be used as a conceptual tool that may assist teachers in planning lessons that integrate technology. In this work, TPACK was used as an analytical framework to examine the ways in which teachers integrated knowledge of mobile technology with content and pedagogy to design and enact lessons that supported students' learning experiences.
1.2 Mobile learning literature
Emerging technologies such as tablets and other mobile devices create new opportunities to guide and enhance teaching and are increasingly becoming a gateway to mobile learning (Mouza & Lavigne, 2012; Park, 2011). Using the ubiquitous presence of mobile devices can put users closer to information sources, increase the reach of teaching and learning, and reposition learners to be at the forefront of their education (Fuentes, An, & Alon, 2015). Through its unique portability, ubiquitous Internet connectivity and many built‐in features and downloadable apps, iPad‐specific mobile learning has great potential to shift teacher pedagogy, provide flexibility and choice to students, personalize instruction, and improve student outcomes (Mouza & Lavigne, 2012).
1.2.1 Teacher pedagogy
Mobile devices such as the iPad could have a profound effect in education if they are accompanied by a shift in how teachers teach and students learn. Teacher‐centred pedagogy typically centres on the teacher transmitting information to students and acting as a classroom authority (Garrett, 2008). Current theories of learning emphasize the importance of shifting away from teacher‐centred to learner‐centred classroom environments. Learner‐centred environments recognize the need to build upon students' prior knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs while also engaging them as co‐constructors of their learning experiences (M. S. Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999; Garrett, 2008). In learner‐centred environments, the role of the teacher shifts to a learning coach, rather than disseminator of information, which gives students respect and agency in learning (Prensky, 2010). Teacher beliefs about teaching and learning, however, typically influence how they interpret and accept new instructional practices in their classroom (Calderhead & Robson, 1991). When teachers see value to specific pedagogical strategies, they are more likely to incorporate them into their practice, which in turn can facilitate reconsideration of beliefs (Zhao & Cziko, 2001).
Prior research indicates that ubiquitous access to technology has the potential to change classroom practice, often leading teachers to adopt more learner‐centred approaches that focus on authentic inquiry‐oriented projects, interdisciplinary approaches, and opportunities for collaborative work (e.g., Dawson, Cavanaugh, & Ritzhaupt, 2008; L. Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010; Mouza, 2008; Mouza, Cavalier, & Nadolny, 2008). In earlier studies for instance, Mouza (2008) found that the availability of one‐to‐one laptop computers enabled teachers to create rich learning environments that facilitated problem solving and knowledge construction instead of recitation or drill and practice. In more recent work on the implementation of iPad technology, Mouza and Barrett‐Greenly (2015) also found that participating teachers utilized iPads and mobile apps to support access to digital content and facilitate the construction of authentic learning artefacts in collaborative group settings. Other studies with early adopters of iPads also documented an increased focus on the use of apps for the creation of learning artefacts, such as digital multimedia book reviews, mathematical stories, analysis of art paintings, and preparation of collaborative reports (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014).
It is important to note that in most studies documenting shifts in pedagogy, teachers had previously attended professional development that allowed them to build their skill set in designing and delivering instruction that utilized mobile devices (i.e., TPACK). Further, regardless of professional development opportunities, Saudelli and Ciampa (2016) found that teachers' attitudes and confidence in teaching in relation to the integration of iPads formed a basis for how they approached their pedagogy. Specifically, teachers with greater ability to support student‐driven learning were more likely to utilize iPads in a manner closely aligned to the TPACK framework even when their knowledge of technology was more limited.
1.2.2 Flexibility and choice
In addition to moving away from drill and practice applications, a shift towards more learner‐centred practices allows teachers to utilize mobile devices such as iPads in ways that support flexibility, choice, and personalization. In particular, through their portability and multimodal interface, iPads allow students to situate their learning across different contexts, formal and informal, physical and virtual. Further, they allow students to make choices in how and where they learn as well as in the ways they demonstrate their understanding (Park, 2011; Traxler, 2007). When students take note of the goals, objectives, context, and content of a lesson, they become active agents and collaborative participants in the learning process (Mentor, 2015).
In a comprehensive literature review of mobile learning, Liu et al. (2014) found that mobility and choice allows students to learn content in real‐world settings and enables the differentiation of lessons in ways that support targeted learning goals. Similarly, in a study analysing teachers' task designs in a 1:1 laptop initiative using TPACK, Tallvid, Lundin, and Lindstrom (2012) found that students not only engaged with the learning task identified by the teacher but also redeveloped the task. In this instance, access to mobile devices made it possible for students to identify resources supporting the redesigned task. As Tallvid et al. emphasize, knowledge related to the integration of technology, content, and pedagogy made it possible to anticipate and handle activities not defined by the teacher.
1.2.3 Personalized instruction
In today's classrooms, there is an increased demand for a curriculum that is more customized to students' diverse needs by allowing learner choice, control, and differentiation (Johnson et al., 2013). Squire (2012) suggests that a great benefit of networked mobile devices is their ability to empower users by granting them instantaneous access to information. Similarly, Berson, Berson, and Manfra (2012) noted that a growing trend among K‐12 schools is using iPads to create more individualized and personalized lessons while also supporting collaboration and cooperative learning. The potential of collaboration is crucial to deepening learning opportunities as it enables students to learn from one another synchronously or asynchronously.
Looi et al. (2010) found that when compared with other available technologies, the highly personalized nature of mobile devices provides an excellent platform for the development of personalized, learner‐centric educational experiences marked by flexibility, customization, collaboration, active participation, and cocreation. Yet, according to Beeson et al. (2014), teacher's vision, meaning the desire to do more than disperse content, is fundamental to adaptive teaching. Specifically, Beeson et al. found that lack of clear vision limited teachers' knowledge of how to deliver content (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge), which in turn limited their knowledge on the integration of laptops, content, and pedagogy (TPACK) in social studies. In contrast, teachers with clear vision and objectives were able to utilize mobile devices in ways that supported deeper engagement, active participation, and dialogue.
1.2.4 Student outcomes
Despite much theorizing around the potential of mobile devices, little is still known related to their impact on student outcomes (Haßler et al., 2015). Much of what we know around the impacts of mobile learning comes from studies examining the use of laptop computers (see Clariana, 2009; L. Donovan et al., 2010; Mouza, 2008; Mouza et al., 2008). To date, few studies have examined student outcomes related to the use of tablets such as iPads. Further, the majority of these studies establish the motivational affordances of tablets, which frequently contributed to student engagement and empowerment (Ciampa, 2014; Mouza & Barrett‐Greenly, 2015). In a recent study, Haßler et al. (2015) conducted a systematic literature review of studies reporting on academic student outcomes related to the use of tablets in primary and secondary schools. Haßler et al. uncovered 33 relevant studies. Of those 16 reported positive learning outcomes, 5 no difference, and 2 negative learning outcomes. Studies reporting positive outcomes revealed ways in which tablet‐supported activities contributed to learning of mathematics (e.g., fractions) and science (e.g., the water cycle and plant morphology). Studies also indicated benefits for students with special educational needs. Neutral or negative learning outcomes were evident in studies focusing on reading. Because the ultimate objective of mobile initiatives is to support student outcomes, it is imperative that we identify the conditions under which positive outcomes can be materialized, particularly in relation to teachers' understanding of technology, content, and pedagogy.
1.3 Context of this work
This work was situated in an independent school for boys in the Mid‐Atlantic region of the United States, which launched a one‐to‐one iPad initiative for middle school (Grades 6–8). All teachers received iPads a year prior to students in order to become comfortable with the technology. During that year, teachers participated in a 1‐day professional development event designed to equip them with the TK needed to operate the iPads. Throughout the year, they also met bimonthly as a group, with the support of two university faculty with expertise in teaching and learning with technology, where they discussed approaches to iPad integration in teaching and learning. Meetings during the first year of the initiative centred mostly on which apps would best serve certain common classroom practices such as note taking, brainstorming, and presenting evidence of student learning.
In subsequent years (Years 2–4), the university faculty stepped back and the meetings were orchestrated exclusively by the teachers. These meetings gradually evolved from focusing on apps to carry out individual tasks to discussing pedagogical ways (PCK and TPK) in which teachers integrated iPads and mobile apps to support student learning (i.e., TPACK). Often, one of the participating teachers presented an iPad integrated lesson, unit, or task that was used as an anchor to generate discussion among the group. Occasionally, teachers invited students to come to the meetings to demonstrate ways in which they used iPads in their learning.
Students received their iPads at the beginning of their sixth grade. They were expected to use them throughout their middle school years. In August of each year, students and parents of rising sixth graders attended an iPad orientation led by the school's instructional technology coordinator. At this meeting, the coordinator and school principal reviewed the initial set‐up of the devices, the school's Acceptable Use Policy, and parental controls for the iPads. Following the initial orientation, rising sixth graders attended a 3‐hr session where they were provided with instruction on how to use a common set of apps identified by teachers. At this session, students were provided assistance to set up accounts and learn how to use Dropbox (a file sharing app), Edmodo (a social learning network), Notability (a note taking app), and iHomework (a homework portal). Throughout the year, students had opportunities to learn how to use additional apps during a school assembly where the student technology committee delivered brief tutorials.
2 METHODS
This work utilizes a multicase study design (Yin, 2009). Case study focuses on analysis of a bounded system such as an individual, programme, event or group (Merriam, 2007). According to Yin, case study is appropriate when how and why questions are posed, the investigator has little control over events, and the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real‐life context. Case studies can be single or multiple and can be selected based on convenience (i.e., expedient), purpose (e.g., typical and representative), or probability (i.e., what is happening in the programme as a whole and why?; Baškarada, 2014). In this work, the overall design consisted of nine case studies of individual middle school teachers in the context of a contemporary mobile one‐to‐one programme. The overall inquiry focused on how participating teachers integrated iPads and educational apps with content and pedagogy in real‐life context where investigators had no control over events.
2.1 Participants
Participants included all nine middle school teachers involved in the school's mobile one‐to‐one initiative. At the middle school level, the school serves approximately 100 students of predominantly middle‐income, Caucasian background. The nine participating teachers taught students in Grades 6–8 and comprised the entire teacher population of the middle school. As Table 1 shows, they taught in different content areas and had different years of experience. Given their diverse demographic characteristics, they were all expected to differ in the ways in which they integrated iPads and mobile apps in their practice. As a result, they were all selected in order to provide a comprehensive examination of iPad integration from all content areas, in order to understand the mobile initiative as a whole. The characteristics of the nine teacher participants are presented in Table 1.
| Teacher (pseudonym) | Subject area(s) | Grade level(s) | Teaching experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shaw | Science and Math | 6 | 8 |
| Mr. Clyne | Religion | 6–8 | 8 |
| Mrs. Carrick | Spanish | 6 | 14 |
| Mrs. Persie | Science | 7 | 27 |
| Mr. Herrera | Spanish | 7–8 | 5 |
| Mr. McNair | Music | 6–8 | 6 |
| Mr. Daley | English | 7–8 | 5 |
| Mr. Mata | Science and Math | 6–8 | 16 |
| Mr. Rooney | Math | 6–8 | 30 |
2.2 Data collection
Each teacher participated in two rounds of data collection over the course of one academic year (fourth year of the one‐to‐one initiative). Each round of data collection consisted of three data sources that included lesson plans, classroom observations, and teacher interviews. According to Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer (2010), identifying TPACK by observation only is difficult because much of the decision making behind teacher actions is not evident. Therefore, they suggest that in conjunction with observations, researchers examine teacher planning documents and reflections upon their actions. Specifically, for each round, teachers submitted a written lesson plan and were subsequently observed implementing the lesson plan in their classroom. Following the observed lesson, each teacher provided essential information on their lesson and reflected on their actions through a semistructured interview. A total of 18 complete data sets were collected. Because data collection employs a triangulated combination of planning documents, observations, and interviews in real‐world authentic classroom conditions, our data volume was deemed sufficient to provide a complete representation of teacher practices in relation to iPads and mobile apps.
2.2.1 Lesson plans
Written lesson plans from all nine teachers were collected. Specifically, each teacher submitted two written lesson plans that correspond to the observed lessons. All lesson plans were developed using a template provided by the school administration, which considered both typical subject matter (i.e., content) as well as pedagogical and logistical elements such as materials, vocabulary, lesson objectives, activities, and assessment (i.e., pedagogy). It also prompted teachers to identify specific apps that either themselves or their students were expected to utilize (i.e., technology). Teachers submitted their lesson plans via e‐mail to the first author at least 3 days prior to the scheduled observation.
2.2.2 Classroom observations
Two classroom observations were conducted for each participating teacher following the review of the lesson plan. Each classroom observation lasted one instructional period and was recorded using the Technology Integration Observation Instrument (Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, & Swan, 2011). This instrument is directly built around the TPACK framework and is designed to focus upon the use of TPACK in observable teaching. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only TPACK‐based observation instrument that has been found to be valid and reliable. Although other observation instruments exist, they focus on technology integration broadly and not on the relationship among technology, content, and pedagogy as suggested by the TPACK framework (Hofer et al., 2011). Observers utilizing the instrument are prompted to record key curriculum topics (i.e., content), instructional strategies/learning activities (i.e., pedagogy), and digital technologies used by the teacher or the students (i.e., technology).
2.2.3 Teacher interviews
Following each classroom observation, teachers were interviewed to provide a better understanding of the lesson observed and offer a venue for reflection. Each interview lasted around 20 min and was guided by the TPACK Interview Protocol (Harris, Grandgenett, & Hofer, 2012). As with the observation instrument, this is the only TPACK‐based interview protocol that has been found to be valid and reliable when analysing experienced teachers' descriptions of lessons. The protocol focuses on four themes that parallel the TPACK framework: (a) goals of the observed lesson (i.e., content), (b) description of pedagogical choices and instructional activities (i.e., pedagogy), (c) description of technologies used in the lesson (i.e., technology), and (d) reflection on how the particular technologies used in the lesson “fit” the learning goals and pedagogical strategies (i.e., TPACK). When discussing the ways in which technology “fit” the goals and pedagogical strategies of the observed lesson, teachers were also asked to explain why they chose to use certain apps and/or iPad built‐in features. Further, they were asked to report on what they perceived to be the benefits and challenges associated with the use of iPads and mobile apps in teaching and learning.
2.3 Data analysis
2.3.1 Lesson plans
Lesson plans were evaluated using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric, a valid and reliable instrument for assessing teacher planning documents built directly around the TPACK framework (Harris et al., 2010). This rubric includes four evaluation criteria, which include (a) curriculum goals and technologies (curriculum‐based technology use—TCK), (b) instructional strategies and technologies (using technology in teaching and learning—TPK), (c) technology selection (compatibility with curriculum goals and instructional strategies—TPACK), and (d) fit (content, pedagogy, and technology integration—TPACK).
Each of the four criteria can receive a numerical score of 1–4. A score of 1 indicates failure in satisfying the criterion, whereas a score of 4 indicates full success. Given the evaluation guidelines of the rubric, a score of 4 across each criterion indicates that (a) content, instructional strategies, and technology fit together strongly within the instructional plan; (b) technology selection is exemplary given curriculum goals and strategies; (c) technology optimally supports instructional strategies; and (d) technology is strongly aligned with curriculum goals. In contrast, a score of 1 across each criterion indicates that content, instructional strategies and technology do not fit together within the instructional plan. Further, technology selection is inappropriate, does not support instructional strategies, and is not aligned with any curriculum goals. Scores of 2 or 3 indicate that content, instructional strategies, and technology somewhat fit or fit together within the instructional plan. Further, these scores indicate partial or full success (though not exemplary) in selecting technology that supports instructional strategies and is aligned with curriculum goals.
All lessons were scored by the same rater to ensure consistency. Subsequently, a second rater scored a subset of the lessons using all four dimensions of the rubric. Using guidelines provided by Miles and Huberman (1994) that consider the number of agreements/disagreements among raters, the interrater reliability across all dimensions was calculated at 0.83. Subsequently, all disagreements were discussed and resolved before assigning final scores for each lesson.
2.3.2 Classroom observations
Observation records were scored using the Technology Integration Observation Instrument (Hofer et al., 2011), which involves six criteria. The first four criteria are identical to those included in the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric used to score lesson plans focusing on curriculum goals and technologies, instructional strategies and technologies, technology selection(s), and “fit.” The other two criteria focus on instructional use (using technologies effectively for instruction) and technology logistics (operating technologies effectively).
Each criterion can receive a numerical score of 1–4, where 1 indicates failure in satisfying the criterion, whereas 4 indicates full success. Given the evaluation guidelines of the rubric, a score of 4 across each criterion indicates that the lesson strongly aligned technology, content, and pedagogy to optimally support curriculum goals and instructional strategies. Further, a score of 4 indicates that instructional use of technology is maximally effective and that the teacher and/or students operate technologies very well. In contrast, a score of 1 across each criterion indicates that technology is not aligned with content and pedagogy and does not support curriculum goals and instructional strategies. Further, a score of 1 indicates that instructional use of technology is ineffective and that the teacher and/or students operate technology inadequately. Scores of 2 or 3 indicate partial success in the effective use of technology in conjunction with content and pedagogy.
As with lesson plans, all observations were scored by the same rater whereas a subset of observations were scored by a second rater. Using Miles and Huberman's (1994) guidelines, interrater reliability was calculated at 0.78. Upon further discussion, it was evident that some of the disagreements were related to the second rater's unfamiliarity with the mobile apps referenced by teachers. As a result, the second rater had difficulty determining the alignment between mobile apps, curriculum goals, and instructional strategies. The primary rater subsequently demonstrated the mobile apps to the second rater and reached an agreement for all discrepancies before assigning a final score to each observation.
2.3.3 Teacher interviews
Interview data were used in two ways. First, they were used to provide contextual information and insight regarding teacher decision making around the relationship and selection of mobile apps in conjunction with the curriculum goals and instructional strategies. In turn, this reflection facilitated scoring of observations and triangulation of other data sources. Second, they were used to examine teachers' perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with mobile learning.
For the purpose of examining teachers' perceptions, interview data were analysed qualitatively using a combination of a priori codes related to the study's key questions and codes that emerged during the interviews. Specifically, the authors read interview transcripts repeatedly and identified an initial list of codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As analysis of each individual teacher was completed, data were compared with those of other teachers to identify similarities, differences, and emergent themes (Hatch, 2002). Redundant themes were then combined and less frequently represented themes were dropped. At this stage, data from lesson plans and observations were also used to confirm or dismiss emergent themes. This led to a final coding scheme, which was applied to all interview data. The coding scheme organized codes around two key themes: (a) benefits associated with mobile learning (i.e., flexibility and choice, access to information, and new teacher roles) and (b) challenges associated with mobile learning (i.e., technology knowledge, student distractions, and professional development).
3 FINDINGS
Findings of the study indicated that participating teachers utilized a variety of apps and integrated iPads and educational apps in their instruction to support content and pedagogy. In turn, such integration frequently facilitated changes in the teacher role, flexibility and choice in student learning, and instant access to information. In this section, we first present findings on the types of apps utilized. We then discuss the instructional use of iPads and educational apps using the TPACK framework as a lens. Finally, we present teacher perceptions regarding the benefits and challenges of mobile learning.
3.1 Mobile apps used by participating teachers
Results indicated that during Year 4 of the one‐to‐one initiative, teachers utilized a wide range of apps regularly in their instruction. At the first year of the initiative, teachers collectively identified a common list of apps that could be used across multiple content areas. Results indicated that they continued to utilize those apps 3 years later. In addition, this initial list expanded to include content‐specific apps identified by individual teachers. Table 2 lists the apps used by teachers and students based on data collected from lesson plans, classroom observations, and teacher interviews.
| App | Mr. Shaw | Mrs. Persie | Mr. Herrera | Mr. Clyne | Mr. Daley | Mrs. Carrick | Mr. McNair | Mr. Rooney | Mr. Mata | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notability | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | ||
| Dropbox | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | |||
| Edmodo | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||||
| iMovie | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||||
| Safari | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||||
| Pages | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| Keynote | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| Popplet | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| iBooks | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| YouTube | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| Camera Roll | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||
| QR codea | X | X | 2 | |||||||
| Kahootb | X | X | 2 | |||||||
| Educreations | X | X | 2 | |||||||
| GarageBand | X | X | 2 | |||||||
| Minecraftc | X | 1 | ||||||||
| Terrariad | X | 1 | ||||||||
| Quizlet | X | 1 | ||||||||
| Total | 12 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
- a QR code: A machine‐readable label containing information.
- b Kahoot: A game‐based learning app for creating quizzes.
- c Minecraft: A virtual construction game.
- d Terraria: An adventure‐based video game.
As shown in Table 2, a total of 18 different apps were used. The most frequently utilized apps were those that served general classroom purposes such as Notability for note taking and Dropbox for cloud storage and file sharing. The multi‐purpose functionality of these apps enabled teachers to utilize them into multiple disciplines and for different instructional tasks. Of the 18 apps utilized by participating teachers, only GarageBand (music and podcast creation app) and iBooks (e‐book app) were content specific. The remaining apps did not have a specific content focus and could be used in multiple subject areas.
As shown in Table 2, Notability and Dropbox were the two apps most widely used. Notability, a note taking and PDF annotating app, allows students to handwrite or type information as well as highlight passages and record audio within the app's interface. The materials could be then automatically uploaded to Dropbox folders for sharing with both the teacher and other students. Results indicated that Notability was the preferred app in which students carried out writing functions. With the exception of formal written assessments that were completed in Pages (word processing app), students used Notability to carry out a number of daily classroom functions. For example, in both Mr. Clyne's Religion class and Mr. Daley's English class, students used Notability to write on a graphic organizer the teacher created. After completing graphic organizers, worksheets, and other written documents in Notability, students uploaded their documents to their personal Dropbox accounts.
A second widely used app was Dropbox. Dropbox was the app of choice for storing student work. Giving users 2 GB of storage space with a free account, Dropbox allowed both the teachers and students to store many different file types in a cloud computing environment and access the files conveniently through their iOS app. In these instances, Dropbox was simply used as a means for teachers to manage a lesson and for students to organize their work, rather than a tool to support teaching and learning. In other instances, however, students utilized Dropbox to share materials with peers when working on collaborative projects, as well as access their work anytime, anyplace both at school and at home. This was the case of Mr. Shaw's students who utilized Dropbox when working to build digital presentations of different volcano types utilizing screenshots of volcanoes built in the Minecraft app. Finally, acting in place of a traditional folder, students created Dropbox folders that they shared with each subject's teacher in which they turned in their assignments for feedback and assessment purposes. In these instances, Dropbox was utilized as a way of providing formative assessment in support of student learning.
Out of the nine participating teachers, four utilized iMovie (a video editing and production app), Safari, and Edmodo into their lessons. Like Notability and Dropbox, iMovie is also versatile and could be used across subject areas. iMovie was used into Science and Spanish classes across all grade levels. Typically, students used iMovie to create videos that demonstrated their understanding of topics covered in class, such as types of volcanoes, rules of the preterit tense, foreign language, and organic compounds. With the ability to include text, pictures, audio, and video to make meaning, iMovie enabled students to demonstrate their understanding using multiple media. Similar to iMovie, four teachers utilized Safari for Internet research and Edmodo to share classroom instructional materials and facilitate teacher and student communication on lesson materials.
Other multi‐purpose apps utilized by teachers to carry out instructional tasks included Pages for word processing, Keynote for presentations, and Popplet for brainstorming and mind mapping. Those apps were also utilized into multiple content areas. Some of the apps were only utilized in a limited capacity and with less frequency because they are more task specific. One such app, Quizlet, allows users to make flashcards with which to review terms in a unit or lesson. One group of three students within one of the observed science classes used Quizlet to write out the definition to several vocabulary words in their organic compounds unit. Although this type of review is fairly rote, it is beneficial at times.
3.2 Integration of mobile devices and apps with content and pedagogy
Scores from the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (see Table 3) and the Technology Integration Observation Instrument (see Table 4) assessed the degree to which teachers integrated iPads and mobile apps with content and pedagogy. As shown in Table 3, the overall mean score on the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (M = 3.00, SD = 0.61) indicates that teachers designed lessons that recognized the interacting relationships or “fit” among mobile apps, content, and pedagogy. Further, participating teachers selected iPad features and mobile apps that were aligned and appropriate given the identified curriculum goals. Finally, in most instances, iPads and mobile apps were used to support the identified instructional strategies. These findings suggest that in Year 4 of the initiative, teachers exhibited a good understanding of how to plan for lessons that incorporate mobile devices, content, and pedagogy.
| Criteria | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Curriculum goals and technologies | 2.84 | 0.79 |
| Instructional strategies and technologies | 3.06 | 0.73 |
| Technology selection(s) | 3.11 | 0.68 |
| “Fit” (content, pedagogy, and technology) | 3.00 | 0.69 |
| 3.00 | 0.61 |
| Criteria | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Curriculum goals and technologies | 2.84 | 0.79 |
| Instructional strategies and technologies | 2.67 | 0.77 |
| Technology selection(s) | 3.00 | 0.77 |
| “Fit” (content, pedagogy, and technology) | 3.06 | 0.80 |
| Instructional use | 2.89 | 0.58 |
| Technology logistics | 2.89 | 0.68 |
| 2.89 | 0.61 |
Each teacher was subsequently observed enacting the technology‐integrated lessons in his or her classroom. As shown in Table 4, scores on the Technology Integration Observation Instrument were slightly lower than lesson plan scores (M = 2.89, SD = 0.61) but overall indicated that the intersection of what the teachers taught (content), how they taught the material (pedagogy), and the mobile apps they incorporated into their lessons (technical knowledge) “fit” well. Specifically, observation data indicated that lessons aligned technology, content, and pedagogy to support curriculum goals and instructional strategies. Further, observation data indicated that instructional use of iPads and mobile apps was effective in the observed lesson and teachers and students operated the devices well.
Results, however, indicated variation in teachers' scores with some observed lessons scoring lower than others. Low scoring lessons typically utilized a small number of apps to carry out mundane instructional tasks that typically were not well aligned with the lesson's curriculum goals or instructional strategies. For example, Mr. Daley had students retrieve a graphic organizer through Dropbox, which they used to write a quote from a passage in a story they had read. In this lesson, Mr. Daley exhibited knowledge of a file sharing app (i.e., Dropbox) and the ways in which it can be used to facilitate access to instructional materials. The use of the app, however, was not connected to curriculum objectives and instructional strategies. Although the instructional activity asked students to think critically about the content of the lesson, the iPad did not aid students in their understanding, but only served as a tool for accessing documents and recording students' thoughts.
Higher scoring lessons typically integrated a variety of production apps that were aligned to the curriculum goals and instructional strategies of the lesson, enabling students to demonstrate their understanding of the content. In his Spanish class, for example, Mr. Herrera asked students to create a music video that showed their understanding of the two past tense verb forms. To accomplish the goals of the lesson, Mr. Herrera circulated the classroom to provide individual assistance to students who did not fully understand the material and challenge students who did grasp the initial concept. Students worked in collaborative groups, using apps such as iMovie, Keynote, GarageBand, and Photos to produce their video. In this example, Mr. Herrera demonstrated knowledge of production apps and the ways in which they can be used to help students represent their understanding of Spanish materials. In carrying out the lesson, Mr. Herrera promoted collaboration, flexibility, and choice as students selected their own apps to illustrate their learning. To better illustrate the difference between low scoring and high scoring lessons, we present the case of Mrs. Persie.
3.2.1 Low scoring lesson
Mrs. Persie's first observation focused on the implementation of a Seventh Grade Life Science lesson on the properties of organic compounds. Mrs. Persie's primary goal was to provide students with background knowledge in preparation for an upcoming lab on organic compounds. To introduce the lesson, Mrs. Persie started with a set of three warm‐up questions that students answered in a word processing app, Pages. She subsequently reviewed student responses and introduced the lesson objectives. To support students' background content knowledge on organic compounds, Mrs. Persie delivered a presentation through Keynote. Students were provided with a skeleton version of the teacher's presentation materials, leaving blanks to fill in keywords from the information presented. Periodically, Mrs. Persie paused to ask students questions pertaining to the topic in order to ensure they understood the materials. Throughout her presentation, Mrs. Persie drew connections to the upcoming lab on organic compounds.
The second part of this lesson focused on preparing students for the upcoming lab examining the types or organic compounds contained in the foods we eat. As a first step, Mrs. Persie demonstrated how to make a foil pan that could be used during the testing process. As she did that, she invited students to use the camera on their iPads to record her demonstration and utilize it as a resource in building their own foil pans. The lesson concluded with students creating their own foil pans using Mrs. Persie's recording for guidance.
In this lesson, Mrs. Persie demonstrated knowledge of a presentation app (TK), which she utilized to deliver information to students. She also demonstrated knowledge of iPad features and how to operate them (e.g., camera) and the way they can be used as a resource to support instructional strategies and student learning. Yet Mrs. Persie did not exemplify effective integration of iPads and mobile apps with content and pedagogy. In the first part of the lesson, the devices were simply used to deliver information. In the second part, the devices were utilized as a resource but were not an essential component of the lesson because the teacher was also available to support students in creating their foil pans. Therefore, in this case, iPads and mobile apps were not strongly aligned with content and pedagogy to create new models of learner‐centred instruction.
3.2.2 High scoring lesson
Mrs. Persie's second observation focused on a lesson related to cell division. The goal of this lesson was to help students develop an understanding of cell division by creating a teaching lesson in collaborative groups. The lesson engaged students in three distinct instructional tasks. First, students utilized Popplet, a mind mapping app for capturing and organizing ideas to create a concept map illustrating their understanding of cell division. After Mrs. Persie reviewed and approved each group's concept map, students proceeded to making their teaching lesson using a presentation app of their choice, including Educreations, iMovie, and Keynote. Lastly, each group was asked to develop four quiz questions about the topic to check students' overall understanding of the concept.
In this lesson, Mrs. Persie demonstrated knowledge of production apps (TK) and the ways in which they could support curriculum goals and instructional strategies that fostered collaboration, flexibility, and choice. As she noted, she took a “leap of faith” by allowing increased autonomy and multiple pathways to helping students develop deep understanding of the materials. Rather than being an add‐on, iPads and mobile apps were seamlessly integrated (“fit”) with the content and pedagogy to support curriculum goals and instructional strategies in order to foster student learning. These two lessons illustrate different approaches to the integration of mobile devices, even among the same teacher. This finding indicates that participating teachers used mobile devices for a variety of purposes, but the selection of apps did not always optimally support instructional strategies.
4 TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF MOBILE LEARNING
The nine teachers involved in this study discussed both benefits and challenges related to the ways in which iPads and mobile apps supported learning goals and pedagogical strategies.
4.1 Benefits of using mobile apps with content and pedagogy
According to participants, iPads provided teachers and students with a number of pedagogical and technological affordances, including flexibility and choice, instant access to information, and a changing role for the teacher. Notably, seven out of the nine teachers (78%) indicated that the iPads provided students with flexibility and choice in how they demonstrated their understanding of the content. For example, when teaching his class about volcanoes as part of his “restless earth” unit, Mr. Shaw designed a lesson during which students worked collaboratively to construct presentations that demonstrated their understanding of the different types of volcanoes. To complete the task, Mr. Shaw allowed students to choose their own apps. As he reported during his interview, by offering students choice, he helped them “be more motivated in their work” and develop “stronger representations of their knowledge.” Similarly, Mrs. Persie offered students a choice of where they worked in cooperative learning groups when producing their teaching presentations on cell division. Although some groups preferred to remain in the classroom to complete the task, others worked in the lab or hallway. Most groups periodically changed locations to accommodate project needs. For example, while recording sound for their presentations, students found a quiet place in the hallway or a corner of the lab to record uninterrupted.
Another key strength of iPads identified by teachers (67%) was their ability to provide students with instant access to information. During one observed lesson, Mr. Herrera harnessed the power of the iPad's quick access to information in his Spanish class. When teaching students about the history of Spain, he compiled a 20‐question WebQuest (web‐based inquiry activity) for which students searched the answers to the questions on the Internet. Mr. Herrera acknowledged the volume of resources available instantaneously on the iPad and wanted to provide students with opportunities to find information themselves “without directly telling them.” Mr. Mata, who uses an iBook with his Honors Algebra class, commended this resource because the embedded videos helped “reinforce the concepts presented in class.” Mrs. Persie, who also teaches with a Science iBook, reported that the iBook is “convenient because of its portability and the extra features, like an embedded glossary.” Mrs. Persie reported that the available resources on the Internet both serve to “guide [students] and provide information for their research.”
A third strength of mobile learning identified by teachers was their ability to shift the role of the teacher in the classroom. Five out of nine teachers reported that use of iPads allowed them to break away from their traditional role in front of the class to become a learning coach, often working side‐by‐side with students. By taking advantage of the iPad's technological capabilities such as video, Mr. Shaw for instance has rearranged his math class so he can better serve the needs of each student. In particular, Mr. Shaw integrated video, a chat room available through the online resource Today's Meet, and cooperative learning groups to make his class “more student‐centred.” He encouraged students, with the help of pre‐recorded videos, to “discuss troublesome problems peer‐to‐peer” while interacting with the materials. By integrating Today's Meet, Mr. Shaw offered students the opportunity to pose their questions in the chat room and have them answered by other students in the class in addition to the teacher alone. This web tool also provided Mr. Shaw a record of student questions that he utilized to go deeper into the materials. It also empowered students to respond to one another. Mr. Shaw indicated that the use of pre‐recorded videos that students reviewed at home in conjunction with the use of the chat room allowed “students to take ownership of assessing themselves within a lesson.”
4.2 Challenges to integrating iPads with content and pedagogy
Results revealed three primary challenges in teacher efforts to integrate iPads and mobile apps with content and pedagogy, including knowledge of technology, need for continuous professional learning, and student distraction. Specifically, four teachers (44%) reported that a key challenge was the need to learn how to operate iPads prior to using them with students. These teachers noted that they struggled to build their knowledge of technology (TK) and learn the functionality of the apps they intended to use in their classrooms. Mr. Herrera very candidly described this sentiment when asked how he thinks he can improve his observed lesson in the future. He said, “I would like to incorporate GarageBand into the student movies, however I would have to learn how to use it first. And, that takes time.” He said he currently relies on students' understanding of the technology, and therefore those students who are familiar with GarageBand can incorporate it.
Interestingly, four of the nine teachers noted that they sought out peers or another form of informal professional development opportunity, such as YouTube videos, to acquire TK on mobile apps they planned to implement. For example, in order to better understand GarageBand, Mr. McNair attended an outside professional development workshop promoted through the local University and subsequently referred to a variety of YouTube videos covering unique functions within the app. Lastly, Mr. McNair utilized his students' expertise to increase his comfort level with the app. Specifically, he asked students to e‐mail him any tips and tricks so he could catalog them and utilize them in his classes.
In addition to the need for TK, teachers noted some pedagogical challenges. For instance, three teachers reported that students were more distractible when using the iPads in class, frequently using apps that were not related to the purposes of the lesson. These teachers acknowledged the need for clear expectations related to the use of iPads with their students. Mr. Clyne, in particular, noted the need to set specific parameters for students, including which apps students could use, in order to avoid distractions. He said, “if you don't set boundaries, students lose focus of the purpose of the lesson.”
5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Using the TPACK framework as a lens, the purpose of this work was to examine the ways in which teachers integrated iPads and mobile apps in middle school content area instruction 4 years into a one‐to‐one initiative. Results indicated that teachers integrated iPads and mobile apps with content and pedagogy in a variety of ways, but focused primarily on general multi‐purpose rather than content‐specific apps. Scores on the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric and the Technology Integration Observation Instrument indicated that participating teachers exhibited a good understanding of how to design and implement lessons that incorporate technology with meaningful curriculum goals and sound instructional strategies. Koehler and Mishra (2008) describe TPACK as a form of knowledge that constitutes meaningful and deeply skilled teaching. Teachers in this study integrated technology (e.g., primarily multi‐purpose mobile apps), content (e.g., Science, Religion, and Spanish), and pedagogy (e.g., collaborative learning) to meaningfully support teaching and learning processes and provide students with flexibility and choice. Importantly, lesson and observation scores were consistent indicating teachers' ability to integrate iPads and mobile apps with content‐specific activities required to support student learning. This finding is noteworthy because in prior work with preservice teachers Mouza and Karchmer‐Klein (2013) documented a disconnect between lesson plans and the enactment of those lessons in field‐placement classrooms. This finding, however, could be attributed to the lack of pedagogical expertise that characterizes preservice teachers.
Results also indicated that higher scoring lessons and observations typically incorporated apps and iPad tools in more authentic ways to optimally support content and instructional strategies. In those instances, iPads blended into the fabric of the lesson rather than serving as add‐ons or becoming the focus of the lesson. Archambault and Crippen (2009) suggest that teachers need to develop an understanding of how to incorporate technology in order to enhance the students' knowledge of the subject while adding to the student experience within a lesson. In addition to using iPad embedded features, teachers explicitly implemented 18 mobile apps within the identified lessons. These apps enabled students to access authentic Internet content, collaborate, and think critically about information. They also allowed students to demonstrate their learning by developing authentic products such as songs created in GarageBand to show understanding of musical texture and digital stories created in iMovie to demonstrate knowledge of volcanoes. Such practices enabled teachers to provide students with multiple learning pathways, foster self‐direction, and maintain control over their learning (Normak, Pata, & Kaipainen, 2012). Notably, limited was the use of content‐specific apps. This finding may be attributed to two reasons. First, the vast number of apps categorized as educational on the App store makes it overwhelming for teachers to select the most effective app for their specific instructional needs (McGarth, 2010). Second, it appears that the majority of content‐specific apps focuses on literacy and math and targets younger audiences (e.g., toddlers) rather than middle school students (Shuler, 2009).
Despite the wide use of apps by participating teachers, findings indicated that there was variation in the manner in which mobile apps were used to support content and pedagogy. Mrs. Persie's case, for example, indicated that even lessons designed and enacted by the same teacher could differ in their focus and pedagogy. Mrs. Persie's first lesson received a low TPACK score because app selection was not exemplary given the specific curriculum goals and the overall use of iPads did not optimally support instructional strategies. In this case, technology, content, and pedagogy somewhat fit together as iPads were used for tasks that could be easily accomplished with more traditional means. Mrs. Persie's second lesson, however, scored high indicating purposeful integration of iPads with content and pedagogy, including opportunities for students to collaborate, create, communicate, and think critically about the content of the lesson. This finding indicates that wide availability of mobile devices does not automatically bring about a shift in pedagogy or optimal integration of technology, content, and pedagogy. Rather, experience and willingness to embrace learner‐centred practices that leverage technology is critical (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2016).
This finding is consistent with results from other studies, which also documented variability in the extent in which iPads were used in teacher practice (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014; Mouza & Barrett‐Greenly, 2015). Specifically, examining how Danish teachers integrated iPads in their classrooms, Jahnke and Kumar (2014) identified three types of practices that they classified as low, medium, and high extent. Low‐extent iPad practices did not add value to classroom instruction or the iPad was used as substitute for paper and pencil tasks. Medium‐extent iPad practices referred to uses that could also be accomplished with other devices such as laptops or cameras. Finally, high‐extent practices indicated iPad uses that capitalized on the special characteristics or features of the devices such as multimodal functions, special apps, or one‐in‐all applications. Although in this work we did document low‐extent uses, most teachers did capitalize on the unique characteristics and apps available on the iPad to add value to classroom instruction. However, noticeably absent were practices that capitalized on the continuous availability of iPads outside the classroom. Although frequently teachers assigned homework that required the use of iPads at home, they did not use iPads for authentic or location‐specific lessons. Liu et al. (2014), identified a number of studies where iPads were used outside the classroom to examine location‐specific field lessons, outdoor science, or learning in zoos and museums. Such practices were absent in this work.
Finally, results indicated that teachers assigned value to the use of iPads and mobile apps to support curriculum goals, pedagogy, and student outcomes despite the fact that they occasionally served as distraction. Other studies also noted that teachers considered mobile devices to be a distraction for students (Praag & Sanchez, 2015). Unlike earlier studies, however, which documented dissatisfaction with one‐to‐one initiatives after the first year (e.g., Swallow, 2015), teachers in this study remained committed to mobile learning. When teachers assign pedagogical value to mobile devices, they are more likely to facilitate their implementation in teaching and learning (Praag & Sanchez, 2015). Nevertheless, participants expressed the need for continuous learning. Teacher professional development can support teachers in learning about new tools and instructional strategies and encourage them to rethink iPad uses in relation to content and pedagogy. Despite being in the fourth year of the initiative, teachers noted challenges in their knowledge of technology and their understanding of how to identify and use apps for classroom instruction. Even though they held monthly meetings to support peer learning, those generally focused on general purpose apps with wide applicability rather than apps connected to a particular content area. As a result, teachers expressed desire for additional support and time to learn new skills in relation to their content area. This need may also help explain the more limited use of content‐specific apps. Further, this finding is consistent with a rich body of literature highlighting the role of professional development in helping teachers feel comfortable with technology and acquire skills needed to make connections among technology, content, and pedagogy in the spirit of the TPACK framework (Mouza, 2009; Mouza & Barrett‐Greenly, 2015; Kopcha, 2012).
Results from this work have implications for advancing our understanding of the TPACK framework in relation to the use of mobile devices. Despite its popularity, the field's understanding of TPACK, particularly in relation to emerging technologies and specific content areas, is still evolving. Although much research exists on mobile learning in education broadly, few studies have examined the integration of mobile devices in light of the TPACK framework. As a result, the TPACK framework needs further studying in relation to actual teaching practices (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2016). Specifically, additional research is needed that illustrates ways in which teachers can integrate mobile devices across a variety of subject areas by bringing together the three pillars of the TPACK framework, namely, technology, content, and pedagogy. In this work, we provided tangible examples that illustrate the ways in which teachers both design and enact lessons that integrate knowledge of mobile technology with content and pedagogy in actual teaching practice to support student learning. We also discussed the affordances and limitations of such designs.
6 LIMITATIONS
This investigation was limited due to the small number of teachers. Future work would benefit from studying a larger number of teachers who are more representative of grade levels and content areas. This would allow researchers to identify patterns of TPACK implementation across contexts. Second, data for this work were collected at one point in time—the fourth year of a one‐to‐one initiative. Therefore, the study does not document changes in teacher practice across the 4 years of the one‐to‐one initiative. Longitudinal studies that document teachers' learning and integration of mobile devices with content and pedagogy at multiple points in time throughout the duration of one‐to‐one initiatives are also needed. Such studies could help uncover teachers' journeys as they learn to integrate new technologies with content and pedagogies over time. Finally, this work did not examine student academic outcomes but rather focused exclusively on teacher practices. Future work might examine student academic outcomes in one‐to‐one initiatives that allow for continuous access to devices in and out of school.
7 CONCLUSION
Despite the growing popularity of mobile devices in K‐12 classrooms, little is understood about how teachers use these devices in conjunction with content and pedagogy. Further, much of the research exists with elementary school teachers who are more comfortable with mobile devices and hold more positive perceptions towards their use (Liu et al., 2016). As pressure amounts to gain a better understanding of the ways in which mobile devices such as the iPad can be used to support disciplinary content learning, we need more research that uncovers the experiences of teachers in one‐to‐one initiatives at an incremental scale (Swallow, 2015).
In this work, we examined the ways in which middle school teachers utilized mobile devices, such as the iPad, to support content and pedagogy. Results noted some variability in the extent in which iPads were used in conjunction with content and pedagogical practices. Specifically, when teachers designed lessons that utilized a combination of apps essential to the lesson and provided students flexibility and choice in how they learned and demonstrated their understanding, TPACK scores were higher. Finally, results indicated the need for continuous teacher learning and professional development, especially given rapid advances in mobile technology.
