Running head: IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

iPad Design Project Craig Chubb, Jaime Tong, Kent Jaimeson, Osayma Nehwali ETEC 510 University of British Columbia Diane Janes 19 October, 2013

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

1. Key Frameworks It is our goal to design a collaborative, hands-on and flexible unit plan featuring the iPad that will meet the needs of both teachers and students. The primary focus will be to introduce teachers to the pedagogical and practical possibilities of utilizing this interactive device in various educational settings. As the need for engaging and interactive classroom content increases, we feel it necessary to develop strategies to assist educators in successfully integrating the iPad into their practices. Teachers will participate in a three-part professional development session, whereby they will research collaboratively, locate appropriate applications and software, continually reflect on their own learning, design a lesson on the effectiveness of the iPad, and present their findings online and with their group. By creating a unit that allows participants to not only work collaboratively, but also individually through educational media and/or independent research, we allow students to see themselves as active participants...who can be active designers(New London Group, 1996, p. 64). As we incorporate concepts like Multiliteracies, as well as using a constructivist approach to teaching, it will provide users with an engaging learning environment, meaning that we steer away from the industrialized postFordism approach of teaching, and start realizing that as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life (New London Group, 1996, p.66). We will give participants time to explore the unique qualities of the iPad, while offering them various ways in which to present and reflect their findings. We realize that students should not simply be docile participants, and need to develop the capacity to speak up, to negotiate, and to be able to engage

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

critically (New London Group, 1996, p. 67). We wished to incorporate this aspect into the unit, in order to personalize each individuals learning, thereby providing a different dynamicbeing remade by their users as they work to achieve their various purposes (New London Group, 1996, p.64 ). Along with providing time to play with the iPad independently, we will also give participants opportunities to work amongst their peers and group members. Our hope is that this aspect of the unit plan will utilize Vygotskys interactive model, knowledge is co-constructed and as participants share their knowledge, much like when in the Zone of Proximal Development, the concept: I teach you; you teach me; we all learn together will inevitably lead to meaningful interaction about relevant content (Richard-Amato, 2003). As our professional development is collaborative in nature, a WordPress blog has been created, whereby individuals can reflect on their learning and offer insight into their own research. This aspect of our unit plan utilizes the Dick and Carey systems approach, whereby participants are given the opportunity to reflect on their own learning about the iPad. Providing a reflective component explaining their growth (Dick and Carey, 1990) will no doubt assist users and others as they gain further insight into the functionality and potential uses of this interactive device. The blog will not only serve as a reflective outlet, but also will be used as a step-by-step instructional guide, providing instant feedback and support as to how far along participants are in the process. A major benefit in using online educational media is that as individuals move through the unit and learn more about the iPad, their reflections and findings not only benefit other participants, but also anyone with the blogs link can be privy to its information and

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

insights. As Jenkins states, the use of online discussion areas...exploits the collaborative potential of the web (2004, p. 74). As we gain comprehension from others perspectives and performance in the unit, we hope to achieve what Scardamalia and Bereiter described as a second-order environment, whereby participants keep raising the standard and contribute to a collective knowledge (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1994).

2. Intentions and Positions: Our groups intention with the iPad design project is threefold. First, we want to get the teachers at our respective schools to become very familiar with the current capabilities of the iPad and its effectiveness as a learning tool. Second, we want to frame our professional development inter-activities around a Constructivist Learning Environment (CLE). It is our hope that the way in which the inter-activities are designed, teachers will experience first hand a constructivist approach and therefore see the powerful implications of using this model when designing their own lesson plans. As David Jonassen clearly points out in Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, constructivism does not have to be an all or nothing endeavor (1999, p. 217). We want to convey to the teachers that a constructivist approach is in fact complementary to traditional objectivist or instructionist models, and that the diversity of perspectives and methods is an important aspect of the new paradigm of instructional theories (Jonassen, 1999, p. 217). Through this experience, we hope that teachers will now have the tools to consider the appropriate model, constructivist or otherwise, for the appropriate learning context. Third, it is also our goal that we begin to shift the thinking of many teachers as they design lessons, particularly around technology. As Marc Prensky states in his book,

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

Teaching Digital Natives, students do not want to be lectured to and they want to create using the tools of their time (2010, p. 2). Therefore, it is our intention to blend all three principles of our design into a meaningful and tangible outcome that will not only incorporate the latest and pedagogically significant technology, but also impact learning at a very deep level for both the student and teacher. Our design project was guided by the principles of Bates and Pooles SECTIONS model, which provides a framework for selecting and applying technology (2003, p.77). Going forward, it was important to our group that our framework was scalable and flexible to accommodate the different learning outcomes and needs of both the teachers and students. It was also important that our design project framework be designed so that it could be incorporated into most educational disciplines and into most grade levels. We believe that our project does indeed meet the following characteristics as outlined in Bates and Pooles A framework for selecting and using technology: !It needs to work in a variety of learning contexts. !It will identify critical differences between different media and technologies, thus enabling an appropriate mix to be chosen for any given context. !It is easily understood, pragmatic, and cost effective. !It will accommodate new developments in technology.

The predominant technologies will be both the iPad and the website Wordpress. While other technologies may be used their application will be ancillary to the aforementioned ones. The iPad was chosen for a number of reasons. Because of its price point, battery life, durability, portability, high screen resolution, intuitive and multi-touch interface, we believe that this device (or a version similar to it) will become the predominant technology in the 21st century classroom.

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

Teachers need to know its capabilities or they will fall behind in their ability to reach students who are naturally more comfortable with the device or devices like it. It is important to note that we do not consider this device to be what Bates and Poole describe in their SECTIONS model as another novelty item (2003, p. 103). While some educators cannot see its usefulness in the classroom or that it may become just another device in which to easily distract students, we see it as a tool that has not yet reached its full educational potential (Wieder, 2011). In terms of a supporting technology to the iPad, we chose the blog site, Wordpress. We considered using an Open Source learning management system like Moodle, but it has not been recoded to take full advantage of a multi-touch, portable interface like the iPad. In other words, the different perceived affordances of both the iPad and Moodle are currently incongruent (Norman, 1999) and therefore would create confusion among the user, which would therefore contravene one of the principles of Bates and Pooles necessary characteristics of applying technology. Although the Open Source development community is working hard to produce iOS applications for the iPad they are not ready for primetime. On the other hand, Wordpress is designed to be mobile device-aware and its design affordances are built to take advantage of HTML5 and multi-touch. More simply, Wordpress offers us a clean interface from which to disseminate information and for learners to provide us feedback, which is easily understood, pragmatic, and cost effective (Bates and Poole, 2003, p.77) Current research suggests that something far more powerful is taking place with multitouch devices. A study out of the University of Cincinnati concluded that there is not a single activity...that could not be carried out just asif not moreefficiently and effectively on an internet-connected desktop or notebook computer as it can on an iPad (Johnston, 2011). Despite

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

notebooks demonstrating a pedagogical edge over iPads, students are still choosing to use them over notebooks because its fundamental appeal is its simple convenience of the multi-touch interface and outstanding image resolution (Johnston, 2011). Professors at Chatham University in Pittsburgh have recently drawn this same conclusion. Despite that tablet PCs foster more interactivity between professor and pupil, students still overwhelmingly prefer to use the multitouch iPad (Wieder, 2011). The new phenomenological experience with touch-based devices appears to be taking precedent over traditional computing, even if it means sacrificing functionality in the process. However, because the iPad is still nascent technology, it is expected that these shortcomings will be addressed. More powerfully however, it may end up forcing a change in traditional learning models. As part of the constructivist model, our design project plans to also demonstrate the different modes in which students and teachers can now interact with each other by leveraging the different types of Web 2.0 technologies, particularly within the context of the iPad. In Chapter two of his book, Theory and Practice of Online Learning, Terry Anderson describes how the student-teacher interaction is fundamentally changing with the emergence of these new technologies. He also states that emerging best practices now recognize the flow of communication in online courses to be much less teacher-centric than in traditional classroom discourse and that playing a less dominant role in class discourse can actually support the emergence of greater learner commitment and participation (1999, p.59). In many ways, mobile devices are considerably more dynamic than traditional computing. Because the iPad hardware feature-set is significantly different from traditional laptop computing (i.e. accelerometers, magnetometers, accelerated graphics, GPS, high resolution cameras) other

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

more advanced and flexible learning opportunities have not yet been conceived and this also fulfills Bates and Pooles framework in that the iPad can accommodate new developments in technology (2003, p.77). This is particularly true in terms of the breadth of creative applications being made available daily for all of the iOS devices. Incidentally, teachers themselves are actually creating their own applications to fill a void in the educational market, which means the iPad is becoming the more flexible and dynamic device. Further, aside from the changing phenomenology, there appears to be pedagogical benefits as well. A study out of Abilene Christian University (ACU) recently discovered that students who annotated text on their iPads scored 25 percent higher on questions regarding information transfer than their paper-based peers (Clough, Jones, McAndrew, & Scanlon, 2008). As more and more school districts move towards a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program, schools are more likely to see students toting around an iPad because of the aforementioned reasons. Although the expensive 1-to-1 laptop programs had good results they were scrapped in the end because maintenance costs were unsustainable (Weinstock, 2010). We believe iPads will be that sustainable alternative. Critics on the other hand question whether or not every family can afford an iPad for their children if schools actually move towards a BYOD policy. This is a legitimate concern. Virginias Hampton City Schools, for instance, implemented their BYOD program in the 2010-2011 school year, and overcame this dilemma by purchasing a reserve of smart devices for low income learners (Weinstock, 2010). We are witnessing this BYOD push in our own school districts and we believe that teachers need to be (a) familiar with these devices, and (b) be able to incorporate them into the new learning methodologies that are increasingly being used now in K-12 education.

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

Not surprisingly, our districts goals are very much in step with the Ministry of Educations goals of updating an education system that is no longer based on a model of learning from an earlier century (BCs Education Plan, 2011, p. 2). While the document is not a how-to guide and does not provide instruction to implement its goals, it does provide a guideline in terms of its direction. Suffice to say, change in education is rapid. Summarily, it is fundamentally important that teachers stay in tune with not only the methodological and pedagogical changes that are taking place in education, but it is also important that educators be able to weave them together with the latest technologies in order to stay relevant and to maximise the learning potential of students.

3. Key Concepts and Contexts As mentioned in the above sections, we are adopting a constructivist approach to allow for each learner to actively participate in his/her learning. As trainers, we plan to keep our transmission of information to a minimum so that our learners may build their knowledge within a community, by exploring and creating with the iPad. While the context for our design project is local and intended for use with staff at one school, the implementation of iPads and other devices in education is part of a wider global trend. South Korea is moving towards paperless classrooms by equipping each student with an iPad by 2015 (Eason, 2011). Australia is investing billions of dollars to ensure one-to-one technology in high schools (Cambourne, 2010). Within our local and national context, many schools are purchasing iPads for classroom use and special education support (Baluja, 2011, Reynolds, 2011, Steffenhagen, 2011). However, for iPads to be integrated meaningfully into teaching and learning, classroom teachers need to increase their technical proficiency with the device. They

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

also need to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the iPad as a tool for education and within the context of their particular mix of students. Our design project aims to provide a technologysupported learning community where educators can build that knowledge and proficiency. An important influence on our design project is Scardamalia and Bereiter. An important feature of the iPad is how it is conducive to sharing and collaboration among users. Hardware such as the built-in camera and microphone, plus various presentation apps enhance the process of building and sharing knowledge. The iPads flat design allows it to be viewed and worked-on by small groups. These features may help to strengthen the social connection among a group of learners, which Scardamalia and Bereiter present as a vital aspect to creating a knowledgebuilding community (1994). Our target participants are educators within one school working on the shared goal of iPad integration. The broader goal is to improve teaching and learning in our society. We expect a variety of proficiencies with using the hardware, leading to mentoring between skilled users and beginners. As new staff members join the school, they too become a part of the community by contributing their experiences. (Barab & Duffy, 1998). In addition to emphasizing the importance of learner-created knowledge, we are also drawing upon Howard Gardner (1987) and his theory of multiple intelligences in allowing learners to create demonstration products (as part of the interactivities) in a choice of modalities, which is a strength of the iPad. Finally, through a combination of face-to-face and online interactions among the educators within a school, we hope to nurture what Barab and Duffy refer to as a community of practice (1998). There is criticism against the integration of technology, particularly if technology integration focuses on younger age groups. Jane Healy argues in her book Failure to Connect

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

(1999) that the real world is still the most superior multimedia learning environment for children, especially for those under the age of seven. If teachers are using technology, then their role is to be the skilled guide who adds language, empathy, and flexibility (p. 247). Healy writes that the brain is still developing synaptic connections, and that using computers could strengthen connections that may ultimately interfere with learning. She also points out that younger children are only able to focus on a single cognitive task, therefore adding technology into the equation may cloud the learning: while [children] can learn (or figure out) new computer applications, they may be so focused on the mechanics that they fail to learn the desired content (p. 262). Although we appreciate both sides of the argument in integrating iPads in schools, we ultimately believe the iPad is a valid and valuable tool for use in schools. The variety of iPadspecific apps available allow for teachers to make targeted purchases based on the educational needs of students. Many apps also enable the user to be active creators of content, thereby moving students into higher-levels of Blooms taxonomy. In our design project, we hope to launch a self-sustaining community of educators within a school who hope to improve teaching and learning by integrating the iPad.

4. Interactivities See: http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec510designprojectprodinstructions/

5. Verifications Each educational area or design needs to be assessed or evaluated to ensure that our prescribed learning outcomes have been met. We need to know if we clearly met the needs of

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

students in terms of the overall goals? Assessments can be standardized, subjective or a combination of the two. As we have demonstrated in this project, iPads play a significant role in creating and implementing the interactive classroom content, and our goal was to introduce teachers to the pedagogical and practical possibilities of utilizing this device in many educational settings. In order to ensure that our project has met those goals, we have formulated four specific questions:
1) Are the teachers/students familiar with the iPads affordances and its features?

! Through the first interactivity, we will observe the progress of the individuals and groups in interactivity #1, as well as read the posted reflections about their first experience with the iPads. We will verify if they were able to successfully explore its features and we will offer instant feedback and support.
2. Can they create lessons by implementing constructivist theory and other concepts from the

recommended readings with iPad applications? ! Unlike traditional lessons, interactive lessons created by iPad applications (screencast apps, presentations apps, etc.) can be uploaded to our blog or saved as a YouTube movie, a presentation or other formats. They will have time to read about the theories and implement a lesson based on them. We will review the lesson, and verify if we see a change in baseline. It will be easy to provide feedback and modify the lessons, if needed.
3. Are the teachers more engaged using iPads in the learning process?

! We will be able to identify if the teachers are more engaged using iPads in the learning process through their comments on the Wordpress blog, and through the level of discussions that will unfold between the participants. Also, the final presentation will help

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

us determine the level of engagement through their enthusiasm and demonstration of knowledge acquired.
4. Have we built in opportunities to monitor collaboration, whether it be face-to-face or online

through social construction and sharing? !Using a combination of formative and summative assessments will allow us to track the progress of participants in our iPad sessions. Examples of this include: " Circulating during small group discussions to encourage conversation. " Encouraging the participation of all members (by checking-in online and individually) " Reading the online comments and reflections on Wordpress and using this information to determine what, if any input we should provide. " Providing feedback and extra support, if necessary. " Facilitating the culminating activity for Interactivity #3.

6. Reflections and Connections Over the past two months our group has come a long way in terms of developing a design project online. We all had to make some basic adjustments because much of the online component was new to us. We formed our group based on a common interest in using iPads in our classrooms and proceeded to collaborate online through Google Docs and through Googles video conferencing application, Hangouts. We also had to find alternatives such as Skype when Google Hangouts was not meeting our needs. Some of our group members had not done a video conference before, so this experience was new and it posed some challenges trying to get everyone up and running together. In previous collaborations, we had all used instant messaging, but felt it limitingit was purely text-driven and lacked the social element that comes from seeing each other face-to-face. The video conferences afforded our group certain social

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

interactions that made the getting to know you phase a more straightforward process. This allowed us to engage with the material more quickly and effectively, and also allowed for spontaneity in our discussions during brainstorming sessions. Working together in a group was in many ways similar to working in a face to face environment. Because we met each other online, there was a stronger element of accountability. Since there was a personal connection between us, we were motivated to work well with each other and build upon our contributions. In a way, our group interactions helped spur a sense of community due to our common approaches in designing our project. As is expected with a face to face contact, we needed to define each others roles and this took some time. Once each others expectations and goals were expressed, we were able to move forward rather effectively and with few hiccups. Having said that, there were a few technical challenges that we needed to overcome. For instance, one of our group members, Osayma, lives in Syria and did not always have the ability to meet with us, either because of time zone issues or because of bandwidth issues. More interestingly, however, geopolitical realities in Syria made it nearly impossible to communicate with her for large stretches. As an alternative, we kept everyone informed by keeping an up to date Google Doc. While not perfect, it worked considering the challenges. Our final video conference had to be converted to an audio chat because of technical problems, but we made it work and luckily for the rest of us, Osayma was able to be part of this. In terms of scheduling our time and our workflow online, we were pleasantly surprised by how productive we were. In some ways, we felt more productive because we werent constrained by working around a traditional classroom schedule. The convenience of working from home, as well as having an organized, central access point to our documents in Google Docs helped all of

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

us stay focused and keep track of all the information. We did consider, however, how well elementary and secondary students would respond to this type of online environment. Because we are graduate students, we automatically come prepared and eager to work hard and well. Anyone who has taught youth knows that there are inherent challenges with getting students motivated to equally contribute. On the other hand, perhaps Web 2.0 or 3.0 tools could overcome some of those challenges and level the collaborative playing field. In terms of deciding on the technology, it did take some time to work out the details and to make our project pedagogically sound, and to fulfill the spirit of constructivism. It was important to us as a group to indirectly model the learning process. We decided to create a Wordpress blog to present instructions and guide participants. The blog would also allow individuals to comment, post reflections and build on each others experiences. As the instructors of this design project, we struggled with the level of our involvement. On the one hand, we realised there would be a range of skill levels among our participants, and some may need more help. On the other hand, we wanted the learners to draw upon each other as resources, as well as activate their own prior knowledge. We found ourselves constantly reflecting on our roles as designers of a constructivist unit, and continually discoursed on an appropriate balance of involvement. This proved more challenging because our default inclination was to more actively direct our learners. In the process, we have learned to carefully consider our roles and levels of involvement, and we believe that we have found that balance.

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

References Anderson, T. (2008). Towards and Theory of Online Learning. In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Baluja, T. (2011, November 30). iPads are in, cursive is out (and other educational trends). The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education primary-to-secondary/ipads-are-in-curseive-is-out-and-other-education-trends/ article2254353 Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. BC's Education Plan. (2011). In BC's Education Plan. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http:// www.bcedplan.ca/welcome.php Cambourne, K. (2010, January 19). Technology in the classroom. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/back-to-school/technologyintheclassroom-20100119-mhn3.html Clough, G., Jones, A., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with PDAs and smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 359-371. Demski, J. (2012, January 4). This time, its personal. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http:// thejournal.com/articles/2012/01/04/personalized-learning.aspx

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction. New York: Harper Collins. Chapter 1: Introductions to instructional design (pp. 2-11). Eason, G. (2011, October 18). Digital textbooks open a new chapter. BBC. Retrieved from http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15175962 Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligences. Annals of Dyslexia, 37(1), 19-35. Healy, J. (1999). Failure to connect: how computers affect our childrens minds -- and what we can do about it. New York: Touchtone. Jenkins, M. (2004). Unfulfilled Promise: formative assessment using computer-aided assessment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 1, 67-78. Johnston, H. B., & Stoll, C. J. (2011, May 17). Its the pedagogy, stupid: Lessons from an iPad lending program. Magazine eLearn, 2011(5). Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jonassen, D. (2012). Designing Constructivist Learning Environment. In J. Miller (Ed.), ETEC 510: The Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments (pp. 17-29). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia, Vancouver. (Reprinted from C. Reigeluth(Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: Volume II, 215-240, 1999). New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review. 66 (1), 60-92. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives. California: Corwin. Reynolds, S. (2011, December 1). Are iPads useful in the classroom? Surrey Leader. Retrieved from http://www.surreyleader.com/community/134838003.html

IPAD DESIGN PROJECT

Richard-Amato, P.A., (2003). Making it happen: From interactive to participatory language teaching: theory and practice. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Steffenhagen, J. (2011, January 14). iPads, iPods and Smart Boards make learning fun at one Vancouver school [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.vancouversun.com 2011/01/14/ipads-ipods-and-smart-boards-make-learning-fun-at-one-vancouver-school Weinstock, J. (2010, January). Left to their own devices. T H E Journal, 37(1), 32-36. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx? direct=true&db=bth&AN=47599916&site=ehost-live Wieder, B. (2011, March 18). iPads could hinder teaching, professors say. Chronicle of Higher Education. 57(28). A22-A23.