Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on

their learning pathways
Garry Falloon*
The Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hillcrest Rd, Hamilton, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The past few years have seen an array of new technological gadgets arrive on the education scene,
Received 2 April 2013 perhaps the best known of these being Apple’s i-Device range, particularly the iPad. Such devices have
Received in revised form been described by some as ‘game changers’, and promoted as a key component to stimulating much-
6 June 2013
needed educational reform. However, history suggests the hype and rhetoric surrounding these tech-
Accepted 8 June 2013
nological innovations has failed to match the reality of their performance, in action. Some have attributed
this failure to a lack of alignment by teachers of pedagogical models with the potential of technologies,
Keywords:
while others argue that claims made are simply unrealistic sales hype. Regardless, schools continue to be
iPads
Apps seduced by these new technologies, purchasing ever increasing amounts based on the alleged learning
Design promises they offer their students.
Tablet This study presents an innovative approach to exploring student interaction with iPad apps, and is an
Learning attempt to begin to unpack factors that affect their learning pathways, in an effort to improve the
educational potential of these popular devices. It focuses specifically on design and content features of
apps selected by an experienced teacher to enhance literacy, numeracy and problem-solving capabilities
of her 5 year old students. Findings reveal a complex matrix of influencing factors. These include the
effect of embedded pedagogical scaffolds (eg., modelling, reflection time), corrective and formative
feedback, text-to-speech functionality, imposed interaction parameters, impediments (eg., web links,
advertisements, buying content) and the entertainment/education balance. Arguments are made for
researchers, teachers and developers to work together and adopt methodologies such as that introduced
in this article, to gather data to radically improve the design of apps used by young students for learning.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the introduction of computers to education over 30 years ago, much has been written about their promise to help improve, and in
some cases transform, teaching and learning. However as authors such as Cuban (2001), Postman (2000) and Oppenheimer (2003) point
out, few of these promises have materialised to the extent expected. Despite this, hardware and software developers continue to promote
new technological devices – most recently tablet-based computers such as Apple’s iPad - as ‘magic bullets’ or ‘game changers’ to stimulating
everything from major educational reform to helping raise student achievement, and schools and other educational institutions continue to
be seduced by this rhetoric. Some schools have even gone as far as insisting parents procure for their child such a device, in much the same
way as purchasing books on a stationery list (Ihaka, 2013).
Yet scant evidence exists beyond perceptions-based studies or observational accounts and teacher stories, evaluating how this new
round of technology innovation is affecting students and their learning, and if indeed it is living up to the hype and rhetoric surrounding
it. While some studies have been carried out (eg., Banister, 2010; Brand & Kinash, 2010; Burden, Hopkins, Male, Martin & Trala, 2012;
Crichton, Pegler & White, 2012; Hutchison, Beschorner & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Lynch & Redpath, 2012; Manuguerra & Petocz,
2011; Saine, 2012) these have mainly been qualitative accounts exploring factors such as student learning engagement and motivation,
cost-effectiveness gains facilitated by the use of e-books in place of traditional texts at university level, improved administrative

* Tel.: þ64 7 838 4466x6553.

E-mail address: falloong@waikato.ac.nz.

0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.006
506 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

efficiency through technology-supported moves towards paperless administrative systems, or ‘learning convenience’ advantages linked
to mobile device capabilities to deliver ‘anywhere, anytime’ learning. Such studies can be valuable for providing insights into users’
perceptions of how these devices might add value to their particular circumstances. However, an extensive search of academic databases
has failed to reveal any empirical studies that analyse more deeply student interaction with the devices and their software, to determine if
and what ‘learning value’ they are gaining from them.
This article has three purposes. First, it introduces briefly an innovative methodology developed to record data from a study of iPad use
with a class of five year old primary school students. Second, it describes how these data were analysed and presents insights into how the
design and content of apps affected the quality of students’ learning pathways. Finally, it uses this analysis to argue the need for a closer and
more critical look at app design, and for researchers, teachers and developers to work more closely to improve the quality of apps used in
young students’ learning.

2. Research questions

Data collection and analysis were guided by the following research question:
How do design and content features of selected apps used on iPads affect the learning pathways of young students using them inde-
pendently for problem solving tasks?

3. Fads, fashion and technology in education

It has been suggested that education has a history of “lurching from one fad to the next” (Masters, 2002, p. 1), and that this tendency has
contributed in a substantial way to a failure to make progress on much-needed systematic reforms. Maddux (1986) described this as the
“pendulum syndrome – in which educational innovations seem doomed to follow a cycle of unrealistically optimistic expectations followed
by disappointment, disillusionment, and abandonment” (p. 27). In a later paper, she and Rhona Cummings (Maddux & Cummings, 2004)
explored this phenomenon in greater depth in relation to the history of information technology in schools, identifying several examples
of teaching and learning fads linked to technological innovations that, over the years, have ‘come and gone’. Their list included learning
once-popular programming languages such as BASIC, Seymour Papert’s LOGO, and more recently, student-centred Webquests.1
In appraising possible reasons for this cyclic trend, they comment that the rise and demise of technology innovations was not necessarily
because they were no good, or had little educational potential, but rather that they were presented (and interpreted) devoid of any
theoretical foundation. As they put it, “they were touted as panaceas, widely implemented prior to research validation, and abandoned
when they failed to live up to unrealistic initial expectations” (2004, p. 514). They claim a lack of understanding held by teachers relating to
how the innovation linked to theories of learning, and at times poor communication of this by designers and developers, contributed to
technology innovations being adopted “because they are there” (p.523), rather than as a result of any informed process involving researched
inquiry. While commenting that some responsibility for this lies with a failure of educational research generally to gain any traction with
policy makers due to its low priority and status, they also argue the need for researchers to spend time in classrooms exploring the reality of
the modern school, thus supporting better alignment of educational theories to research reflecting the realities of contemporary teaching
and learning. They suggest such an approach could assist the penetration of research findings to the classroom level, thus helping to address
their presently low impact.
Although not specifically referring to education, Hedman and Gimpel (2010) offer an interesting perspective as to why technology in-
novations can gain rapid uptake and adoption, despite “speculation and incomplete information, which can blur the distinction between
what the technology can actually do, and what its potential users imagine” (p. 161). They explored reasons why consumers appeared
compelled to flock to new technologies – specifically ones that they identified as hyped or “surrounded by extravagant publicity” (p. 161) –
even though they may not have complete understanding of their affordances or capabilities. They particularly reference Apple’s i-Device
range as examples of technologies fitting this description. Their paper argues that traditional models that have historically been used to
explain the adoption of technological innovations -such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA), diffusions of innovation (DOI), or technology
acceptance model (TAM) – fall short of offering accurate explanations of why more contemporary hyped devices, such as the iPhone and
iPad, have experienced such unprecedented uptake.
Hedman and Gimpel’s (2010) study applied the theory of consumption values (TCV) to a six-month study investigating 16 graduate
university students’ uptake and use of the then new iPhone 3G – a device “chosen because of the storm of global hype surrounding it” (p.
166). Originally developed by Sheth, Newman and Gross in 1991 to explain consumer purchase decision-making, the TCV was used as it took
account of a broader array of values than existing function-focused theories, in its assessment of reasons driving contemporary adoption
decisions. These comprise five principal values: function (device utility for completing a task or achieving a goal); social (perceived social
image possessing a device may convey); epistemic (the desire to learn about something new); emotional (a device’s potential to arouse
emotions accompanying its use) and conditional (device value is linked to it being indispensible in specific situations). While all values may
not necessarily be present or the weighting given to each in adoption decisions may vary, they argue the usefulness of the TCV on the
grounds that it “provides an encompassing understanding of the consumer experience” (p. 165).
Findings from Hedman and Gimpel’s study make interesting reading. Contrary to what might have been expected, conditional and
functional values did not figure significantly in adoption decisions. Practical affordances the device offered - its range of functions, technical
capabilities, specifications and performance, were not rated highly by participants. They did not perceive the iPhone as offering anything
functionally unique or superior to their existing device for their present or likely future needs. Instead, adoption decisions prioritised
emotional, epistemic and social value as key drivers. Participants appreciated the aesthetic qualities of the device – such as its uniquely-
styled tactile casing and large touch screen, and considered possessing such a “rare and expensive artefact” (p. 170) would help them

1
An updated list might now include Digital Learning Objects and Wikis.
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 507

gain social prestige and “make them cool” (p. 170). Participants also indicated a degree of fascination with technological innovation, wanting
to learn more about the iPhone for its own sake, by using existing devices as measures of comparison (epistemic value). They also considered
possessing an iPhone “would serve as an ice-breaker, enabling them to start or join conversations. (and that) they would be viewed
positively by their peers because they had insider knowledge about a phenomenon that others wanted to know more about” (Hedman &
Gimpel, 2010, p. 170).
Although Hedman and Gimpel’s study focused on individual device-adoption, its general argument and elements of the TCV could
reasonably be applied to the uptake of hyped technologies such as the iPad by the education sector, particularly schools. Their findings alert
to adoption decisions being made based on other than functional, value-adding criteria, instead suggesting that technology fascination,
trendiness or fashion, can have a much stronger influence. Examining this conclusion in relation to Maddux and Cummings’s earlier
commentary, it could be argued that school decision-making on the uptake of devices such as Apple’s iPad is being influenced by factors
other than sound, theory-based understandings of how the device can add value to the learning of students (ie., device functionality). Such a
perspective is, of course, predicated on an assumption that enhancing student learning is a primary concern of schools. As Maddux and
Cummings (2004) comment, it may well be that such devices are infiltrating classrooms “because they are there” (p. 523) or as a result
of unresearched claims made by vendors in promotional materials, or because schools feel compelled to be part of some larger movement in
this direction for fear of appearing less fashionable or out-of-date, in a competition-for-student environment.
It would be unfair, however, to apportion responsibility for this situation entirely on schools and vendors. An examination of the history
of educational research indicates more general issues with a lack of penetration of research findings to classroom level, as “research still has
relatively little influence on the day-to-day work of educators” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007, p.3). Some of this failure could be attributed to an
education subculture dominated by the nature of work in schools, meaning there is no mechanism, time or opportunity for communicating
or implementing research findings at classroom level (Maddux & Cummings, 2004). However, Masters (2002) also identifies issues with the
quality of much educational research. He comments on the need for a refocusing of the education research agenda firmly on identifying
ways to improve student learning, claiming that “research that does not have this as its ultimate motivation and objective, is not educational
research” (p.2). He calls for a much more pragmatic approach – one that enables findings to be more readily communicated to and acted on
in the classroom, with the sole purpose of improving student learning. With reference to digital technology, he comments that the agenda
must concentrate on developing new research methodologies that help inform the most effective ways of using technology to achieve this
goal. He adds that failure to do this will continue to make schools susceptible to technological fashion and fads (Masters, 2002).
The methodology detailed below describes an innovative approach to data generation and analysis, that was applied to a study exploring
iPad app design and content features that influenced the learning of young students. It provides insights into a myriad of factors influencing
the effectiveness and quality of their learning pathways, and at the same time offers a practical response to the call for robust and accurate
research evidence to inform the increasingly rapid uptake of such devices by schools.

4. Research context and participants

The study took place from June–December, 2012, and involved a class of 18 year 1 (5 year old) primary students and their teacher, from a
semi-rural school in the Waikato region of New Zealand. The principal of the school had approached the researcher expressing interest in a
study exploring if and how iPads could be used to support the learning of young students, as he was considering the establishment of what
at the time he called an ‘iPad class’ in 2013. Using a small research grant from Waikato University, eight iPad 3s were purchased and lent to
the school for the duration of the study. Due to a number of teachers wanting to participate an open application selection process was used,
based on the criteria indicated in the research notification to staff (Appendix A). The teacher chosen had 16 years experience, 10 of which had
been in the junior school (years 1–3), and, according to the principal, had been selected due to her “history of receptiveness to innovation,
and very sound, child-focused pedagogy” (Principal, interview, June 2012). The students (11 girls and seven boys) were all in their first full
year at school and aged between 5 years 1 month and 5 years 9 months at the beginning of the study. The research complied with University
of Waikato ethics requirements, with standard informed consent procedures being followed throughout.

5. Methodology and data collection

The research adopted a case study method located within an interpretive theoretical framework. Data were collected over a period of six
months from July to December 2012, with the researcher spending up to 90 min per week in the research classroom, at different times of the
day and week. A variable schedule was developed to reflect more accurately normal classroom use patterns and range of use conditions.
Sufficient devices were made available to enable one per two students, and they were used for a range of other learning activities at times
other than data collection. Pairings were organised using a blend of teacher-decided and student-decided selections – with approximately
half of recorded data being collected from each arrangement. This was to enable a comparison of grouping arrangements to determine any
effect on student performance. These data will be used in subsequent articles examining student social, affective and cognitive factors and
how they influenced learning interactions with the device and apps.

5.1. App selection

The learning focus for the apps related to the development of basic literacy, numeracy, thinking and problem solving skills. These skills
are highlighted in the New Zealand Curriculum (2007), and their development is viewed as integral to learning at all levels of compulsory
schooling in New Zealand. Forty-five different apps were used during the study, ranging from generic scenario-based problem solving skill
builders, to ones selected for developing foundation knowledge and skills within a curriculum area (eg., numeracy, literacy, spelling). The list
of apps is included in Appendix B. The apps were all selected by the teacher, and included both free and paid-for full versions. The decision to
use both types was made due to the financial cost of providing full versions of all apps on all devices. Although Apple’s licencing agreement
allows for the installation of one app on up to five devices associated with an iTunes account, the cost of doing this for full versions of apps
for all devices was considerable, and beyond the financial resources of the school at the time. In reality, it is likely a similar scenario would
508 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

exist for most schools, as downloading and paying for apps on multiple devices across a whole school could quickly become a very costly
exercise.
Before selection, the teacher evaluated each app based on these criteria:

a. her professional judgment of how well the app could support her teaching and learning goals. This was made after she had trialled the
app herself, sometimes several times;
b. feedback from her own primary school aged children after using the app;
c. online reviews from others who had used the app (often teachers);
d. the ratings given to the app in Apple’s App Store;
e. the cost of provisioning the app on all devices.

Of the 45 apps used, 20 were full, paid-for versions, with the remaining 25 being free versions. Not all apps were available to students at
one time, but were arranged in folders with different ones accessible on different days of the week. The contents of folders were changed
regularly to ensure variety, although generally there were no more than five apps available per day.
A decision was also made by the teacher to deactivate WiFi on the iPads, thus preventing students accessing the Internet. She
considered open web access for five year olds new to school to be problematic, due to her students lacking the technical and literacy skills
that she felt were needed to ensure safe and productive web use. While it was her intention to introduce these skills to her students, she
also noted such competencies take time to develop, and in the interim, deemed it more appropriate, manageable and safer to disable
access.

5.2. Data recording

Significant technical challenges existed to collecting data that accurately reflected natural student use of the apps. The researcher
was aware of a probable observer-effect on student performance from close personal observation or external video recording,
particularly with young children new to school. Data needed to be recorded by the device itself independent of researcher presence,
and then made available for later download and analysis. However, limits to the technical capability of the iPad meant that while
switching between apps was possible, only one app at a time could run. A technical solution was required that would allow a recording
app to run ‘in the background’ while the students were using another app for their learning tasks. An extensive search of Apple’s App
Store yielded nothing, while an exploration of online forums suggested recording iPad displays concurrent with app operation was
technically impossible.
Following further extensive searching of third-party app developer websites and forums, the possibility of adapting a beta-release open-
marketplace app called Display Recorder for this purpose was identified. While Display Recorder requires iPads to be unlocked (‘jailbroken’),
its basic, low device-resource requirement allows it to run behind other apps, recording as .mov files the device’s display, along with finger
placement indication and audio recorded through the integrated microphone (Fig. 1).
However, after purchasing Display Recorder and trialling it, several issues restricting its usefulness were identified. First, the length of
recording possible was limited due to the small 16 GB capacity of the iPads (of which only about 2 GB was unused) and the very basic video
compression used in the recording app. Display Recorder also used Apple’s Camera Roll as its vehicle for sharing recorded videos, meaning
that they could only be emailed or uploaded to networking sites such as Facebook, once again severely limiting their size. Second, the codec
used to record audio from the microphone was incompatible with the sound codec in many apps used by the students, meaning that when
audio recording was activated, all other sound was disabled. As audio is critical to learning, and video covering at least a typical use session
of 30–40 min was required, solutions to these problems were needed.
With the assistance of university technical support personnel, adjustments were made to Display Recorder that enabled nearly 60 min of
video to be recorded per GB of available storage, and a file transfer solution using iExplorer to access the root directory of devices enabled
ongoing cable-based transfer of recorded data files to a laptop. iExplorer was used due to issues with syncing jailbroken iPads using Apple’s
iTunes software, and because it supported rapid file transfer. Due to limited storage capacity, using iExplorer meant recordings could be
extracted from the devices quickly and then deleted (eg., during recess), enabling them to be used again for recording in the next teaching
block.
Resolving the sound issue proved more challenging. A decision was made to disable the embedded codec in Display Recorder in favour of
an external recording device, and after unsuccessfully trialling a number of options, a small USB voice recorder was sourced and attached to
the iPads protective cover using Velcro (Fig. 2). The recorder was activated and deactivated using a small slide switch on its base, and its plain
design minimised student interference. Its attachment to the protective lid of the iPad meant the set up could be easily moved around the
classroom to comfortable or quiet locations of the students’ choosing.
Display Recorder was activated and deactivated by the researcher via a combination of taps in the top left corner of the display. No visible
signs of recording were available to the students on either the iPad or the audio recorder. Following each recording session, separate video
and audio data were downloaded onto the researcher’s laptop and later synced into a single file using iMovie. Over the six months of data
collection, nearly 24 hours of video and audio from 40 different student pair combinations was recorded. This captured student interaction
with all 45 apps.

6. Data coding

The researcher and a postgraduate research scholarship assistant independently blind coded a sample of 4½ hours of video capture. This
represented the interaction of seven unique pairings who during that time accessed 10 different apps. Completing this provided initial
insights into content and design features, and other observable influences, on the students’ learning pathways. The sample was purposively
selected to include a range of apps across the learning focuses detailed previously, different student pairings, and different days and times of
recording. The seven pairs accessed four apps selected by the teacher for developing problem solving/decision making skills (puzzles,
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 509

Fig. 1. Sample frame from Display Recorder video. White dot indicates finger placement.

matching/patterns, simulations); two were numeracy-focused (basic facts, geometry), two were literacy-focused (spelling, story writing),
and one each were story-based (reading and written content creation) and oral storytelling (student-produced oral content recorded and
used by the app). The sample video files were imported into Studiocode,2 and independently evaluated by the researcher and assistant for
the occurrence of incidents affecting the students’ learning pathways. At the same time, brief notes were also recorded relating to the
observed effect of each occurrence. In total, the assistant identified 41 occurrences relating to app design and content, while the researcher
identified 39. An inter-rater agreement calculation was then applied to determine the level of agreement between the raters in their
identification of occurrences. As recommended by Gwet (2012) in dealing with missing data, the calculation of overall agreement was
restricted to occurrences that both raters had identified, to avoid underestimation of agreement probability caused by the inclusion of data
on which no agreement was achieved. This calculation yielded k ¼ 0.723 (proportion agreement ¼ 0.94; prevalence index ¼ 0.79; bias
index ¼ 0.05). Landis and Koch’s (1977) often-cited scale for observer-agreement ratings places this result mid point in the ‘substantial
agreement’ category.
While the exact wording given to descriptions of the effect of occurrences differed, there was sufficient alignment between the re-
searcher’s and assistant’s interpretations to negotiate and define how occurrences had been triggered or influenced by four broad factors:
app content, design (including structure) or response (eg., feedback, ‘learning distractive’ or ‘learning enabling’); student knowledge (eg.,
declarative, procedural); cognitive effort and strategies (eg., perseverance, trial and error, ‘gamification’), and work techniques (eg.,
collaborative, competitive). After much discussion and revisiting of the data sample as a team, a draft analysis framework was developed
that was considered to fairly describe the relationship and interaction between these factors on the students’ learning pathways (Fig. 3). At
this point it is important to note the framework details all influencing factors. However, due to length constraints, this article focuses
specifically on design, content and response factors (in dotted frame).
Framework components were entered as fields into Studiocode, and a code template was developed and applied to analysing data from a
further 12 hours of recordings (see Fig. 4). It was also used to re-code the original sample. The same selection criteria as previously were
applied to the additional data, as time and personnel constraints meant not all data could be used. In total, 16½ hours of recordings involving
26 unique pairings who accessed 23 apps, were analysed. This represented nearly 70% of recorded data. Each recording was separately
imported into Studiocode, and a fresh copy of the coding template was generated for each. Studiocode links the codes developed in the code
window to a coding timeline. Clicking on the appropriate code in the code window activates and deactivates the logging on the timeline of
an occurrence aligned with that code, from the video. This enables the coder to generate an annotated interaction timeline, in this case for
each student pair, per recorded session. Entries on this timeline can be tagged by the insertion of notes and comments highlighting the

2
See http://www.studiocodegroup.com/?page_id¼77.
510 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

Fig. 2. Typical device setup showing USB recording device.

significance of the selections. All selections aligned with a particular code can be replayed by clicking on the code category to the left of the
timeline.
Over a period of several weeks, the research assistant applied the coding template to the selected data. In addition to the framework
codes, he also coded according to video or audio evidence of learning (on-task, learning-goal focused) or not learning (off-task, time wasting,
or not learning-goal focused). Although very time-consuming, this process supported detailed mining of data, revealing unique insights into
how the various features of apps and students’ responses to them, affected their learning pathways. The Findings are summarised in the next
section.

Fig. 3. The analysis framework.

 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 511

Fig. 4. A Studiocode window showing a video recording, coding template and timeline.

7. Findings

Analysis of data revealed three broad themes relating to the influence of app design and content linked to the six codes listed inside the
dashed box in the framework. These were design and content:

a. that supported learning (eg., scaffolds, some types of feedback, some types of instructions);
b. that were impediments to learning (eg., some types of feedback, game/learning imbalance, restricted content, some types of
instructions);
c. that placed parameters around learning (or not). These were subtly different to scaffolds in that they almost exclusively related to app
design, rather than content (eg., access to app settings, time and other limits imposed by the app, automatic elevation to higher difficulty
levels).

Summary tables have been generated that provide examples of data classified under each of the themes (see below). Each table contains
a thumbnail image example from an app illustrating the feature or content, a description of the learning area focus and what students were
required to do, and information about how students responded to the feature. Quotes from the recorded audio relating to the students’
responses have also been included in the information column.

8. Discussion

8.1. Content and design features supporting learning

Data indicated apps containing features or were of designs that scaffolded students’ interaction with content or ‘stepped them through’
learning concepts in a systematic and organised manner, generated more evidence of responses indicating learning than those that were
primarily learning game or game/practise-based. Interestingly, the most effective examples of this were found in apps that more closely
resembled a traditional teaching model, often involving video of a ‘real’ person teaching particular knowledge or skills. The Mr. Phonics
512 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521
Table 1
Content and design features supporting learning.
Thumbnail image example Learning focus and description of app feature,
characteristic or content
a. Literacy: phonics skills (Mr. Phonics). ‘Wait time’
built in to app. Students verbally prompted to consider
other words beginning with phonic blend being taught
by Mr Thorne. App paused automatically.
b. Literacy: phonics skills (Mr. Phonics). Students
prompted to pause app for reflection (thinking) time.
Students use time to formulate responses to questions
and complete tasks described by Mr Thorne in
previous screens.
c. Literacy: high frequency word blends (Mr. Phonics).
Spoken objectives before beginning. Mr Thorne
introduces objectives for next level and section of
app exploring common blends used in high frequency
words. Spoken language level was age appropriate.
d. Word building, problem solving and decision making
(Pirate Treasure Hunt). Students are prompted to revisit
previous screens to gather resources they do not have,
but that are needed to solve problem. Cue to map
provided in left lower corner. Text instructions plus
text-to-speech.
e. Literacy: Initial blends (Mr. Phonics). Demonstration and
examples. Mr. Thorne uses hand gestures and oral instructions
to demonstrate task requirements to students. He vocalises
letter sounds and blends before using his hands to combine
them by ‘dragging’.
Student affect or response (from video and audio)
Three pairs accessed this app. Auto pause meant
students could not progress until elapsed time.
One pair challenged each other to get the most
words, “take turns to see who can get more”
(S&T, Nov 15), another pair took turns at
guessing words, “truck. trap. trick.”
(M&C, Nov 5) while one chatted off task,
“he wears funny hats, eh” (N&S, Oct 18).
Pausing app was optional (required students
to press pause button manually). All three pairs
using this app paused. One pair discussed a
possible response, “I think it makes a brrrr
sound. or br.br.” (S&S, Oct 26). One
speculated on possible words using sound,
“brush. br.u.sh” (T&I, Oct 26) while the
third talked off task for approx. 5 s before
moving on.
Six pairs accessed this level of the app. Two
pairs discussed the learning goal, “we have
to match up the words with the same
beginning sound.” (J&N, Nov 26); “.get
pairs of words starting the same. “ (I&A,
Oct 30) while the response of others was
undetermined but assumed listening
(silence or background noise only recorded).
All pairs responded correctly in subsequent
word pairing exercises.
Ten pairs accessed this app. Students were
unable to solve the pirate puzzle if they
hadn’t collected appropriate resources on
earlier screens. Nine pairs had insufficient or
incorrect resources at some stage– five
backtracking after reading and/or listening
to prompt eg., “we need the map. go
back and get the map.” (CM&I, Oct 18).
Students could repeat spoken prompt by
pressing the speaker button. One pair left
app altogether and opened different app.
Five pairs accessed this section of the
Mr. Phonics app. Two pairs repeated letter
sounds with prompt as spoken by Mr. Thorne
eg., “dr. dr.ink.drink.” (S&H, Sept 28),
one pair chatted off task, “.he looks like
Justin Bieber.” (I&C, Nov 5). Two pairs
undetermined but assumed listening
(silence or background noise only recorded).
All pairs responded correctly in subsequent
exercises by combining initial blends and
phonemes.
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 513

Table 1 (continued )

Thumbnail image example Learning focus and description of app feature, Student affect or response (from video and audio)
characteristic or content

f. Literacy: Basic sight words (Smarty Pants School).
Instructions provided by actual voice: “Catch the word
(x).” If incorrect choice made the chosen word is spoken
and correct word repeated. Reinforcement of correct
response provided by chime sound and addition of
‘high score’ star (top left).
Seven pairs accessed this app. Five pairs regularly
made correct word selection on first or second
attempt. Three pairs ‘sounded’ words while
selecting, “o.f.f. off” (N&S, Oct 18); two
pairs selected correct word after repeating it
aloud, sometimes several times “she.she”
(A&H, Aug 15). One pair clicked randomly - often
failing to select correct word before attempt limit
reached. One pair skimmed this app, closing it
before starting. Star chart and chime/praise
reinforcement appeared to have minimal
motivational effect – only one student response
to this was recorded.

g. Literacy: Read along interactive book (Toy Story).
Words highlighted as song is sung aloud by human
voice, accompanied by music.
Twelve pairs accessed this app. Six pairs tracked
the words with their finger as they were
highlighted (visible by white dot on video).
Four of these pairs also sung along as words
highlighted. Three additional pairs sung along
but did not point (no visible white dot). Two pairs
undetermined (background noise only). One pair
skimmed this page and moved to game feature
of app (paratrooper obstacle course).

h. Problem solving and decision making (Pirate Treasure
Hunt). Students required to sequence from hottest to
coldest the words from the list to form a ladder to get
lantern (resource required to complete subsequent
challenge). Students could check response and clear and
start again if needed. Text-to-speech for instructions,
words and feedback (via parrot voice).
Ten pairs accessed this section of the app. Eight
pairs were eventually successful in arranging
words in correct order (which took between 2
and 8 attempts). Two pairs were unsuccessful
and closed app, choosing a new one eg., “this is
too hard. let’s do the rocket one.” (M&CM,
Aug 2). Two pairs commented on the usefulness
of text-to -speech, “the talking’s good eh, when
ya don’t know some of the words.” (C&N,
Aug 16); “the parrot’s cool. he tells you what
to do and what the words are.” (J&N, Sept 28).

series was a good example of this, where Mr. Thorne clearly communicated objectives using appropriate language at the outset before
introducing learning concepts (teaching), providing and explaining examples - often involving hand movement (modelling), setting ex-
amples (for practise), and prompting questions (reflection) (Table 1, c&e). This approach was supported very effectively by app design
features including interaction parameters that were imposed upon the students through the use of ‘Pause’ screens and ‘timed questions’
(Table 1, a&b). The clever combination of embedded pedagogy and app design displaying a good understanding of the learning charac-
teristics of young children, balanced with an entertaining but focused presentation and some game elements, meant students accessing this
app generally maintained high levels of thoughtful engagement throughout.
Other features of note included how effectively an app communicated its learning purpose and instructions, and once underway, how
technical features or capabilities were used to communicate content to the young students. As would be the case in most primary class-
rooms, there was insufficient time for the teacher to explain each learning goal or provide instruction on how to use every app. It was not an
unreasonable expectation that apps should provide some appropriate level of support with this, to allow students to learn on a reasonably
independent basis. The most valuable feature achieving this purpose was text-to-speech – whether this was embedded (ie., text spoken
automatically upon entering a screen) or available as an option (ie., activated by tapping an appropriate button, usually adjacent to the text).
As the independent reading age of these students was limited, text-to-speech greatly assisted them to understand what to do, and once
started, provided them with a means of accessing and using content that they struggled to grasp through text cues alone. Text-to-speech was
particularly important, as failure to understand the learning purpose of an app, what to do once using it, or being unable to interact with
content through not understanding it, often led to students spinning off on tangents. Tangents included app skimming (sampling apps
without engaging with them), adopting ‘hit and miss’ cognitive strategies such as random guessing, or engaging in ‘gamification’ (eg.,
turning apps into games by deliberately entering wrong information to see what happens). While glancing from a distance such interactions
may appear to have been focused and thoughtful, the recordings indicated that for many pairs this was far from the case.
514 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

Of lesser significance but still useful were features such as the ability to test or check a response before final submission (Table 1, h) and
simple scaffolds such as word highlighting (Table 1, g). Testing, as in the Pirate Treasure Hunt app, supported students by providing op-
portunity to trial ideas before making their final decision. It was particularly effective when it was supported by corrective feedback, such as
pop ups or dialogues offering suggestions about where changes could be made or where rethinking was required, but was less effective
when the feedback was of a non-corrective nature (see Table 1, h). Although technically simple, word highlighting also appeared to be a
useful learning scaffold for many pairs. Of the 12 pairs accessing the Toy Story app where this was widely used, seven were recorded as
interacting in some way with the word highlighting as the story was read, either by following the words with their finger, or reading aloud
along with it. This relatively traditional technique, which in many ways resembled a teacher teaching reading by pointing to words during a
shared book exercise, seemed very effective for engaging students thoughtfully with the app content.
A similar response was noted in apps where content or instructions were spoken to students, and where they were able to replay it as
needed, or it played automatically at intervals or after an incorrect response was made. A good example of this was the Smart Pants School
app (Table 1, f), where five of the seven pairs were recorded repeating content after listening to the examples, sometimes using phonics
strategies taught by the teacher. The ‘modelling-on-demand’ feature appeared to support the students’ learning by providing them access to
formative feedback, if and when they needed it. They then used this feedback to revise subsequent responses.

8.2. Content and design features impeding learning

Data indicated apps containing content or features coded as impeding or restricting learning were often, although not exclusively, ‘free’
apps accessed through Apple’s App Store, and the most common impediments were embedded external web links and pop up or banner
advertisements. Many of these apps relied on web access to load content (Table 2, c) or enable students to obtain specific resources to allow
them to progress tasks within the app or move to higher levels (Table 2, d). In other cases, external web links invited students to buy (using
real money) full versions of apps (Table 2, g), additional images or graphics to enhance their activities within the app (Table 2, e), or ‘Like’ or
‘Follow’ the app on Facebook or Twitter (Table 2, f.). In some form, external web links featured in half of the apps accessed by the students.
Due to the potential for these young students who were neither ‘web savvy’ nor possessed the literacy or critical thinking skills to
support productive use of open web access, the WiFi capability of the iPads had been disabled. This meant that no internet access was
possible, and tapping any link within an app usually caused the app to quit by itself or stall, causing significant frustration for the students as
indicated by their comments, examples of which are recorded in Table 2. Those few apps that did not quit or stall returned students to the
page containing the link. In these cases, students had a choice of continuing on using only the ‘free’ parts of the app (as in Hay Day), or
quitting the app and selecting a new one. For those apps that held high levels of appeal (generally more game-like), students generally
showed some tolerance towards the inconvenience and frustration of not being able to advance their progress, by continuing using what
they had access to. However, for those judged to be of lesser appeal (eg., word builders or read-along-stories), students were quick to close
the app and reselect. Regardless, the net effect of both of these responses was a restriction in learning derived from the app – either through
limiting the potential learning of students by restricting access to certain content, or by truncating student interaction by forcing them to
close the app and start again.
Pop up and banner advertisements had a similar effect to external web links, in that they enticed a level of student response. However,
the random nature of when pop ups appeared added an additional frustrating dimension, in that they would often overlay advertisements
on top of content at a time when students were interacting with it (Table 2, b). As well as being tempted by the bright colours and designs of
the pop ups (many pairs tried to tap links), some pairs initially struggled to close the pop up, or once achieved, found difficulty in picking up
from where they left off. Pop ups had an annoying effect of interrupting students’ work at crucial times, disturbing the fluency of their
interaction. Banner ads at the top, bottom or sides of content (Table 2, e) were less disruptive than pop ups, in that they generally did not
disturb the workflow of students as they were usually visible all the time. While also attracting some attention via web links as previously,
banners sometimes teased students by giving them glimpses of content that could enhance their work, but that they could not access
without purchasing (Table 2, e). The effect of this on one pair can be seen in the sample video where progress has been interrupted by links
from a banner advertisement selling content, and inappropriate use of uppercase letters.
Supplementary data related to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.006.

Additionally, banners often limited the amount of workspace available to students, meaning that they needed to clear their work area
more frequently, often before they had completed a task. This was noted as a frustration by five pairs.
Of lesser effect but none-the-less worthy of mention, were culture-specific terms, nouns or accents used in apps (Table 2, a). The latter of
these proved to be particularly restrictive for this group when accessing reading or spelling apps – particularly those selected to support
phonics development. The accents of presenters or human voice-overs confused some students, sometimes contributing to incorrect re-
sponses being made. While perhaps unavoidable, the addition of options to customise content to different cultures would be advantageous.
Teachers would be well advised to take into account possible levels of customisation and the potential effect of culture-specific design or
content features on their students, in any app use or purchase decisions.

8.3. Design parameters and learning

Design parameters refer to embedded constraints, or the lack of these, within apps, which place a level of structure around students’
interaction with content. They include specific design features built in to apps such as restricting students to working within predetermined
fields (space outside of these is non-responsive), time limits imposed on engagement in entertainment or game components, ability to pre-
set difficulty or content parameters (and how easily this can be done), and how regularly and in what form learning purpose and feedback is
provided. Data strongly argues the case for learning apps to provide guidance and structure for young children through the use of
thoughtfully designed embedded parameters, that will help them maintain a focus on learning objectives.
Numerous examples of how the absence of such parameters influenced these students’ learning pathways were recorded, a few of which
are described in Table 3. The most prevalent of these are illustrated in examples a and b, where the absence of parameters around the game
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521
Table 2
Content and design features impeding learning.
Thumbnail image example Learning focus and description of app feature,
characteristic or content
a. Literacy: picture/word matching (Smarty Pants
school). Culture-specific terms used. In this case,
students were asked by human voice prompt to
select a ‘dime’ from the images. Star added to
chart (top-middle left) for correct response.
b. Following instructions (Gingerbread maker).
Advertising pop ups obscuring access to app
content. These were different to banner advertising
(usually static at screen header or footer). They
often appeared randomly while students were
using the apps.
c. Problem solving/decision making (Pet Shop).
External web link required to activate app content,
extend/enhance operation, purchase needed
resources, or register opinion.
d. Problem solving/decision making (Hay Day).
Purchase of resources needed to complete higher
levels. Students reached limit of ‘free’ content,
and were prompted to pay for resources to move
to higher levels or complete challenge.
515
Student affect or response (from video and audio)
Three pairs accessed this section of the app. One pair
selected the coin correctly on fourth attempt (trial
and error), another pair selected it on the sixth
attempt (also trial and error), while the remaining
pair moved to next screen without attempting,
after commenting, “what’s a dim? I don’t know.
try the next one” (S&S, July 4).
Advertising pop ups appeared at various times and
forms in 11 apps, and affected 12 pairs. They
significantly disrupted the flow of students’
interaction. Some prompted offers or sales from
external websites (as in example), while others
promoted web games or other apps. Eight pairs
responded by trying to activate external links at
some point, two closed the advertisement
immediately, while two tried unsuccessfully
tapping behind the pop up to access content.
Recorded comments included, “.let’s get some
shall we.?” (tapping pop up) (K&N, Oct 26);
“ohh. how d’ya get this off?” (I&S, July 19);
“what did we have to do again.?” (T&H,
Aug 10 - after working out how to close pop
up they had forgotten what to do).
Embedded web links featured in 13 apps, and
they had various effects (see also below). Most
constraining were web links regulating access to
resources needed to complete tasks, or requiring
live web interaction to operate (see example -
eight pairs were affected by this type of link).
Following repeated unsuccessful attempts to
access resource sites, pairs were forced to
close the app or it quit itself. Recorded comments
indicated frustration, “ohhh. that looked like
fun, too” (S&S, Aug 21); “. it’s shut. we can’t
do that.” (J&N, July 17); “We need money to
get that.” (A&J, Sept 28).
Purchase constraints featured in seven apps,
affecting ten pairs altogether. Five pairs tapped
a link button but were unable to access an
external payment site. Five pairs immediately
closed the window. As the app held significant
appeal, nine of the ten pairs continued using
only ‘free’ parts of the app, while one pair closed
and reselected. Recorded comments indicated
frustration at restriction, “I didn’t finish my barn
I ran out of things.” (H&T, Aug 23); “I couldn’t
plant any more corn. I needed more money”
(I&S, Sept 28).
(continued on next page)
516 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

Table 2 (continued )

Thumbnail image example Learning focus and description of app feature, Student affect or response (from video and audio)
characteristic or content

e. Literacy: word building (Magnet ABC). Banner
advertisements usually at top and/or bottom
of screen, prompting payment for additional
content or resources (in this example, magnets
for magnetic board), or advertising products or
services (eg., pizzas, travel, App Store, Telecom).
Banner advertisements appeared at some time
and in some location (sides, header, footer) in
10 apps. All of these apps were ‘free’ apps from
Apple’s App Store. Initially most pairs interacted
with the advertisements in some way (tapped
‘buy’ buttons or sliders etc.), but interaction
diminished to nil by the end of data collection.
Students’ viewed banners as frustrating, as
sometimes they could see resources but
couldn’t access them, “.you can’t use those.
‘cause you have to buy them” (I&A, Sept 30);
“.it (the advert) takes up the screen - I can’t
fit any more on” (S&S, Oct 26 commenting on
the work space taken up by banner).

f. Science: physics (Where’s My Water?). Links to Twitter and/or Facebook featured in

Students manage and repair water flow to help
an alligator take showers. Students prompted to
‘Like’ app on Facebook or ‘Follow’ on Twitter.
three apps, and affected six pairs. Four pairs
recognised the Facebook or Twitter logos and
tried unsuccessfully to activate the link, while
the remaining two closed the window. The link
failure quit the app, meaning students needed
to start again or select another app. Two pairs
started again (this time avoiding the mistake),
and two chose a different app. Recorded
comments indicated linking of decision with
other experience of networking sites, “my
sister’s on Facebook. she’s got lots of
friends.” (J&I, Oct 26); “let’s see if we can
‘like’ it. Ben (her brother) showed me.”
(M&H, Nov 15).

g. Literacy: Interactive talking books
(Berenstain Bears Lite) Prompts to buy
‘full version’ of apps.
In some form (banner, button, graphic) ‘full version’
prompts featured in three apps, affecting four pairs.
Two pairs ignored the prompt and quit the app, while
two pairs tried unsuccessfully to activate link (this also
quit the app). The prompt usually appeared at the end
of the app, making its effect on students minimal.
Only one recorded comment, “I wonder what the
other story’s like.?” (A&J, Sept 28 – referring to
the ‘full’ version).

component of the apps allowed students to spend their entire session playing with props, or experimenting to see what effect deliberately
incorrect or inappropriate responses had on app characters or other content. Visual and audio feedback from characters in the app appeared
to reinforce this behaviour, as they pulled funny faces, danced or responded in amusing ways to the students’ inputs. Interestingly, while
descriptive material for the most popular app accessed by these students (Agnitus Sticky Icky Bathtime) indicated learning goals related to
basic science and literacy (Table 3, a), nowhere was this communicated to student users, nor direction given on how they might interact with
different app content to meet these learning goals. The fact that all 26 pairings accessed this app at some stage but no comments were
recorded relating to the claimed science and literacy learning, and only two pairs drew on the steamy window – and only one of these to
practise their words, reinforces this argument. In the absence of any accessible indication of intended learning, it is unsurprising that these
young students thoroughly enjoyed and spent much of their time ‘gamifying’ these apps.
Other illustrations of where design parameters could have assisted these students can be seen in Table 3, examples c and d. In c, students
were required to practise their letter shapes by following an animated example. They were given indications of where to start and what
direction their ‘pen’ was to move in, before practising this themselves on a sample. Of the five pairs accessing this app, only one engaged
with the task for the intended duration. Three pairs attempted one or two examples before ‘gamifying’ the app by using the active space
surrounding the letters to draw random pictures or shapes, while the other pair closed the app altogether after a minute. A similar example

Table 3
Design parameters and learning.
Thumbnail image example
G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521
Learning focus and description of app feature,
characteristic or content
a. Science and written language (Sticky Icky
Bathtime). Students interact with ‘Sticky Icky’
alien having a bath. Stated learning includes
“learning about suds, steam, colours and hot
and cold water. spatial cognition emotional
development”. Character responds
to different shampoos, soap combinations, blow-
drying, scrubbing and tickling, by dancing and
making a range of different faces. Students also
have opportunities to develop literacy skills by
writing and drawing on steamy walls and windows.
b. Oral language (Talking Tom and Ben News).
Students assume the character of a news anchor
(cat or dog) and create oral dialogue that is spoken
back to them in turns by their character. Teacher
had instructed students to create news items about
events around the school, and had provided them
with an example.
c. Literacy: letter recognition and practice. Students
view demonstration of letter formation (starting and
finishing point, pen movement, direction etc.) before
practicing this on example. Different ‘pen’ colours
are available. The whiteboard area surrounding the
letters is ‘live’ so students can freely draw on it.
d. Literacy: word building (Smarty Pants School).
Students build a word matching the graphic.
Letters descend from the top of the screen and
the student uses a finger to draw a path for the
letter to its correct position. Star credits are
awarded for correct words.
517
Student affect or response (from video and audio)
This was the most frequently accessed app–all pairs
accessed it, many several times. Pairs spent up to 22
min of each recorded session (10–40 min) on this app.
Only two pairs drew (scribbled) or wrote (name) on
steamy bathroom window. All pairs focused at some
point on discovering a combination of cleaners,
scrubbing action and tickling that drew the funniest
face or dance from the character. Some combined
cleaners to completely cover the character and the
bathroom, while others ‘gamified’ interaction by
seeing who could do this quickest. Recorded
comments included, “.let’s see if he’ll dance when
I tickle him (laughing).” (A&M, July 16); “.see
what he’ll do if you squirt it (shampoo) in his
mouth. (laughing)” (N&H, Nov 15).
Seven pairs accessed this app that was introduced
late in the study. While learning objectives had
been set by the teacher (make up oral news item
about school event), only three pairs did this. Three
pairs discovered that making the characters argue
triggered a range of responses such as a brawl or
mechanical boxing glove (as in example), before
T.V transmission was ‘interrupted’. These pairs
spent between 10 and 19 min in separate sessions
deliberately provoking the characters to do this.
One pair used character voices to talk about their
weekend. Recorded comments included, “smack.
got you one. (laughing)” (K&N, Nov 15); “.we
can talk about the sports day. you go first.
I’ll be the cat” (S&T, Nov 15).
Five pairs accessed this app. The pairs spent
between 3 and 15 min using it. Three pairs drew
pictures and shapes on the whiteboard following
some time on task (as in example). One pair closed
the app after 1 min, commenting, “this is boring”
(C&H, Oct 1). One pair completed their full session
as instructed. Apart from the initial demonstration
and letter start point indication (red dot in example),
no parameters were placed around student interaction.
Recorded comments included, “let’s colour it in.
(T, S & I, July 26). (They proceeded to draw a box
around the letter and shade it in). “Have a race.”
(I&S, Aug 23). (They then had a finger drawing
race on the whiteboard).
Eight pairs accessed this app. Time spent on the
app ranged from 6 to 19 min of each recording
session (10–40 min). Two pairs drew direct paths
(straight lines) for all attempts, two pairs for most
attempts (over half) and four pairs for less than
half, or none at all. This latter group generally drew
complicated pathways (as in example), enjoying seeing
the letter navigate this to its destination. Recorded
comments included, “see if it follows this.” (laughs,
then draws scribbled path with finger). (I&A, July 30).
(continued on next page)
518 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

Table 3 (continued )

Thumbnail image example Learning focus and description of app feature, Student affect or response (from video and audio)
characteristic or content

e. Numeracy: basic number facts (Pop Maths).
Students challenged to match equation with
correct answer by ‘popping’ the appropriate
combination of balloons. Each attempt is timed
and performance (time, number correct) is
reported at conclusion.
Eight pairs accessed this app. Equation difficulty
increased significantly between levels, resulting
in all pairs reaching level 2 resorting to guessing
answers (random popping of balloons). Although
some parameters could be changed (eg., the
operator), this did not include difficulty level
which increased automatically. The settings panel
was hidden behind a link that no students accessed.
Three pairs used materials (cardboard number
lines and counters) to help solve equations at
level 1. Two pairs attempted level 1 (mostly
guessing) before closing app and reselecting.
Comments included, “shall we get a number
line to count on.?” (S&K, Nov 1); “it’s too hard.
try something else.” (I&A, Nov 15).

f. Problem solving and decision making
(Hay Day). Students involved in designing and
running their own ‘virtual farm’. App introduces
basic economic concepts such as trading, labour,
production, profit and loss etc. App operates at
multiple levels with different resources needed
at each level. Basic resources are free, others
need to be purchased.
Thirteen pairs accessed this popular app - some
several times. Some features beyond basic were
locked (eg., roadside sales stall) but could be
accessed by ‘real money’ purchase of resources
or by progressing through the levels. App had
setting to disable purchase option if desired (but
not accessed). Ten pairs completed to level 2
farmer status. Three pairs quit upon finishing
level 1 or before completing level 2. App operation
was simple (drag and drop), but students appeared
uncertain of learning purpose, beyond growing
and harvesting crops, baking bread and feeding
animals. Comments included, “. what’d we have
to do. just grow corn?” (CM & I, Nov 5); “. how
d’we know what we have to do?” (J&N, Nov 26).

g. Science (physics) and maths (vector)
concepts (Cut the Rope). Students coordinate
the cutting of ‘virtual ropes’, navigate obstacles
and use resources (eg., bubbles, rocketships) to
feed an alien candy. Students are able to set their
difficulty level at commencement (as illustrated).
Sufficient scoring at each level facilitates automatic
movement to next level. Star credits awarded
for success.
Sixteen pairs accessed this popular app – some
several times. Level progress was recorded by
the app via stars, but as device/pair combinations
were usually different between sessions, most
pairs reselected a new level each time. Recorded
comments made by five pairs indicated a tendency
to select easier levels as starting points (mainly 1–3),
despite success at higher levels previously. “Start at
level 1 again, its easy.” (S&H, Sept 28); “. its hard
at 5. we’ll do 2, shall we.?” (J&I, Oct 30); (A):
“what did we get last time?. (C): “I don’t know.
just start at 1 ‘cause it’s simple” (I&C, Oct 30).

can be seen in Table 3, d, where ‘gamification’ took the form of drawing and watching letters follow chaotic transition pathways as they
descended towards a word space from the top of the display. Much time was consumed by students ‘gamifying’ apps because they were
given little or no indication of intended learning, or simply because a lack of embedded interaction parameters allowed them to do so.
Some apps allowed students to set some interaction parameters before they started. Two examples of these are described in Table 3, e
and g. However, the ability to pre-set parameters (eg., level of difficulty, maths operator) was something of a ‘double-edged sword’. Apps
such as the popular ‘Cut the Rope’ opened with a difficulty-level selection screen (Table 3, g), and due to students usually accessing different
devices between uses and few pairs being able to recall what level they achieved in their previous session, most restarted the app at the first
level. Some pairs were recorded deliberately selecting the easiest level, even though they may have achieved to a higher level previously, as
it posed the least challenge. In other apps such as Pop Maths (Table 3, e), while operators could be pre-set (þ, ,  or /), equation difficulty
level couldn’t – this being automatically progressed according to the level of correct response. The difficulty-level increments in this app
were considerable, taking only two or three partially successful attempts before equations well beyond the capability of these students were
reached. This had the effect of students resorting to randomly guessing answers, in the hope of accidentally discovering correct
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 519

combinations before time limits were reached. Interestingly, while pre-sets were available on a number of apps, only one presented these in
an easily accessible and understandable way for young students. Most panels were hidden behind obscure buttons or links that no students
accessed.
Data strongly indicates the value of apps providing a clear learning goal, structure, guidance and where needed, well-defined parameters
around young students’ interaction, if focus on the learning purpose is to be maintained. Consistent with previous findings, it could be
argued that design parameters should endeavour to emulate the sort of learning structures and boundaries provided by a classroom teacher.
In the absence of these, findings indicate the lack of self-management and learning independence of young students can drive a tendency
towards unproductive, divergent interactions.

9. Summary and conclusion

This study strongly argues that careful attention should be paid to the design and content of apps, if the undisputed motivation from
using devices such as iPads is to be transformed into thoughtful engagement and productive learning. It identified the importance of apps:

a. communicating learning objectives in ways young students can access and understand;
b. providing smooth and distraction-free pathways towards achieving goals;
c. including accessible and understandable instructions and teaching elements;
d. incorporating formative, corrective feedback;
e. combining an appropriate blend of game, practise and learning components;
f. providing interaction parameters matched to the learning characteristics of the target student group.

While approximately half of the apps used in this study were free versions, the absence of the above design features were not confined to
free versions alone. Many full and paid-for versions also did not provide these features. Their absence meant these young students working
independently often struggled to grasp the learning purpose of the app, or were diverted from this by a myriad of distractive or confusing
features embedded in the content. Interestingly, those apps that provided the greatest indication that productive learning was occurring
displayed a sound understanding of appropriate pedagogy, and in many ways mimicked the sort of teaching approaches used by teachers.
At this point it is important to acknowledge the obvious limitations of this study in terms of the very small number of apps accessed out
of the thousands available, the low number of students involved, and the focus on specific knowledge and skill outcomes. In fact some may
criticise its approach to using the devices and the selection of apps as representing low-level use, akin to the old ‘drill and kill’ CAL models of
the 1980s and 90s. However, it needs to be remembered that an experienced classroom teacher selected the apps using robust criteria, and
they were deliberately chosen to meet identified student learning needs related to foundation literacy and numeracy skills. The teacher saw
the mastery of these skills as essential prerequisites for more advanced uses for the device and learning generally. Therefore, the apps were
not used as ‘fill ins’ or appended to curriculum, but were carefully and systematically integrated as part of the normal classroom learning
programme. This decision was made based on her professional assessment of the value they could provide to the learning of her students. It
is suggested other teachers making choices about apps to be used with their students would adopt similar approaches.
In reviewing outcomes from this study, it would be tempting to become somewhat sceptical about the learning value of using these
devices and their software with young students. However, the promotion of such a stance is neither helpful, nor is it the intention of this
article. There can be no denying that devices such as the iPad and their apps are here to stay, and are highly motivating for students of all
ages. Like earlier research (eg., Burden et al., 2012; Lynch & Redpath, 2012; Manuguerra & Petocz, 2011; Saine, 2012), this study found no
evidence to the contrary. However, the study’s findings run parallel to Maddux and Cummings’s (2004) concerns about the lack of theory
driving the uptake of new technologies by schools, but extends this by adding a new dimension – theory about software design for student
learning. Too little attention has been paid to this dimension by researchers in the past, but the saturation of digital devices in classrooms
now means much more attention should be turned to this vital area of inquiry. Using methodologies such as that introduced in this article
enables data to be collected that much more accurately represents the reality of student engagement with digital devices. These approaches
to gathering information must be used by researchers working together with teachers and app developers, to greatly improve app designs
for learning. All have a responsibility to work together towards this goal, if devices such as the iPad are to avoid the well-worn path made by
previous failed innovations.

Acknowledgements

The researcher gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Research Committee, The Faculty of Education, University of Waikato,
for the purchase of iPads to use in this study.

Appendix A

Ipad Trial with the University of Waikato

Background
We are proposing to participate in a study run by (author) at the University of Waikato to investigate how iPads can be used in a
classroom. To goals of the study are:

a. To explore how children use iPads and apps

b. Investigate how pedagogy may change if teachers have access to iPads as a digital device
c. Explore both the educational possibilities and limitations of iPads within the classroom to support student learning.
520 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521

The University is looking for a teacher who is teaching year 1 or 2 children.

What is involved?
The University is providing 8 iPads to the teacher who is selected to participate in this study. The iPads will remain in the class with the
teacher until the end of 2012 at which time they will need to be returned to the University or redeployed within the school for other studies.
There is also a possibility the University will provide an iMac (or two) to the class to allow the syncing of devices to happen more easily.
To make the study successful, the University is looking for someone who is willing to:

a. Closely monitor the progress of the children in the class using the iPads. In conjunction with (author), the teacher will develop some
learning units which closely integrate use of the iPads with the normal classroom progamme in literacy, numeracy and problem-solving.
Details of how this will be done will be finalised between (author) and the selected teacher.
b. Undertake some interviews and keep a reflective journal about the experience.
c. Reflect deeply on their practise and have an openness and desire to try different things in their classroom as a result of having the iPads.
d. Meet with (author) during each term to reflect on the progress the children are making and reflect on how their teaching practise/
literacy and numeracy programme has evolved as a result of having the iPads in the classroom. This will involve interviews, classroom
observations and informal discussions of how the devices are being used.
e. Be featured in a study around the findings of the iPad trial (although all details of the school, the teacher and the children will be
concealed, if desired.)
f. Help get permission from the parents of the children in the class to participate in the trial. A form will be provided for this purpose.

Timeline for selection

The study will start from the start of term 3. However, the iPads are currently getting engraved and can be placed with the teacher as soon
as the cases have arrived.
The University has asked us as a school to select the teacher for the study. We will go through the same process to make the selection as
we did for choosing the teacher to lead the Ipad class initiative. i.e. Those who are interested need to place their expression of interest with
(Principal) by Wednesday 6 June. We would then meet those teachers who have expressed interest on Friday 8 June to talk with them about
their ideas for how they would run this programme. A selection would then be made.
If you have any questions or require any clarification please do not hesitate to see me.
Reminder: Expressions of interest need to be lodged with (Principal) by 4pm on Wednesday 6 June.

Appendix B

Apps used during the study

1. Play Square
2. Rocket Speller
3. Smarty Pants School series
4. BlobbleWriteHD
5. Mr Phonics series
6. Pinocchio
7. Icky bathtime
8. Cat in the Hat (Lite)
9. Scramble PCS 3 Letter Words
10. Hay Day
11. Pirate School
12. Where’s my water?
13. Cut the Rope
14. Treasure Hunt
15. Pet Shop
16. Green Farm
17. Kids’ Puzzles
18. Pattern Game
19. Animal Fun
20. Matches
21. PickinStick Classic
22. Math Bingo
23. Game of Life
24. Dots for Tots
25. Jungle Time
26. PopMath
27. Rocket Maths Free
28. Geometry Maze
29. Toy Puzzles
 G. Falloon / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 505–521 521

30. Logos Quiz

31. Blitz
32. Reading Comprehension
33. Princess Pea
34. The Three Pigs
35. Gingerbread Maker
36. Snow White
37. Hairy Maclary
38. Golden Lite
39. Magnetic ABC
40. Talking Tom and Ben News
41. My Dogs
42. The Emperor
43. Little Mermaid
44. The Berenstain Bears Lite
45. Pirate Treasure Hunt

References

Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod touch in K-12 Education: visions and vices. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121–131.
Brand, J., & Kinash, S. (2010). Pad-agogy: a quasi-experimental and ethnographic pilot test of the iPad in a blended mobile learning environment. In (Series Ed.) &
C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.). Proceedings of the Ascilite Conference. Sydney, 2010: Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown
future (pp. 147–151).
Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Trala, C. (2012). iPad Scotland evaluation final report. Faculty of Education, University of Hull.
Crichton, S., Pegler, K., & White, D. (2012). Personal devices in public settings: lessons learned from an iPod Touch/iPad Project. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1),
23–31.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Gall, M., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. (2007). The nature of educational research. In Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gwet, K. L. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability (3rd ed.). (pp. 15–46) Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics.
Hedman, J., & Gimpel, G. (2010). The adoption of hyped technologies: a qualitative study. Information Technology Management, 11, 161–175.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23.
Ihaka, J. (2013, January 30). Schools put tablets on stationery list. The New Zealand Herald. Section A4.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Lynch, J., & Redpath, T. (2012). Smart technologies in early years education: a meta-narrative of paradigmatic tensions in iPad use in an Australian preparatory classroom.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1–28.
Maddux, C. D. (1986). The educational computing backlash: can the swing of the pendulum be halted? Computers in the Schools, 3(2), 27–30.
Maddux, C. D., & Cummings, R. (2004). Fad, fashion and the weak role of theory and research in information technology in education. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 12(4), 511–533.
Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new technology into tertiary education: the role of the iPad. Asian Social Science,
7(11), 61–65.
Masters, G. N. (2002). Towards a national school research agenda. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/
mas99854.htm.
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). Education’s history of technotopia. In The flickering mind: False promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved (pp. 3–61). New
York: Random House.
Postman, N. (2000). Some new Gods that fail. In The Jossey–Bass reader on technology and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Saine, P. (2012). iPods, iPads and the SMARTBoard: transforming literacy instruction and student learning. The NERA Journal, 47(2), 74–79. Computers in the Classroom.
Sheth, J., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption values and market choices: Theory and applications. Cincinnati: South Western.