Student Engagement 1:1 Tablet Computer

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TABLET COMPUTER-BASED TEACHING IN THE SECONDARY ENGLISH, HISTORY, AND MATHEMATICS CLASSROOMS: MULTIPLE CASE STUDIES OF A PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

A dissertation presented by Ugur Kocak

to The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

In the field of

Education

College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts July 2015 2

Ugur Kocak 3

Abstract

The use of 1:1 tablet computer-based teaching is a rapidly increasing trend in education that calls for urgent examination, because such a fundamental change in teaching deeply impacts student learning and school budgets. The purpose of this study was to examine how 1:1 tablet computer- based teaching helps or hinders students’ procedural engagement in learning in English, mathematics and history classrooms at a high school. The study employed a qualitative case study method to collect data about this new pedagogical approach without changing existing classroom settings. In these classrooms, the students were expected to take notes on tablets, work on digital copies of practice worksheets, and read text from electronic textbooks. The study found that a large portion of the student population, varying somewhat among subject areas , utilized tablet computers for non-educational purposes during instructional time and teachers were unable to identify such misuse of tablets. The results also reveal that most students would like to continue learning with 1:1 tablet computers because of the tablet computers’ affordances, such as the ability to access multiple resources anytime, anywhere; organize learning materials; and track assignment submissions and grades. In conclusion, along with the various affordances that tablet computers offer for teaching, they divert a large portion of the students’ procedural engagement in the English, mathematics, and history classrooms. Recommendations for practice address the need for educators to look for alternative ways to more productively use tablet computers in teaching, rather than the current manner and utilizing tablet computers for interactive or student centered lessons to improve students’ procedural engagement. This can be achieved by providing teachers adequate training and time to prepare productive tablet computer- based lessons. In addition, integrating a software program that allows the teachers to control and monitor the students’ tablet computers is so crucial to prevent tablet-driven distractions. Last an 4 experienced technical support team needs to be available to promptly address technical problems that the teachers or students experience. This will encourage the teachers to prepare lessons relying on tablet computers.

Keywords: iPad, engagement, learning, teaching, tablet computer 5

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I extend my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Carol Young, who guided my thesis from day one with great patience and knowledge. I attribute this successful study to her timely, productive, and encouraging feedback. She allowed me to work at my own pace and never put me down, even if the initial outcomes of assignments were too short for her expectations. She was always accessible whenever I needed guidance. I would like to thank to my first second reader, Dr. Billy Sankofa Waters and my second reader, Dr. Kelly Conn, for their supportive and productive feedback, too. In addition, I would like to thank Professor Acar for taking time out from his busy schedule to serve as my outside reader. I also deeply thank to the Assistant Principal of the research field school. He was a supportive liaison to the school.

A special thanks goes to my life-long supporter and mother, Zade Kocak, and my father,

Niyazi Kocak, for their moral and emotional support. They sincerely, verbally and emotionally, encouraged me to stick with this challenging task. I always felt my mother’s prayers, and I became motivated whenever I thought of my parents excitedly and patiently awaiting the day of my graduation, so they could be proud of their child. I won’t forget my 74-years-old father’s offer of financial support, despite his limited budget: “Let me know if you are in need of money.

I am here for you like a mountain to lean on.”

Finally, I would like to thank my wife and two little princesses for patiently accepting my apologies for not participating in family activities during my course of study. My wife filled in for me in many circumstances. I missed a number of events involving the princesses and repeatedly postponed meetings with them or neglected to fulfill their natural expectations of a father. They patiently and respectfully accepted my excuses and apologies.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 3

Acknowledgements ...... 5

Table of Contents ...... 6

List of Tables ...... 12

Table of Figures ...... 15

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 16

Research Problem Statement ...... 16

Justification of the Research Problem ...... 17

Deficiencies in the Evidence ...... 18

Significance of the Research Problem ...... 21

Position Statement ...... 22

Purpose of Study ...... 23

Research Questions ...... 24

Activity Engagement Theory (AET) ...... 24

Theoretical Roots ...... 25

The Activity Identification Process ...... 27

Multiple Activity Identification ...... 28

Summary of AET ...... 29

Definition of Terms ...... 31

Chapter 2: Review of Selected Literature ...... 32 7

The Past, Present and Future of Mobile Computer-Based Teaching ...... 33

Past ...... 33

Present ...... 35

Future ...... 36

Section Summary ...... 37

Driving Factors of 1:1 Tablet Integration ...... 38

21st Century Demand ...... 38

Learning Takes Place Anywhere, Anytime ...... 39

Differentiation of Instruction ...... 40

Communication and Collaboration ...... 42

Affordability ...... 43

Section Summary ...... 43

Engaging Students in Learning ...... 44

Digital Collaboration ...... 44

Rapid Feedback ...... 45

Multiple Learning Modalities ...... 46

Active Learning ...... 47

Section Summary ...... 49

Distracting Students from Learning ...... 49

The Multiple Affordances of Mobile Computers Distract Students ...... 49

Internet Connection Causes Distractions ...... 51

Distraction Prevents Learning ...... 52

Section Summary ...... 54 8

Educational Technology as a Research Topic ...... 54

Complexity of the Topic ...... 54

Manipulated Classroom Settings ...... 56

Sample Selection: Variations of Age and Socioeconomic Status ...... 57

The Novelty Effect ...... 58

Section Summary ...... 58

Chapter Summary ...... 59

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 63

Research Design ...... 64

Research Tradition ...... 64

Research Procedures ...... 67

Participants ...... 67

Recruitment and Access ...... 68

Data Collection ...... 69

Student Engagement ...... 72

Measuring Engagement ...... 73

Data Storage ...... 74

Data Analysis ...... 74

Trustworthiness ...... 77

Potential Threats to Internal Validity ...... 78

Protection of Human Subjects ...... 79

Chapter 4: Summary of Findings ...... 81

Overview ...... 81 9

Research Questions ...... 82

Methodology ...... 82

Site and Participants ...... 83

Data Collection Procedures ...... 85

Data Analysis ...... 87

Case 1: The English Classroom Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories ...... 89

Case Description ...... 89

English Teacher Interview Results ...... 90

Overall English Classroom Observation Results ...... 96

Case 2: Mathematics Classroom Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories ...... 99

Case Description ...... 100

Mathematics Teacher Interview Results ...... 101

Overall Mathematics Classroom Observation Results ...... 106

Case 3: History Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories ...... 110

Case Description ...... 111

History Teacher Interview Results ...... 112

Overall History Classroom Observation Results ...... 119

Student Interview Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories ...... 123

Student’s Concerns ...... 123

How Tablets Are Used in the Classroom from the Student Perspective ...... 127

Students’ Perceptions about the TCB learning ...... 131

Overview of findings of the student interview ...... 134

Chapter Summary: Cross-Case Analysis ...... 136 10

Comparisons of the Most Emergent Concerns ...... 136

Comparisons of the Most Emerging Perceptions ...... 139

Comparisons of How Tablet Computers Are Used ...... 143

Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings and Implications for Practice ...... 146

Research Questions ...... 146

Limitations of the Study...... 147

Research Design Review ...... 148

Credibility and Trustworthiness ...... 149

Potential Threats to Internal Validity ...... 150

Overview and Discussion of Findings ...... 151

Causing distractions ...... 151

Advantages of Tablet Computers in Teaching ...... 155

Technical problems ...... 156

Summary of Discussions ...... 157

Implications and Recommendations for Practice ...... 160

Implications for Future Study ...... 162

Conclusion ...... 164

References ...... 166

Appendices ...... 178

Appendix A: Letter to School Administration ...... 178

Appendix B: Volunteer Student Consent Form ...... 179

Appendix C: Teacher Informed Consent Letter ...... 180

Appendix D: Parent-Student Informed Consent Letter ...... 182 11

Appendix E: Interview Protocol - Teacher ...... 184

Appendix F: Interview Protocol - Student ...... 186

Appendix G: English Classroom Observation Details ...... 188

Appendix H: Mathematics Classroom Observation Details ...... 205

Appendix I: History Classroom Observation Details ...... 214

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Student sample selection ...... 68

Table 4.1: Tablet computer use in English classes according the teacher ...... 90

Table 4.2: English teacher's perceptions ...... 92

Table 4.3: English teacher's concerns ...... 94

Table 4.4: Tablet computer use in English classes according to classroom observation data ...... 97

Table 4.5: Summary of the most emerging themes of the English teacher interview ...... 98

Table 4.6: Tablet computer use in Mathematics classes according the teacher ...... 101

Table 4.7: Mathematics teacher's concerns ...... 103

Table 4.8: Mathematics teacher's perception ...... 105

Table 4.9: Tablet computer use in Mathematics classes according to classroom observation data

...... 107

Table 4.10: Summary of the most emerging themes of the Mathematics teacher interview ...... 108

Table 4.11: Tablet computer use in History classes according the teacher ...... 112

Table 4.12: History teacher's perceptions ...... 114

Table 4.13: History teacher's concerns ...... 116

Table 4.14: Tablet computer use in History classes according to classroom observation data .. 120

Table 4.15: Summary of the most emerging themes of the History teacher interview ...... 121

Table 4.16: Students' concerns about tablet computer use in learning ...... 123

Table 4.17: Tablet computer use in teaching and learning according to the students ...... 127

Table 4.18: Student's perceptions of using tablet computers in learning ...... 131

Table 4.19: Student's overall perceptions of using tablet computers in learning ...... 135

Table 4.20: Comparisons of the most emerging concerns about 1:1 TCB teaching ...... 136 13

Table 4.21: Comparisons of the most emerging perceptions about 1:1 TCB teaching ...... 139

Table 4.22: Comparisons of the most emerging tablet computer use in teaching ...... 143

Table G.1: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session ...... 188

Table G.2: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 190

Table G.3: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 191

Table G.4: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session ...... 192

Table G.5: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 194

Table G.6: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 195

Table G.7: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 196

Table G.8: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 Class session ...... 198

Table G.9: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session ...... 199

Table G.10: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 201

Table G.11: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session ...... 203

Table H.1: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular integrated mathematics class

session ...... 205

Table H.2: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session ...... 206

Table H.3:Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Financial Literacy class ...... 207

Table H.4: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session ...... 208

Table H.5: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session ...... 209

Table H.6: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session ...... 210

Table H.7: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Integrated Mathematics class

session ...... 211

Table H.8: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session ...... 212 14

Table H.9: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Financial Literacy class session

...... 213

Table I.1: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class sessions ..... 214

Table I.2: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors US History class sessions .... 215

Table I.3: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session ...... 217

Table I.4: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors US History class ...... 218

Table I.5: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session ...... 220

Table I.6: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session ...... 222

Table I.7: Students' activities with tablet computers in an honor US History class session ...... 223

Table I.8: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class ...... 224

Table I.9: Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session ...... 226

Table of Figures

Figure 3.1: Case study method concept map (Yin, 2009, p. 57)...... 66

Figure 3.2: Summarization of the data collection and analysis process ...... 77 16

Chapter 1

Introduction

Research Problem Statement

Tablet computer-based (TCB) teaching is becoming increasingly popular around the world. Apple announced that over 8 million iPads, a brand of tablet computer, had been sold to educational institutions across the world since 2010 and that 4.5 million of these had been sold to educational institutions in America (Haselton, 2013). The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, disclosed,

"The adoption of the iPad in education is something I've never seen in any technology" (as cited in Lytle, 2012). However, there is no solid consensus among researchers regarding the benefits of 1:1 tablet computer integration in education.

Some researchers have raised serious concerns about the efficacy of 1:1 TCB teaching, in regard to its becoming a source of distraction (Fried, 2008; Hurford & Hamilton, 2008; Kinash,

Brand, Mathew, & Kordyban, 2011; Sharples, 2002; Franklin, 2011; Geist, 2011; Nworie &

Haughton, 2008), in regard to challenges in adopting mobile computers in current education systems (Barak, 2007; Culen, Engen, Gasparini, & Herstaqd, 2013; Franklin, 2011; Sharples,

Taylor, &Vavoula, 2007), and in regard to the technological skill gap between students and teachers (Geist, 2011; Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Conversely, some others argue that tablet computer-mediated teaching improves student engagement (Hurford & Hamilton, 2008;

Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Swan, Hooft, Kratcoski, & Unger, 2005), communication and collaboration (Arnone, Small, Chauncey, & McKenna, 2011; Hutchinson et al., 2012; Maninger & Holden, 2009; Sharples et al., 2005), and student learning, by supporting multiple learning styles (Benlloch-Dualde, Buendia, & Cano, 2010; Looi, Zhang, Chen, Seow,

Chia, Norris, & Soloway, 2010; Rosen & Back-Hill, 2012). 17

The projected number of K-12 students in America will reach 60 million by 2019

(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012), which suggests that millions of iPads or other brands of tablet computers will replace existing printed textbooks, notebooks, and pens and pencils over the next few years. If educational decision makers plan to spend dwindling public financial resources on TCB education, as both past and current data suggest may occur, then it is crucial to understand more about the contribution of such devices to student engagement or distraction in the learning process. Arnone et al. (2011) and Kinash et al. (2012) also distinctly note the critical need for research that examines iPad use in actual classroom settings, as the iPad is not designed primarily as an educational tool (Culen & Gasparini, 2012). This study examines how 1:1 TCB teaching hinders or helps engaging students in learning.

Justification of the Research Problem

Hawkes and Hategakimana (2010) note the complexity of examining tablet computer integration into education, due to variations in the personal and contextual factors that influence classroom education. The literature examines various aspects of tablet computer integration in education, such as student learning, student engagement or distraction, teachers' and students' perceptions, variations in electronic sources, the impact of digital sources on cognitive overload, student and teacher training for using such technology, curriculum adoption, technological infrastructure, distance learning through wireless tablet computers, etc. Kinash et al. (2012), for instance, examined student learning through Blackboard Mobile Learn, an iPad application.

Crompton and Julie (2010) shed light on how teachers and students utilize the iPod-touch, a type of hand-held tablet device, in teaching. A study by Arnone et al. (2011) investigated how situational and contextual issues impacted students’ purposeful engagement in learning in a 18 technology-pervasive environment. In addition, Barak, Lipson, and Lerman (2006) focused on the efficacy of using information and communication technology (ICT). This study, one of the early studies that examined the integration of 1:1 laptop computers with wireless Internet in education, specifically investigated students’ perceptions about 1:1 computer use in large MIT lecture halls. They found that students have quite positive perceptions of the use of laptop computers in the classroom; however, the authors point out some possible distractions that laptop computers generate. Lastly, Culen and Gasparini (2012), through two pilot studies conducted in a college and an elementary school, examined how iPads transform students’ learning practices.

Since teaching with 1:1 tablet computing is relatively new in education, and a critical change for student learning, many researchers strongly recommend further research in this area (Barak et al.,

2006; Barak, 2007; Culen & Gasparini, 2012; Geist, 2011; Pelusco, 2012; Traxler, 2007).

Deficiencies in the Evidence

Minimal research attention has been given to the topic of 1:1 TCB teaching in education.

One issue in the literature is the way tablet computers are used in classrooms. For instance, several researchers have examined how these devices influence student motivation in classrooms at various grade levels as supplementary sources rather than as primary learning tools (Baloian,

Pino, & Hoppe, 2008; Otta & Tavella, 2010; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Swan et al., 2005; Wu &

Huang, 2007). However, current 1:1 TCB teaching has been utilizing the tablets as primary teaching and learning devices that replace traditional learning tools such as notebooks, textbooks and pencils. There is, therefore, a critical need for research that examines student engagement in

1:1 TCB teaching classrooms in this new context.

Another gap in the existing literature is altering the classroom context while collecting research data. Crompton and Julie (2010) note the need for research that examines school-wide 19

1:1 tablet computer implementation without manipulating classroom settings. Several experimental research studies, such as those by Arnone et al. (2011), Benllock et al. (2010),

Gasparini and Culen (2013), and Hurtford and Hamilton (2008), manipulate natural classroom settings to form control and experimental groups. This may create ideal classrooms for experimental groups, but this norm cannot be established in every classroom across the state. For instance, the classroom in Hurtford and Hamilton (2008) was designed with a strong software and hardware infrastructure that allowed teachers to monitor and manage the students’ tablet computer screens by shutting down any screen in the room, blocking all screens by sharing material, or displaying a student’s screen on the projector board on the wall. The current software and hardware foundation of the iPad does not allow for such kinds of settings.

Therefore, teachers are unable to monitor what students are doing with iPads while they are facing away from teachers. Similarly, Benlloch et al. (2010) established an ideal classroom that was supported by (1) a strong technical infrastructure, with (2) very well-trained, skillful and experienced faculty, to design and deliver lessons to (3) an academically homogeneous student population. It is difficult to create settings with these components in urban schools. In sum, there is a serious need for research that examines student engagement in 1:1 TCB teaching classrooms without manipulating existing classroom settings.

There is also a dearth of research that examines student engagement in 1:1 tablet computing classrooms (Mayberry, Hargis, Boles, Dugas, O’Neill, Rivera, & Meler, 2012).

Various aspects of teaching and learning with 1:1 tablet computers, such as the efficacy of using digital books (Baird & Henninger, 2011), students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the devices

(Culen & Gasparini, 2012), the contribution of 1:1 tablet computers to student learning

(Dunleavy & Heinecke, 2007; Fried, 2008; Kinash, 2011), and acceptance of 1:1 tablet 20 computers in classrooms (Mainger & Holden, 2009), have been explored; however, high school students’ engagement or distraction in a 1:1 tablet computing classroom has not been given enough attention. This study will examine student engagement or distraction in classrooms that integrate 1:1 tablet computer as the main educational tool, without manipulating the existing classroom settings, in a public school in a middle-class neighborhood in NY.

The results of this study are expected to help school administrators, parents, and policy makers make realistic decisions when planning to integrate a school-wide 1:1 tablet computer program. The results will make the researcher, a high school administrator, aware of the factors that help or hinder student engagement in classrooms with 1:1 tablet computers. This awareness is expected to help schools develop appropriate and practical policies and staff training to increase the positive outcomes of such a change in educational settings. In addition, the study will help administrators in schools that have already implemented such programs to identify problems with student engagement in a classroom. This is expected to help them develop suitable school-wide interventions or preventive action plans to improve the current use of 1:1 tablet computers. Lastly, this study will increase teachers’ awareness of the difficulties that prevent student engagement in learning, motivating them to develop and implement class-wide corrective action plans. Overall, the results of this study are expected to raise the awareness of administrators and teacher regarding factors that hinder student engagement in classrooms that utilize 1:1 tablet computer as the main teaching and learning tool. Such awareness will guide them in developing and implementing suitable preventive or corrective action plans.

Significance of the Research Problem

Nworie and Hauhton (2008) argue that introducing a revolutionary change in teaching and learning may produce unintended negative outcomes that prevent even the expected outcomes from being achieved. Replacing printed materials with digital copies by integrating

1:1 computers in classrooms is a serious change that calls for an examination of its various aspects before school districts invest dwindling public funds in tablet computers and the necessary technical infrastructure. It is important for educational leaders and policy makers to understand how 1:1 TCB teaching and learning enhance or hinder student engagement.

Otherwise, thousands of schools that employ 1:1 tablet computer programs may potentially face serious consequences.

Change is a risky decision for an organization, and its momentum relies on successful implementation (Greve, 1998); otherwise, the attempted change may generate serious problems that can harm the existing system. If this fundamental change in educational settings is not examined thoroughly, thousands of students’ educations may be put at a serious risk until educators discover the difficulties of 1:1 TCB teaching and learning. If this change, shifting to teaching with 1:1 tablet computers, becomes unsuccessful due to a lack of research or a failure to take up the suggestions of existing studies, thousands of students’ educations may be negatively influenced for years.

In addition, if this attempt at change is unsuccessful, schools that replace printed learning materials with tablet computers may find they have wasted significant public funds. Kirkpatrick and Cuban (1998) address school administrators’ detrimental approach to educational computer purchasing as follows: “What should we spend the money on? The answer from current wisdom, which assumes that students profit mightily from new technology, is to spend it on computers” 22

(p. 1). Correspondingly, Pelusco (2012) considers media-driven populism rather than evidence- based suggestions as a driving factor of 1:1 TCB teaching. As mentioned earlier, hundreds of public school districts have already purchased thousands of iPads for 1:1 student use. If this revolutionary change in education fails, all those public funds may have been wasted. In sum, there is a need for research studies that examine the efficacy of 1:1 TCB education, and it is necessary to rely on such studies rather than media-driven populism when making decisions about spending public school funds for 1:1 TCB teaching classrooms.

Position Statement

My position toward 1:1 tablet computing program implementation has gradually matured.

Once, I assumed that school administrators handed out iPads without limiting access to the

Internet and non-educational applications. This made me quite biased regarding the efficiency of

1:1 tablet computer integration in education, giving that such a change has not even a small chance of success in K-12 education. I believed tablet computers in the classroom were a toy rather than a revolutionary educational tool. However, I later discovered that some districts restrict students’ access to the Internet and to non-educational applications to improve the positive outcomes of 1:1 tablet computers in a classroom. Furthermore, I read some research studies that found positive outcomes of teaching with 1:1 tablet computers. These two discoveries helped change my mind about tablet computer use in education. Lastly, personal use of the iPad in my own education led me to discover impressive educational iPad applications.

The factors listed above made me look at the issue from a different point of view. Without bias,

I now want to investigate how 1:1 tablet computer integration helps or hinder student engagement in learning during a class session. 23

I am currently the Dean of Academics in a public school that is planning to employ 1:1 tablet computer within a year or so. Although I actively use an iPad for my personal education, I have not yet experienced or observed 1:1 TCB teaching in a K-12 school setting. I utilize my iPad for reading, writing and organizing course materials. According to what I discovered through my colleagues and through a review of the literature, K-12 schools and teachers are integrating 1:1 tablet computers in different pedagogical ways. Some initiatives use them to access and read textbooks, take notes, complete homework, and share completed assignments with teachers or friends. Understanding the efficacy of using 1:1 TCB teaching in a classroom is crucial to me before my school purchases and hands tablet computers out to students, without establishing a strong foundation for the program. Identifying potential problems in the program may help me prepare and establish productive staff training for successful implementation of the program.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to understand how teaching 1:1 TCB teaching hinders or engages students in learning at the Achieve Academy Public School in NY. “The Achieve

Academy Public School” is a pseudonym for the research setting.

Research Questions

This study will help school administrators, educational policy makers and teachers to understand the following essential overarching question before beginning to integrate 1:1 tablet computers into their classrooms: How does 1:1 tablet computer-based teaching help or hinder students’ procedural engagement in high school classrooms? The following sub-questions will more specifically assist in understanding the overarching question:

1. How do high school teachers use 1:1 tablet computers in their classrooms and

teaching practices?

2. How do high school students use 1:1 tablet computer during a course session?

3. What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the effects of 1:1 tablet computers on

student engagement in learning?

Activity Engagement Theory (AET)

Educators might presume that combining a fun activity with instructional materials would increase student engagement in learning. However, activity engagement theory, which was developed by Tory Higgins and Yaacov Trope in 1990, contradicts this assumption (Lee, 1994).

Higgins and Trope’s (1990) study examined whether combining two intrinsically interesting activities (reading and coloring) increased student engagement in learning. AET relies on two types of argument raised by previous theorists. First is the distinction made in social motivation theory between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Second are the arguments of classical attribution theory (Bem, 1965; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965) and the theory of action identification (Wegner & Vallacher, 1986). 25

Theoretical Roots

Higgins and Trope (1990) identify two previous major approaches that distinguish intrinsic motivation from extrinsic motivation. According to Higgins and Trope (1990), previous theorists, including Bandura (1986), Deci and Ryan (1987), and Pittman and Heller (1987), developed two classical approaches to distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic motivation: (1) human needs versus incentives and (2) human inferences. The first approach attributes people’s motivational state to their inferences about themselves in relation to the activity. For example, if an actor perceives that he/she becomes intrinsically motivated, the activity is considered intrinsic motivation (Higgins & Trope, 1990). The second approach considers an activity as intrinsically motivated if it fulfills one’s needs, such as hunger, thirst, sex or aggression. According to

Higgins and Trope (1990), both approaches consider engaging in an activity as an end itself as intrinsic, whereas engaging in an activity as a means to an end is considered extrinsic. In sum, the type-of-inference approach is based on “people’s inferred reasons for engaging in an activity,” whereas the type-of-need approach relies on “people’s orientation toward and experience of an activity” (Higgins & Trope, 1990, p. 232).

Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory (SDT) argues that intrinsic motivation reflects natural propensities that reinforce people for things inherently interesting or enjoyable, whereas extrinsic motivation refers to separable outcomes such as reward, punishment or approval. Similarly, Bandura (1986) attributes intrinsic motivation to enjoyment and self- satisfaction. In keeping with this approach, Higgins and Trope (1990) identified the enjoyment of coloring the pages in a storybook as intrinsic motivation. Offering a reward to a child for spending an hour reading, on the other hand, is considered extrinsic motivation. Previous studies have proved that combining an extrinsic motivation (reward) with an intrinsic motivation 26

(reading) can undermine a child’s interest in an activity (Higgins, Trope, & Kwon, 1999). AET, unlike these other theories, attempts to elucidate a student’s motivational orientation when two intrinsic motivations are combined. Therefore, it is crucial for AET to appropriately distinguish intrinsic motivation from extrinsic motivation to form a solid theoretical construct.

The activity identification process, which is one of the most critical theoretical aspects of

AET, relies on action identification theory (Wegner & Vallacher, 1986). AET argues that people contribute input to an activity according to their primary identification, which is described as

“proponent identity” by the theory of action identification. Wagner and Vallacher (1986) describe activity identification as the act of selecting an activity from among a set of possibilities. The theory claims that people may select alternative identifications besides the proponent identity, depending on the importance of the activities. For example, one can identify

“throwing a brick through a window” as an activity done to scare people in a building, to break the window, or to break the glass. Like action identification theory, AET proposes that people identify primary and secondary activities in a hierarchical relation among identifications

(Higgins et al., 1995).

Classic attribution theories (Bem, 1965; Header, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965) also deeply influence AET’s description of people’s motivational orientation. Higgins et al. (1995) link classical attribution theory’s argument, “the stronger the circumstantial forces to produce an act, the weaker the stable entity or dispositional inferences” (p.751), to AET’s activity engagement process, which mainly relies on people’s dispositional inferences. Applying this approach to reading a storybook with pages to color, children would likely prefer to engage in coloring rather than reading. Attribution theory would justify it as a strong circumstantial force, whereas AET would describe it as a primarily identified activity. Similarly, action identification theory 27 justifies “not choosing to read a book” as a weak circumstantial force, whereas AET considers it a secondarily identified activity. In contrast to the previous theories of motivation (SDT and attribution theory), AET argues that activity identification relies on the input properties of an activity (Higgins & Trope, 1990). In addition, it emphasizes the motivational consequences of multiple and changing relations to them (Higgins & Trope, 1990). In sum, AET relies on the two previous theories - on action identification theory for the activity identification process, and on classic attribution theory to justify people’s motivational orientation.

The Activity Identification Process

The most critical aspect of activity engagement theory is the activity identification process, which deeply influences people's motivational orientation. According to the AET proposal, people identify activities when they experience an input, such as the color and/or shape of an object, or events like drawing, playing piano and walking. Each activity construct carries defining properties, which play a central role when an actor identifies an activity (Higgins &

Trope, 1990). Different properties of an input may influence how the input is identified.

Moreover, Higgins and Trope (1990) claim that a person's knowledge and prior experience with the input play a critical role in the activity identification process. According to their argument, a coffee cup made of handcrafted pottery, for example, may be identified as a “coffee cup” or

“handcrafted pottery,” depending on the person’s prior experience with such inputs. Properties of an input and a person’s prior experience and knowledge are the two main factors that identify the input of an activity.

Huggins and Trope (1990) consider contextual factors such as immediate goals, temporary arousal, situational cues and instruction, as other important factors that influence people’s activity identification process. Furthermore, the authors argue that a person’s response 28 to the input properties of an activity is dynamic. Lee (1994) illustrates these two arguments with the example of an intramural volleyball game. Students playing the game may initially identify the game as "socializing," but when the coach warns them, “Let’s play hard and get a good workout" (p. 7), their perception may change to "exercising.” As a third aspect driving the activity identification process, contextual factors (like the coach’s warning) can make a player change a pre-identified theme.

Multiple Activity Identification

Multiple activity identification is a unique aspect of activity engagement theory. The theory considers that humans may simultaneously identify an activity with multiple labels as primary and secondary. Higgins and Trope (1990) propose that people attend and respond to multiple properties of the input, which may result in different identifications at the same time, such as “handcrafted coffee cup” and just “coffee cup.” A person may identify the coffee cup made of handcrafted pottery primarily as “a coffee cup” and secondarily as “a handcrafted coffee cup.”

Higgins and Trope (1990) further argue that the order of activity identifications plays the main role in generating people's motivational responses. People’s motivational orientation primarily responds to the primary identification, although the secondary identification influences people's motivational response. According to Higgins and Trope (1990), primary and secondary inputs are in continual competition to draw people's attention. Such competition potentially distracts people’s motivational engagement in the activity (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Lee's (1994) example of a volleyball game can be revisited to elucidate this argument. If students identify the intramural game primarily as "exercising," excessive running may distract them because

"socializing" is their secondary identification. In sum, humans’ identifications of an activity as 29 primary and secondary are in continual competition with each other to draw motivational attention.

Summary of AET

AET theory relies on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation developed in social motivation theory (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Higgins et al. (1999) consider offering a student a reward for an hour of reading to be extrinsic motivation, while providing the student with a storybook containing pages to color and colorful markers to be intrinsic motivation.

According to their approach, the first case combines an extrinsic motivation (reward) with an intrinsic motivation (reading), and the second case combines two intrinsic motivations (reading and coloring). Higgins and Trope (1990) report that there is an abundance of research studies that examine students’ motivational orientation by combining extrinsic and intrinsic motivations.

In contrast, AET specifically examines students’ motivational orientation when two intrinsically interesting activities are combined.

The most critical aspect of AET is the multiple activity identification process, which relies on the input properties of activities. People may consider an input in various ways, which causes them to identify the properties of an activity input in an orderly manner, as primary and secondary identifications. Such identifications depend on (1) the relevance and significance of the input’s properties, (2) people’s prior knowledge and experiences, and (3) contextual factors such as immediate goals, temporary arousal, situational cues and instruction. In the end, people label an activity (activity identification) in multiple ways and place the labels in order. Higgins and Trope define primary identifications as “first in order of time and development, as well as first in importance” (1990, p. 239). People spend more time with, and give more importance to, 30 primary identifications than secondary identifications, although there is continual competition between them for people’s attention.

Overall, AET attempts to explicate how children’ motivational responses change when two intrinsically interesting activities are combined. Similarly, this study considers combining enjoyable tablet computer-mediated activities with instructional materials as combining two intrinsic motivations. One of the essential questions that AET focuses on is, “What are the motivational consequences of combining intrinsic motivations” (Higgins et al., 1999, p. 286).

Does combining liked activities necessarily enhance interest in the activities? One might think that delivering instructional materials with enjoyable activities will increase students’ interest in learning. However, Higgins et al. (1999) argue that combining intrinsically interesting activities does not necessarily increase students’ interest in learning. In this case study, students’ interest in learning activities will be observed when instructional materials (intrinsic motivation) are combined with various tablet computer-mediated, liked activities (intrinsic motivation). These liked activities include interactive books, digital ink and paper, and Internet activities such as socializing or communicating with friends through online platforms, electronic games and online shopping. According to AET, students will choose to engage in one of these alternatives. This study’s main interest lies in whether combining such liked activities with instructional materials in English, Mathematics, and History classes will increase student engagement or distraction in learning during instructional sessions. In other words, “What are the motivational consequences of combining tablet computer-mediated, liked activities (intrinsic) with instructional materials

(intrinsic)? Overall, this paper utilizes AET as a framework for analyzing student engagement orientation. 31

Definition of Terms

• Portable computers: Portable electronic devices with wireless Internet access, such as laptop

or tablet computers, iPads, iPods, etc.

• Cognitive overload: A situation in which cognitive processing exceeds the learner’s available

capacity.

• Mobile learning: Learning with 1:1 mobile computing devices.

• 1:1 Table computer-based (TCB) teaching: Each student holds a tablet computer as the main

learning tool to access electronic formats of books, notebooks, assignment, dictionaries,

calculators, etc.

• Activity identification: Labeling an activity according to its psychological meaning to the

person.

• Primary identification: Primary labeling of an activity based on its value.

• Secondary identification: Secondary labeling of an activity based on its value.

• Affective response: The emotional response of a person toward the properties of an activity

input.

• Inferential response: A person’s response to the properties of an activity based on the

person’s inferences about the properties of the activity.

• Engagement: Active involvement in learning activities.

• Distraction: Involvement in non-learning activities or an absence of interest in learning.

Chapter 2

Review of Selected Literature

Tablet computer-based teaching has rapidly permeated American education (Fletcher et al., 2012), as well as education throughout the world (Penuel, 2006). The 21st century’s generation demands innovative ways of using computers in their learning (Kinash et al., 2012), which tablet computing is surely becoming a part of (Banister, 2010). The projected number of

K-12 students in America will reach 60 million by 2019 (National Center for Educational

Statistics, 2012). This suggests that millions of tablet computers could be sold to schools as the main learning tool, to replace printed materials such as textbooks, notebooks and worksheets. If educational decision makers plan to spend dwindling educational financial resources on tablet

PCs such as iPads, as past and current data suggest may occur, then it is important that educators understand more about the contribution of these devices to student engagement in learning.

Although school districts allocate a large amount of public sources for 1:1 tablet computer-based

(TCB) teaching integration, many instructors raise serious concerns regarding the efficacy of tablet computer-based instruction in student engagement (Project Tomorrow, 2010).

There appears to be sufficient research examining 1:1 mobile computer integration in classrooms as a supplemental tool; however, there is urgent need for research examining how 1:1

TCB instruction engages students when used as the main teaching tool. In addition, personal, contextual and situational factors are critical to student engagement in the classroom (Arnone et al., 2011). Since such factors vary depending on the students’ age, their parents’ socioeconomic status and the technical features of mobile computers, it is hard to find relevant studies that address current issues with 1:1 TCB education. To that end, Cuban et al. (1998) recommend that policy makers or school administrators become vigilant about a study’s goal, methodology and 33 date, and the location of the research field before applying recommendations. In conclusion, such concerns reflect a serious need for research regarding 1:1 TCB education in various educational settings, which takes into account students’ grade levels, parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds, and the subject areas involved. In response to this need, this study examines how

1:1 TCB classroom instruction helps or hinders student engagement in English, mathematics, and history classes in an American public high school located in a middle-class neighborhood.

This literature review analyzes the findings and arguments of relevant studies in five sections. The first is an analysis of the historical background and current trends in tablet computer-based education. The second section identifies factors driving the rapid increase in 1:1 tablet computer integration in current educational institutions. The third section analyzes literature that argues that 1:1 TCB teaching engages students in learning, whereas the fourth section sheds light on the counter argument that 1:1 TCB teaching distracts students from learning. The last section examines the limitations of computer technology-related studies and how this study will address these limitations.

The Past, Present and Future of Mobile Computer-Based Teaching

Past

The historical progression of technology has gradually influenced educators’ approaches to teaching and learning. Mass print literacy—textbooks, for example—became a pervasive learning tool in classrooms through the end of the 19th century (Johnstone, 2003), while computer technology has reconstructed the understanding of education within the last fifty years

(Sharples et al., 2005). Computers first entered American classrooms in the 1980s in the form of a single computer in every classroom for the teacher’s use; however, the Methodist Ladies’

College in Melbourne (MLCM), Australia, initiated the first 1:1 laptop computer integration in a 34 classroom in 1990 (Johnstone, 2003). The integration began by providing each fifth-grade student with a laptop computer to use for classroom instruction and assignment completion at home. According to Johnstone (2003), students received training regarding the basic use and care of computers for about two weeks. Teachers, who initially implemented the program at the

MLCM, reported that the students used computers to complete individual projects with word processors and database spreadsheets (Johnstone, 2003). Their reports suggest that the laptops served as a supplemental learning tool, like textbooks and notebooks, rather than as the main instructional tool.

American educators discovered 1:1 laptop computer-supported education, named

Anytime Anywhere Learning, five years after MLCM handed laptops out to students. Shortly after that, 1:1 laptop computer-equipped classrooms rapidly became pervasive in American schools. By 2002, hundreds of schools were handing out laptop computers to their students

(Johnstone, 2003). The state of Maine first initiated statewide 1:1 laptop computer integration in their seventh-grade classrooms in fall 2002 (Johnstone, 2003). Moreover, Johnstone (2003) declares that wireless Internet connection clearly distinguishes the use of laptop computers in today’s American schools from that of the MLCM. Furthermore, the laptop computers in the initial implementation were used solely as external supporting tools, meaning that textbooks, notebooks and pencils were still in the classroom as the main teaching and learning tools

(Johnstone, 2003). In sum, American educators initiated 1:1 laptop computer-supported education in 1995, and it rapidly permeated American schools through 2002. Although the 1:1 laptop computers initially served as a supplemental learning tool, 1:1 tablet integration is considered a potential transformational change in existing educational settings (Culen, 2012). 35

Present

The US Department of Education considers computer technology to be a vital tool to transform education and also recognizes it as a primary and decisive factor for US economic growth, prosperity and democracy (National Education Technology Plan-NETP, 2010).

Therefore, US President Barack Obama recommends that all states establish a digital curriculum by 2017 (Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levin, 2012). Federal and local governments encourage educational decision makers to invest in computer technology to improve student learning

(Maninger & Holden, 2009). Such stimuli caused many school districts across America to purchase or plan to purchase thousands of tablets to start 1:1 tablet computer-based education

(Fletcher et al., 2012). Although it is not yet known whether all public schools will join this trend, NMC’s Horizon Report (2012) documents that many K-12 schools are on their way to deploying 1:1 tablet computer-based education. In addition, some colleges require each of their students to purchase a tablet computer before starting at the school (Adams, 2006). Murphy

(2011) further listed 36 US colleges that had already initiated partial or full integration of 1:1 tablet computers by 2011. Murphy continually claims that many other small colleges are currently exploring 1:1 TCB education. In brief, it appears that both secondary and postsecondary educators in America are seriously interested in 1:1 TCB education, although their implementations might be different one from another.

Recent studies reveal that American schools currently utilize 1:1 tablet computers in various ways. For example, Fried (2008) observed students taking notes on tablet computers in a class where a conventional method of instruction (a text-based lecture) was taking place. In another case, college students used their mobile computers to log into Blackboard Mobile Learn, which is an online platform for accessing course content materials and electronic textbooks, 36 searching the Internet for instructional purposes, taking online formative assessments, and accessing personal email and Facebook accounts (Kinash et al., 2012). In contrast, the faculty in a study by Mayberry et al. (2012) utilized mobile computers for various activities, depending on the course content, class size and students’ interests. Some answered students’ anonymous questions, filmed lectures, prepared Powerpoint presentations to post on YouTube, communicated through online platforms, watched solutions to problems from other video sources, and conducted anonymous student surveys. Miles and Huberman (2012) collected data from various college courses that also use mobile computers in different ways. In their study, a music instructor utilized mobile computers for ear training, having students identify “pitches, intervals, melody, chords, rhythms, and other fundamental elements of music” (p. 55), whereas an English as a Second Language instructor used tablet computer applications to produce flashcards and multimedia figures to develop vocabulary skill, and to deliver a self-assessment instrument for confidence building. Lastly, physical education instructors used mobile computers to record students’ exercises for basic movement analysis. Although researchers have noted many other ways of using tablet computers in today’s classrooms, those will not be mentioned here, due to space concerns. In conclusion, the examples above support the argument of Sharples et al. (2007) that current mobile technology can influence educators in reformulating their educational approaches through personal and mobile technology.

Future

Current statistical data suggest that mobile computing devices will eventually penetrate every level of education. For instance, a quantitative survey conducted by Smith, Salaway and

Caruso (2010) showed that mobile computer possession among college students increased from

11.2 percent to 62.7 percent within five years, and another 11.3 percent were planning to 37 purchase one in the next twelve months. Similarly, recent researchers claim that future classrooms will be equipped with 1:1 mobile computers (Hawks & Hategakimana, 2010) that will become more practical in the 21st century (Geist, 2011). Chan et al. (2006) expect rapid advancement in technology-enhanced learning until 2045, then a slowing trend. Many public school districts have already allocated a tremendous amount of financial resources for digital technologies (Banister, 2010). However, Geist (2011) urges educators to develop new pedagogical approaches to fully benefit from this new instructional tool. Naismith, Sharples,

Vavoula and Lonsdale (2004) also consider discovering how to use educational mobile technology effectively to be the challenge of future educators. Teacher surveys raise the same issue—effective use—as the most critical concern in today’s computer-enhanced classrooms

(Project Tomorrow, 2010). Lastly, Naismith et al. (2004) predict that mobile computer technology will eventually move learning from the classroom to becoming ubiquitous in students’ daily lives, both real and virtual. In sum, information and communication technology, which is exemplified by wireless mobile computers, is expected to be the main player in future educational settings (Su, 2010).

Section Summary

Australian educators pioneered 1:1 laptop computer integration in an elementary and middle school in 1990, and this innovation seeped into American education by the middle of the

1990s (Johnstone, 2003). Laptop computers were initially used as supplements to regular teaching and learning practices. They quickly became popular in American education by 2002

(Johnstone, 2003). Since then, with stimulation from federal and local governments, 1:1 mobile computer integration has permeated classrooms across America in hopes of improving student learning (Maninger & Holden, 2009). Today, many American public schools have either already 38 purchased, or plan to purchase, thousands of tablet or laptop computers to begin 1:1 TCB education (Fletcher et al., 2012). The NCM Horizon Report (2012) and NETP (2010) predict that tablet computer-based education will play a central role in future educational settings.

Therefore, Culen (2012) declares the necessity for further research on 1:1 mobile computer integration in real learning situations, and Rosen and Beck-Hill (2012) point out the importance of identifying the efficacy and impact of using mobile computers as a source of digital instruction. In line with their suggestions, this research study will examine 1:1 TCB instruction in actual classroom settings, to help educators understand how 1:1 tablet computers help or hinder student engagement in learning during instruction. In this section, the historical progression, present use and future trends of mobile computer integration in education were discussed. The following section sheds light on the factors that motivate educators and students in regard to 1:1 TCB teaching classrooms.

Driving Factors of 1:1 Tablet Integration

21st Century Demand

Recent studies note the need for digital educational tools for the new generation, as computers have become part of their lives, rather than just technological devices. For instance,

Kinash et al. (2012) and Otta and Tavella (2010) identify computers as a basic need of humankind, like light bulbs, because they are used throughout the day every day. Indeed, statistical data in EDUCAUSE’s (2011) National Study of Undergraduate Students and

Information Technology show a significant increase in students’ possession of mobile computers every year. Correspondingly, Sharples (2002) argues that the digital natives demand more communication and mobile learning. Such demands will surely make mobile computers a part of 39 the 21st century (Banister, 2010). In addition, Otta and Tavella (2010) point out the fact that transformational changes to computer technology influence the new generation’s needs, expectations and attitudes. For example, recent computer technology changed how people access media, because the information is available anywhere, anytime; people no longer need to watch a broadcast TV show, because the streaming media provide access to all shows at any time after the broadcast (Geist, 2011). Meanwhile, Kinash et al. (2012) consider that the new generation demands innovative ways of using computers in their learning. Similarly,

Manuguerra and Petocz (2011) claim that the rapid changes in technology initially changed methods of classroom instruction, then later changed students’ expectations of the classroom.

Such drastic changes influence students’ approach to the learning process (Kinash et al., 2012).

Therefore, educators are faced with the challenge of selecting appropriate e-tools, in order to address students’ needs and effectively engage them in learning (Otta & Tavella, 2010). Miller

(2012), consequently, warns instructors not to ignore such changes in students’ expectations, but to adapt themselves to the new demands by finding ways to effectively use mobile computers in education. In brief, the recent improvements in mobile technology have increased students’ daily use of mobile computers, which has altered their needs, attitudes, expectations and demands in regard to education. Such demands compel educators to effectively employ mobile technologies that address the new generations’ needs and expectations.

Learning Takes Place Anywhere, Anytime

Portability (availability anywhere, anytime) is one of the motivational factors behind 1:1 tablet computer integration in education (Hutchnison et al., 2012). Indeed 75 percent of participating students in the research performed by Swan et al. (2005) identified the portability of mobile computer devices as an important driving factor in their use. Students also identified the 40 portability of mobile computing devices as a critical factor in increasing their engagement with learning (Swan et al., 2005). Students specifically prefer tablet devices rather than laptops because they are small, making them easy to carry and practical to use everywhere (Geist, 2011).

Students lastly pointed out the portability of e-textbooks on tablet computers (Weisberg, 2011).

Correspondingly, Sharples (2002) argues that portability, a key component of mobile computing devices, helps education move away from classroom-based learning (Sharples, 2002). Kinash et al. (2012) note that portable devices expand students’ learning experiences outside of the classroom. In fact, students prefer portable computing devices because they allow students to access learning materials such as a “professor’s lecture through podcast, vodcast, video conferencing, or streaming video on the Web” without sitting in a classroom (Franklin & Peng,

2008, p. 70). Moreover, portability enables the construction of a personal learning environment that promotes personally organizing and managing sources, connecting with friends socially, and establishing global networking for extended learning (Arnone et al., 2011). Portability is considered one of the main reasons for promoting 1:1 mobile computing devices in education

(Sharples et al., 2007).

Differentiation of Instruction

Another significant motivation for 1:1 tablet computer integration is to improve instructional effectiveness by differentiating instructional practices (Maninger & Holden, 2009).

Recent studies report various modes of 1:1 tablet computer use in secondary education to improve the quality of instruction. Geist (2011), for example, lists three mobile computer- mediated activities that teachers use to improve instructional practices: (1) independent exploration, (2) choosing instructional games, and (3) active participation. Miller (2012) introduces “Flash Card,” a tablet computer application using multimedia figures, as an example 41 of how instruction in English as Second Language (ESL) classes can be differentiated. Banister

(2010) lists various iPod applications, including “PreSchool Adventures, At the Zoo, Wheels on the Bus, ABC Letters, and iDoodle” (p. 125), which are used to improve instructional practices.

Banister (2010) lists some web applications that middle and high school teachers use to differentiate instruction in mathematics, social studies, and science classrooms. These include

Flash Math, Math Quiz, Weather and Maps, World Flags, You Note Desktop, Earth 3D,

Molecules, and others. As the above examples illustrate, secondary education teachers use 1:1 tablet computers to differentiate their instructional practices.

Recent studies also note ways of using 1:1 tablet computers that differentiate college from secondary education classrooms. Mayberry et al. (2012) attribute this difference to various factors, such as students’ and instructors’ technology-using skills, class size, course content and expected learning outcomes. In one classroom that Mayberry et al. (2012) observed, students asked anonymous questions of the instructors through a web portal. In another class, the instructor utilized the video recording application in iPods to receive and respond to students’ questions. In addition, Galligan, Loch, McDonald and Taylor (2010) observed that podcast videos of lectures or instructors’ answers created more chances to access instructional materials.

Mayberry et al. (2012) similarly noted that some instructors have their students videotape their responses to questions on an iPod application, to share with friends. Lastly, Galligan et al.

(2010) noted that college instructors use Stylus, a tablet computer handwriting tool, to conduct

1:1 online tutoring. This enabled instructors to use a touch screen, electronically shared with students, as a blackboard to display the solutions to problems. This sort of implementation can turn any place into a classroom environment where students can participate in online lectures through real-time podcasts by asking questions or interacting with the instructor (Galligan et al., 42

2010). In brief, college instructors, as well as secondary education teachers, integrate 1:1 tablet computers in various ways to differentiate the instructional practices.

Communication and Collaboration

Communication and collaboration among students and instructors through mobile computers are considered selling points of 1:1 computer integration in education (Mayberry et al., 2012; Miller, 2012; Sharples, 2002). The technical features of mobile computers, such as photocopying, scanning, podcasting and digital recording, enable students to communicate effectively (Sharples et al., 2005). A study by Mayberry et al. (2012) identified various ways of using mobile computers in communication and collaboration between friends and instructors at colleges. According to their study, mobile computers facilitate collaboration through document sharing, conducting group work in Google Docs, generating online blogs for questions and answers, and communicating through video recording and sharing on YouTube, instant messaging, and e-mailing. Another study reports concept mapping through an iPad application called Popplet, web surfing, and collaborating through social media as essential for productive discussion and critical thinking (Miller, 2012). Students also use digital communication by leaving e-sticky notes in digital books for future readers (Hutchinson et al., 2012). In addition, teachers point out the efficacy of using mobile computers to simultaneously communicate corrections on homework assignments to multiple students (Maninger & Holden, 2009).

Teachers also note that mobile computers improve written communication with parents. Sharples

(2002) identified games, software models, and simulations as some types of communication that are possible with 1:1 mobile computers. Correspondingly, Franklin (2011) found 65 percent of college students collaborating through online digital games. In conclusion, the new generation utilizes mobile computers in various ways for communication and collaboration. 43

Affordability

Students utilize mobile communication and collaboration if they are able to afford tablet computers. Franklin (2011) notes the “affordable price” of new-generation tablet computers as one of the most critical driving factors shaping new mobile computer technology. According to him, the low price of mobile computers makes them almost “disposable” for college students. In addition, Miller (2012) points out that iPads allow students to read digital texts instead of printed texts. Students prefer to use electronic textbooks on tablet computers, due to high cost of printed textbooks compared to e-textbooks (Weisberg, 2011; Miller, 2012). Therefore, Weisberg (2011), after acknowledging the significant increase in the use of e-textbooks at colleges, argues that economic concerns are one of the main reasons for the acceptance of mobile technology among college students. Chan et al. (2006) consequently consider the financial affordability of mobile computers to be an important driving factor in tablet computers’ permeation of education.

Section Summary

Recent studies point out five common motivational factors for the use of 1:1 tablet computer integration in education. First is the new generation’s demand for computer technology use in education, as excessive computer use in their daily lives has changed their needs, expectations and attitudes (Otta & Tavella, 2010; Geist, 2011; Manuguerra & Petocz,

2011). Second is portability (availability anywhere, anytime), which provides students with an opportunity to learn outside of class (Kinash et al., 2012; Geist, 2011; Swan et al., 2005). Third is instructors’ attempt to differentiate instructional practices to improve the delivery of instruction (Maninger & Holden, 2009). Fourth is the mobile computers’ ease of use for digital communication and collaboration between students and instructors (Mayberry et al., 2012; 44

Miller, 2012; Sharples, 2002). Fifth and last is the affordability of new tablet computers (Chan et al., 2006; Franklin, 2011; Weisberg, 2011).

This section discussed the factors driving 1:1 tablet computer integration; the following section will briefly examine one of the most pervasive arguments regarding 1:1 tablet computer integration in education: its effectiveness for engaging students in learning.

Engaging Students in Learning

Arnone et al. (2011) attribute disruptive student behaviors to current traditional educational settings, which fail to address student engagement issues for digitally native students. They consider a new media environment, namely, teaching with mobile computing devices, to be an effective way to nurture student engagement. Similarly, Benloch-Dualde et al.

(2010) found the traditional educational approach, which includes direct instruction, recitation and solving problems on the blackboard, to be an important reason for students’ disinterest in learning. In response to such arguments, recent studies identify four key factors that move to remedy student disengagement from learning: (1) digital collaboration, (2) rapid feedback, (3) multiple learning modalities, and (4) active learning through mobile computers. This section delineates their arguments.

Digital Collaboration

Student collaboration through mobile computers plays an important role in student engagement in learning (Sharples et al., 2007). Teachers also consider 1:1 TCB collaborative work as an important driving factor of student engagement (Maninger & Holden, 2009).

Research studies link tablet computer-mediated collaboration to student engagement from various perspectives. First, the findings of Swan et al. (2005) suggest that the collaborative use 45 of mobile computing devices potentially increases student engagement, especially in the completion of writing assignments. Students spend more time on writing activities for quality work when they cooperatively edit each other’s assignments through mobile computers (Swan et al., 2005). Second, Hurford and Hamilton’s (2008) qualitative and quantitative findings showed a significant increase in student engagement in a mathematics class supported by tablet computer blended collaboration. Third, Chan et al. (2006) claim that students engage in “knowledge building” at an early age and then move on to the “invention and design” process. Their study points out the importance of collaboration through 1:1 computer, which enables students to join the worldwide knowledge-building community. Lastly, Arnone et al. (2011) acknowledge the importance of collaborative work in developing group curiosity, which often triggers individual curiosity, to motivate students in learning. For example, computer-based communication through “group gaming, chat rooms, instant messaging, social networks, virtual worlds and the like” (p. 184) evokes a collaborative curiosity that ignites student engagement (Arnone et al.,

2011). In conclusion, various studies such as these indicate that mobile computer-mediated collaboration, which may also nurture the providing of instant feedback to students, increases student engagement in learning.

Rapid Feedback

Hurford and Hamilton (2008) point out the importance of the rapid feedback cycle through 1:1 tablet computers to sustaining student engagement, while Benloch-Dualde et al.

(2010) note the lack of timely feedback in traditional classrooms, in which paper-based exams are given at the end of the course, as a reason for students’ disconnect with the course content and learning. Barak et al. (2006) correspondingly argue that 1:1 laptop computer-mediated, real- time feedback allows students to produce prompt and appropriate responses, even in a large 46 university hall. Therefore, it is important to utilize various types of 1:1 TCB student assessments to provide students with instant feedback that can trigger their engagement in learning (Benloch-

Dualde et al., 2010). Researchers have identified various connections between student engagement and computer-mediated instant feedback. Benloch-Dualde et al. (2010), for example, experimentally examined an interactive classroom environment with 1:1 tablet computer integration, which strictly relied on an immediate feedback cycle. Their findings indicate improvements in student autonomy and engagement in learning. Arnone et al. (2011) also note the importance of computer-mediated social and media technology that helps students engage each other through document or feedback sharing. In addition, Dressel and Hauhwitz

(2008), after identifying motivation and self-regulation as fundamental aspects of student learning, argue that students in western countries demonstrate serious problems with the self- regulation of learning. This means that they fail to attribute appropriate cause to their failure.

The authors repeatedly claim that computer-generated attributional feedback helps students improve self-regulation, which promotes student engagement in learning. In sum, tablet computers can be considered an essential tool for teachers at all level to engage students in learning by providing purposeful feedback and maximizing flexible learning opportunities

(Gallian et al., 2010).

Multiple Learning Modalities

The relevant literature strongly argues that 1:1 TCB instruction supports multiple learning modalities, which increases student engagement in learning. For example, Benloch-

Dualde et al. (2010) claim that tablet computer-oriented multimedia resources support multiple learning styles, such as “visual, auditory, and kinesthetic” styles, and Traxler (2007) argues that mobile learning technologies support personalized learning by addressing the needs of different 47 learning styles. Barak (2007) further notes that delivering content knowledge in multiple learning modalities, such as information processing, problem solving and visualization, can be achieved by integrating computer technology in teaching. In agreement with such arguments,

Looi, Wong, So, Seow, Toh, Chen and Soloway (2009) assert that mobile computing supports student engagement in learning by providing multiple learning pathways. According to their study, even low-performing students fully engage with an activity when it is supported by mobile computer animations, which address the needs of visual and auditory learners. Similarly, Looi et al. (2009) delineate mobile computing learning as supporting multi-modality and allowing students to work on their own pace, which increased the engagement of third-grade students in a science class. Moreover, Benloch-Dualde et al. (2010) examined a proposed interactive learning approach that addresses multiple learning styles through 1:1 tablet computer-based instruction.

Their findings suggest that 1:1 tablet computers successfully support student engagement by meeting the needs of students with visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles. Lastly, teachers in Maninger and Holden’s (2009) study stated that laptop-integrated classrooms improve student learning because laptop computers provide students with the option of multiple learning activities. This allows students to choose the best activity according to their learning style, thereby increasing students’ active participation in the learning process.

Active Learning

Individual computer-based active learning, which allows students to put content into practice (Powner & Allendoerfer, 2008), instead of passive listening, has a serious positive influence on student engagement in learning (Barak et al., 2006). Passive learning activities such as listening to a lecture or reading assignments causes students to disengage from learning, whereas active learning practices through computer-mediated learning activities mentally engage 48 students in the learning process (Powner & Allendoerfer, 2008). For example, students in a 1:1 laptop computer-mediated lecture hall were given programming-related questions to solve after a short lecture (Barak et al., 2006). In such ways, laptops allow students to immediately implement new concepts. Mayberry et al. (2012) also claim that 1:1 TCB learning clearly promotes active learning. According to Mayberry et al. (2012), mobile computers promote student learning because they address Stice’s (1987) concerns, which see the best learning taking place when students are actively involved in information processing. “Students retain 10% of what they read, 26% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they see and hear,

70% of what they say, and 90% of what they say as they do something” (as cited in Mayberry et al., 2012, p. 215). In this study (Mayberry et al., 2012), students actively participated in the learning process by forming study groups to record discussions about solutions to a calculus problem with their tablet computers, and then posted them on YouTube. Similarly, Arnone et al.

(2011) considered simulating a volcanic eruption through computer-animation software as an example of active learning. Furthermore, in a study by Rosen and Beck-Hill (2012), students in experimental groups, who actively participated in lessons in a technology-enhanced classroom environment, demonstrated a significant increase in Texas state exam scores compared to the control group. Rosen and Beck-Hill (2012) attributed the students’ academic improvement on standardized test scores to computer technology-mediated active learning. Lastly, Hawks and

Hategakimana (2010) consider mobile computers to be an educational tool that promotes active participation in learning, whereas Mayberry et al. (2012) argue that active learning strategies with mobile computing devices can strongly support traditional teaching methods. In conclusion, wireless laptop computer-mediated environments successfully engage students in an active learning process (Barak et al., 2006). 49

Section Summary

Researchers recommend 1:1 TCB teaching to prevent students’ disengagement from learning (Arnone et al., 2011; Benloch-Dualde et al., 2010). In light of such a strong claim, the relevant literature mainly revolves around four common aspects of tablet computer-mediated teaching that promote student engagement with learning. These include student-student or student-instructor digital collaboration, a rapid feedback cycle during real learning time, an ability to support multiple learning modalities, and helping students become actively involved in the learning process. This section briefly delineated researchers’ arguments about the ways 1:1 tablet computer integration increases student engagement in learning in various teaching contexts. The following section will examine the counter argument that 1:1 tablet computer integration distracts students from learning.

Distracting Students from Learning

As opposed to the argument that 1:1 tablet computer integration in education improves student engagement, some researchers claim that 1:1 tablet computers distract students, due to the multiple affordances of mobile computers and continuous Internet connection during lecturing. This section examines these arguments.

The Multiple Affordances of Mobile Computers Distract Students

Examining the findings of Otta and Tavella (2010) and Wickens and Hollands (2000) together reveal that computer use during instruction potentially overloads students’ cognitive capacity, resulting in student disengagement. Otta and Tavella (2010) examined how educational computer games impacted students’ cognitive loading and student engagement.

Their quantitative findings disclose that educational computer games fail to draw average and 50 below-average students’ attention to the content of learning. Consequently, they argue that cognitive capacity, which refers to the ability to perform a task, is the main factor in student engagement in learning, regardless of the attractiveness of a learning tool such as a computer game. Correspondingly, Wickens and Hollands (2000) attribute humans’ attentional distractions to inappropriate aspects of an environment, such as a busy office, intrusive displays (large, brightly colored images or blinking icons) or multi-element displays. Considering these two arguments together suggests that bright colors and multiple elements on computer screens increase attentional demand, causing cognitive overload, which means that cognitively overloaded students might fail to pay attention to learning. Otta and Tavella (2010) subsequently recommend that teachers seek ways to eliminate factors that increase students’ cognitive load during class sessions. Similarly, Baloian et al. (2008) recommend that instructors utilize a reasonable number of computer-mediated activities in a class period to prevent students from cognitively overloading. Overall, displays using the multiple affordances of mobile computers easily distract students (Hutchinson et al., 2012) as a result of cognitive overload (Wickens &

Hollands, 2000).

A report by ISTE (2011) notes that computers and digital devices in the classroom challenge students to focus on learning. Nworie and Hauhton (2008) similarly draw educators’ attention to potential disruptions in a technologically improved classroom due to the affordances of wireless mobile computers. Such disruptions are incomparable to traditional classroom disruptions, such as “chewing gum, eating, and taking naps” (Nworie & Hauhton, 2008).

Hutchinson et al. (2012) also point out the negative implications of the affordances of mobile computers. The iPad’s sensitive touch screen functions may unintentionally distract students.

For example, the highlighter function of electronic books may draw students’ attention more than 51 the content of the book. In addition, Kerawalla et al. (2002) point out the fact that laptop computers extend various learning opportunities, along with a wide range of quite appealing non- learning activities, which may draw students’ attention away from learning. In an experimental study, for instance, high-achieving college students who frequently use technology outside of the college were given funds to upload educational applications on their iPads, but most students either chose not to use the allocated funds or to download games (Kinash et al., 2011). Likewise, participating faculty in a study by Franklin (2011) developed a negative perspective on using mobile technology in the classroom because students used it to listen to music instead of applying it to academics. Consequently, due to the entertaining features of tablet computers, students frequently become distracted during instruction (Skiba, 2011).

Internet Connection Causes Distractions

Another affordance of tablet computers with wireless Internet access is the capability to connect to the outside world during a class. Some research studies found such a capability to be a serious distraction factor (Adams, 2006; Kinash et al., 2011; Nworie & Hauhton, 2008). For example, Dennis Adams, an instructor at the University of Houston, argues that students seek entertainment during lectures. If an instructor fails to embed entertainment into the lecture, the students alternatively use the Internet connection for self-entertainment (Adams, 2006). Adams, an experienced college instructor, finds himself unable to compete against Internet-connected tablet computers (2006). Likewise, Kinash et al. (2011) found through a student focus group interview that online shopping and social networking through tablet computers during instruction has become increasingly popular. Nworie and Hauhton (2008) identified (1) social networking,

(2) paying bills, (3) online shopping, (4) downloading documents, and (5) surfing the web as 52 unexpected applications of tablet computers that seriously threatened student engagement in learning.

Social networking through tablet computers receives special attention in various research studies. Sharples et al. (2007), for instance, found the tablet computer’s capability for online communication during lecturing to be a serious challenge to the formal learning environment. A survey by Fried (2008), which included over a hundred college students, disclosed that 81 percent of students checked their e-mail, and 68 percent of them sent instant messages during lectures. Sharples (2002) further considered communicating outside of class through tablet computers to be a serious barrier to integrating mobile technology in education, because students were connected to the outside, non-educative world. Instructors in a study by Geist (2011) resisted 1:1 tablet computer integration in the classroom, because students waste their time browsing the Internet and checking social media while the instructor conducts lessons.

Quantitative analysis of a questionnaire distributed by Kinash et al. (2012) also demonstrated that the highest frequency of iPad use is for web surfing for pleasure and for reading Facebook as a contemporary communication tool. As a result, Sharples (2002) states that 1:1 mobile computers with a wireless Internet connection may cause chaos in a learning environment because they allow students to freely communicate with the outside, non-educative world.

Distraction Prevents Learning

Fried’s (2008) quantitative data analysis revealed that 1:1 laptop computer use negatively impacted student engagement and student learning. The analysis also revealed that students who used laptops during instruction had a hard time understanding lectures, compared to those who preferred not to use laptops. Ironically, Hurford and Hamilton’s (2008) experimental study found a significant increase in student engagement in the experimental group; however, no 53 significant difference was observed in student learning between the experimental and control groups. They attributed this conflict (good engagement but no academic improvement) to the novelty effect of computer use during the data collection process. However, Nworie and

Haughton (2008) assert that students who appear to be engaged with 1:1 tablet computers in learning are actually busy with non-educational computer-mediated activities. Even the teachers may not be able to determine what each student is doing on the tablet computer during classroom instruction (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Kinash et al. (2011) conclude that students enjoy using tablet computers, although no significant evidence supports an effect of improved student learning with 1:1 tablet computers.

Students also consider mobile computers to be ineffective for their academic improvement (Barak et al., 2006; Kinash et al., 2011; Weisberg, 2011). For example, in a longitudinal study conducted over two years, a survey of 432 college student participants in 14 subjects disclosed that a majority of the students believe that tablet computers fail to help improve their learning (Kinash et al., 2011). They attribute such failure to game playing, online shopping and social networking on tablet computers during instruction. In addition, students find e-textbooks more distracting compared to printed textbooks (Weisberg, 2011). Weisberg

(2011) declares that using e-textbooks contributes nothing additional to student learning.

Similarly, a significant percentage of the students participating in a study conducted by Barak et al. (2006) at MIT believed that laptop computers are ineffective for learning. Consequently,

Duke University ended its pilot iPad program due to the negative outcome, finding them ineffective in the classroom for teaching and learning (Mayberry et al., 2012). 54

Section Summary

A significant number of studies consider 1:1 tablet computers to be a serious distraction in the classroom (ISTE, 2011; Nworie & Hauhton, 2008; Ottal & Tavella, 2010; Skiba, 2011), which results in poor academic improvement (Fried, 2008; Kinash et al., 2011; Weisberg, 2011).

These studies attribute the distraction to two main factors. One is the multiple affordances of mobile computers, such as digital writing and coloring utensils and touch screen functions that cause cognitive overload (Ottal & Tavella, 2010) and distractions (Hutchinson et al., 2012). The second is Internet connection, which allows students to complete personal tasks such as online shopping, paying bills (Adams, 2006; Kinash et al., 2011; Nworie & Hauhton, 2008) and communicating with friends through instant messages and e-mails (Fried, 2008; Kinash et al.,

2012; Sharples et al., 2007). Consequently, 1:1 tablet computer-oriented education does not have a significant impact on student learning (Kinash et al., 2011; Nworie & Haughton, 2008).

This review has examined the main topics relevant to 1:1 tablet computer integration in education, such as the historical background of computer permeation in education, the factors driving 1:1 tablet computer integration, and the ways 1:1 tablet computers promote student engagement or distraction. The following section will examine problematic issues that the previous studies encountered in conducting educational research.

Educational Technology as a Research Topic

Complexity of the Topic

Larry Cuban, a well-known educational computer technology researcher, identifies three main research issues that make educational computer research complex (1998). First is the abundance of focuses when measuring the effectiveness of computer use in classrooms. These 55 include academic achievement, learning pace and student motivation. Second are variations in the sample, such as students’ grade level, socioeconomic status and aptitude. Last are variations in teachers’ roles in a computer-mediated teaching environment. He describes three of these as

“computer assisted instruction (CAI), computer managed instruction (CMI), and computer enhances instruction (CEI)” (1998, p. 27). Considering all of these factors, one can imagine the complexity of an educational research study. In addition, a study by Dunleavy and Heinecke

(2007) demonstrates that 1:1 mobile computer implementation produces different results for various subject areas, such as literacy, mathematics and science. In sum, the abundance of variations in focus, sampling, program implementation, and subject areas generates serious complexities for a study addressing an educational question or concern. Therefore, Dunleavy and Heinecke (2007) recommend multiple studies in different subject areas regarding problems in education. Correspondingly, Cuban et al. (1998) recommend that policy makers or school administrators become vigilant regarding a study’s goal, methodology, date, and the location of the research field before employing its recommendations.

Cuban’s (1998) findings suggest that an educational researcher should consider various factors in an educational setting, meaning the grade level, the socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds of students, the subject area, and the 1:1 tablet computer implementation strategy.

Furthermore, Arnone et al. (2011) identify personal and contextual or situational factors as playing a critical role in satisfying students’ curiosity, which generates student engagement.

Failure to satisfy their curiosity may cause students to give up and experience anxiety (Arnone et al., 2011). For example, the limited sources of technology in their daily lives (a situational factor) and a lack of parental support on the part of urban students (a personal factor) may result in poor technology skills. This may produce anxiety instead of promoting students’ curiosity 56 when classroom instruction relies on tablet computers. Overall, variations in focus, sampling, the contextual factors of classrooms, and subject areas may cause 1:1 tablet computer integration to produce different results in different schools. Therefore, there is a serious need for research regarding student engagement in 1:1 tablet computer-based classrooms, in order to guide educational policy makers who serve in various contexts across the state.

Manipulated Classroom Settings

Experimental educational studies require the manipulation of real educational settings to design unique conditions for experimental groups. These settings are too ideal to be established in many public schools. Therefore, educators may have a hard time employing the suggestions of researchers who prefer experimental methods for examining 1:1 tablet computer integrated education. For example, the experimental setting used by Hurford and Hamilton (2008) provided the teacher with a great deal of control over student computers by enabling the teacher to monitor their screens and shut down the computers when necessary. Such power over student computers in a 1:1 computer-mediated classroom is critical for successful integration (Hurford &

Hamilton, 2008). However, the iPad, which is now a pervasively used new-generation tablet, does not allow teachers to remotely monitor student computers. In another example, Hutchinson et al. (2012) investigated how mobile computers improved literacy learning for elementary students in a classroom whose teacher was technology savvy and extremely motivated to utilize a digital literacy program. Many public schools, however, may have difficulty motivating their experienced teachers (with over 20 years of teaching) to use a digital literacy program.

Similarly, several educational researchers, such as Benlloch-Dualde et al. (2010), Gasparini and

Culen (2013), Hurford and Hamilton (2008), Hutchinson et al. (2012), and Looi et al. (2010), manipulated experimental settings like those in the examples above to test specific pilot program 57 implementations. Educators may find limited applicability for suggestions from studies that construct ideal educational settings. Therefore, it is important to examine a 1:1 TCB teaching in natural classroom settings.

Sample Selection: Variations of Age and Socioeconomic Status

Student age, cultural background, and parents’ socioeconomic status constitute another set of variations that educational researchers must consider when conducting a study. Although such variations in sampling provide educational researchers with the chance to study a topic in various school settings, they cause difficulties when attempts are made to generalize the findings.

For example, some studies have been conducted in elementary schools (Hutchinson et al., 2012;

Rosen & Back-Hill, 2012), middle schools (Maninger & Holden, 2009; Swan et al., 2005) and high schools (Gasparini & Culen, 2013), while others have used college students and adult learners (Kinash et al., 2012; Mayberry et al., 2012; Barak et al., 2006). Due to age differences, students exhibit a range of perceptions toward mobile computer integration. Therefore, it is hard to generalize one's findings from on grade level to another. In another case, it is difficult to corroborate the findings of Looi et al. (2010), whose pilot study was conducted in a specially designed, culturally uniform third-grade classroom in Singapore in a culturally diverse American elementary school. Similarly, the parents of students participating in a study conducted by Swan et al. (2005) were from upper middle-class families whose children were introduced to technology at quite an early age compared to the students from working class families. Again, it may become difficult to generalize their findings to a large urban high school in America.

Considering the issues of variance in sampling, this study selected participant students from various subject areas, of different genders, and with different levels of academic achievement in a public high school serving mainly middle-class American families. 58

The Novelty Effect

Many researchers are concerned with the validity of data collection because 1:1 TCB education is relatively new (novel) to schools (Moore, Utschig, Haas, Klein, Yoder, Zhang, &

Hayes, 2008; Kinash et al., 2012; Mayberry et al., 2012). Moore et al. (2008), for instance, acknowledge the issue of novelty (something new to students), which raises data validity concerns, whereas Swan et al. (2005) accept the novelty effect in their findings. Mayberry et al.

(2012) also state that novelty influenced students’ motivation to record video presentations during their observation of the pilot program. Similarly, Kinash et al. (2012) observed motivational attenuation in a pilot program as the novelty effect decreased through the end of the academic year. Mayberry et al. (2012) consequently suggest that future researchers take the novelty effect of a 1:1 TCB teaching into serious consideration. It is worth noting that many other researchers prefer to ignore the novelty effect in their research studies. Lastly, Kinash et al. (2012) declare that the novelty effect may disappear when mobile computers become ordinary for students. Therefore, this study intentionally selected tenth- and eleventh-grade students who would have already experienced 1:1 TCB education for at least a year. This, hopefully, minimizes the novelty effect on the data collection process.

Section Summary

Previous research studies mention various concerns about the validity of data, as well as the natural complexity of computer-related educational studies. Cuban (1998) lists abundant variations in (1) types of focus, (2) sampling according to the subject area, student age and the socioeconomic status of the parents, and (3) teachers’ roles during instruction, as factors that makes educational computer research so complex. In addition, manipulating classroom settings and selecting samples from certain age and socioeconomic groups cause findings to be context- 59 specific rather than generalizable to the general population. Lastly, the novelty effect on data collection is a concern because 1:1 tablet computer use in classrooms is relatively new to many students and teachers. As mentioned earlier, this study addressed such concerns before beginning the data collection process.

This is the last section of the literature review. The following section will summarize the key points of the literature review.

Chapter Summary

Mobile computer-integrated classroom instruction has been in practice since 1990

(Johnstone, 2003); however, recent technological improvements, such as wireless Internet and touch screen technology, have significantly changed the implementation strategy for 1:1 mobile computer integration. Initially, laptop computers were used as tools to supplement and support mainstream instructional practices. For example, students were asked to complete their projects in various formats and with sound effects in word processing software (Johnstone, 2003).

Conversely, wireless Internet access and the touch screen technology of recent tablet computers allow teachers to use them as a primary instructional tool, serving as electronic textbooks, notepads and devices for accessing online resources. For such reasons, 1:1 TCB instruction is currently considered vital for better learning (NETP, 2010). Consequently, Murphy (2011) lists

36 US colleges that have already initiated partial or full integration of 1:1 tablet computers, whereas NMC (2012) reports that thousands of American K-12 schools are planning to integrate such technology in their classrooms, for various reasons.

Previous researchers have identified various factors driving 1:1 tablet computer integration in education. Some point to millennia’s high demands for technology use (Arnone et 60 al., 2011; Geist, 2011; Franklin, 2011; Kinash et al., 2012; Miller, 2012; Manuguerra & Petocz,

2011; Otta & Tavella, 2010; Sharples, 2002), whereas others point to portability, in terms of availability anywhere, anytime (Hutchinson et al., 2012; Kinash et al., 2012; Sharples, 2002;

Swan et al., 2005), as a strong factor driving tablet computer-based education. Another group of researchers attribute the permeation of mobile computers in education to the need for differentiated instruction (Banister, 2010; Galligan et al., 2010; Geist, 2011; Mayberry et al.,

2012), the need for effective communication and collaboration among teachers, students and parents (Mayberry et al. 2012; Miller, 2012; Sharples, 2002), and the desire to improve student engagement (Arnone et al., 2011; Benloch-Dualde et al., 2010). Lastly, a few studies consider the affordability of recently produced tablet computers as a factor driving tablet computer integration in education (Chan et al., 2006; Franklin, 2011; Weisberg, 2011). It appears that a combination of several factors motivates educators to utilize tablet technology in the classroom, although the findings show varying outcomes.

Many research studies have found 1:1 tablet computer use in education to be effective at engaging students. For instance, Swan et al. (2005) found that using mobile computers in the classroom significantly increased student engagement in learning. Gallian et al. (2010) more strongly argue that mobile computers are essential tools for teachers of all levels for engaging students in learning, because they enable teachers to provide purposeful feedback and maximize diversity in content delivery. In addition, researchers found 1:1 mobile computer-oriented education to be effective, because it can mediate an instant feedback cycle between instructors and learners (Sharples et al., 2007), and promote collaboration (Adams, 2006) and active learning to increase student involvement in the learning process (Mayberry et al., 2010; Barak et al., 2006). Lastly, Hutchinson et al. (2012) claim that an iPad-based digital literacy reading 61 program increased fourth-grade students’ engagement in literacy. As seen above, many researchers point to various benefits of using mobile computers to engage students in learning; however, not all researchers agree.

The findings of many other studies report that mobile computers are a serious distraction from student learning. A majority of the participant educators (76 percent) in a Project

Tomorrow (2010) survey across America identified student distraction as the most critical concern about using tablet computers in the classroom. Similarly, a qualitative study by Fried

(2008) reported that 1:1 laptop computer use in college halls is the most common distraction.

Recent studies disclose two major 1:1 computer-related distraction factors. The first is distraction due to the multiple affordances of mobile computers (Otta & Tavella, 2010; Wickens

& Hollands, 2000; Nworie & Hauhton, 2008; Kerawalla et al., 2002; Hutchinson et al., 2012 ).

The second is distraction due to Internet connectivity (Adams, 2006; Nworie & Hauhton, 2008;

Kinash et al., 2011; Sharples et al., 2007; Sharples, 2002; Geist, 2011; Kinash et al., 2012).

Miller (2012) refers to students’ concerns about iPad use: “time wasted … wanting to play with apps … [people] can get lost in the iPad” (p. 58). Sharples (2002) concludes that mobile computers may generate a conflict zone between teachers and students because of the battle to manage the devices and non-educational opportunities. Therefore, he recommends that future technology designers separate educational and entertainment software, so that students would be able to access entertaining activities solely from outside the classroom.

As listed above, serious conflicts appear among findings regarding the efficacy of 1:1 tablet computer integration in student engagement. For instance, according to Fried’s quantitative study (2008), 1:1 laptop use in the classroom distracts college students more than other factors. In contrast, in elementary and middle school classrooms, teachers observed a 62 significant increase in student engagement in learning upon using laptop computers (Swan et al.,

2005). This literature review also reveals that while 1:1 tablet computer integration at the college level receives special attention in educational studies, there is a serious need for research examining how 1:1 TCB instruction engages or distracts high school students from learning.

This study aims to address this need at the high school level in a socioeconomically middle-class neighborhood. The study will carefully address the limitations mentioned by previous studies, such as manipulated classroom environments, which prevent students from acting naturally, and the novelty effect of new tablet computers. The following chapter provides details concerning methodology and considers how to address previous researchers’ concerns regarding the trustworthiness and transferability of data collection.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Public schools are increasingly interested in employing 1:1 tablet computer-based (TCB) teaching. Many researchers consider the expectation of an improvement in student engagement as one of the critical driving factors of 1:1 tablet computer integration in education (Arnone et al., 2011; Barak et al., 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012). The purpose of this study is to understand how teaching 1:1 TCB teaching hinders or engages students in learning at a school in

NY.

This study will help school administrators, educational policy makers and teachers understand the following essential overarching question before beginning to integrate 1:1 tablet computers in their classrooms: How does 1:1 tablet computer-based teaching help or hinder students’ procedural engagement in high school classrooms? The following sub-questions will more specifically assist in understanding the overarching question:

1. How do high school teachers use 1:1 tablet computers in their classrooms and

teaching practices?

2. How do high school students use 1:1 tablet computers during a course session?

3. What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the use of 1:1 tablet computers in

regard to student engagement in learning?

The interpretivist paradigm was utilized to understand individuals’ experiences using tablet computers for teaching and learning. Burrell and Morgan (1979) claim that philosophers and sociologists utilize the interpretive paradigm in search of “fundamental meanings” (p. 31).

The interpretive paradigm within the realm of the participants’ viewpoint is appropriate for determining responses to the research questions. The researcher played a proactive, observant 64 role while collecting data, and an interpretive role during data analysis. This chapter explains in detail the design of the study, including the selected research method with its rationale, research tradition, research procedures (including participants, recruitment and access), data collection and data storage, and trustworthiness.

Research Design

A qualitative case study was employed to examine how using 1:1 tablet computers in instructional practices engages or distracts students from learning. A qualitative study allows researchers to conduct the study in pre-existing settings to make sense of a phenomenon by utilizing people’s perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003), along with direct observations of the phenomenon. Correspondingly, Kinash et al. (2011) note the importance of conducting educational studies within students’ natural learning environments, without altering the experimental conditions to bridge the theory and practice. More important, Merriam (2002) notes that the product of a qualitative study is descriptive and enables particulars to be seen in full. The details of what is happening in the classroom and how made up a crucial aspect of the final result. A qualitative research design has been chosen because the topic requires an investigative approach to fully understand students’ and teachers’ experiences with tablet computers during teaching and learning in a classroom. It would not be possible to arrive at insightful details through a quantitative study. In sum, a qualitative study was chosen due to the need for a holistic approach to investigate real classroom environments, without manipulating the settings to determine how 1:1 TCB teaching engages students in learning.

Research Tradition

This study employed a qualitative case study design to investigate how the 1:1 TCB teaching engages students in learning in a class session. It should be clear that the research 65 questions listed above address the programs of contemporary educational systems. As Yin

(2009) argues, a case study is the most appropriate method for investigating contemporary events when participants’ behaviors cannot be manipulated the way they would have to be when using experimental methods. Manipulating educational settings compels participants (students and teachers) to exhibit unrealistic behaviors, which may mislead the researchers. Therefore, a case study, which investigates a phenomenon in the subjects’ natural habitat, is the most suitable and convenient method for this kind of research topic. Moreover, Yin (2009) claims that a case study is the ideal research method for responding to “how” or “why” questions. The research questions of this study—how—also suggest utilizing a case study as the research method.

Overall, the nature of the designated topic and its research questions, which require an investigation without manipulating the context, strongly recommend use of the case study method.

A case study also benefits researchers exploring or investigating “holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin, 2009, p. 4). Yin continually argues that the case study is the best method for addressing questions that require extensive and in-depth investigation.

Correspondingly, after comparing the case study to experimental, survey and historical research methodologies, Merriam (2009) claims that the case study does not limit researchers to any particular data collection method. This study’s research questions require an extensive investigation, as the classroom context consists of multiple factors that may significantly influence the study results. A case study, which allows for the use of multiple data sources and data collection tools, is the most appropriate strategy for conducting such extensive research.

Furthermore, the implementation of educational computer technology in classrooms devoted to different subject areas might vary. In order to investigate the problem in multiple contexts, this 66 case study included three sub-cases involving English, history, and mathematics classrooms.

This sort of case study has been described as a multiple-case study with a holistic and embedded approach, as depicted in Figure 1 (Yin, 2009). Although the same data collection processes and tools (with minor differentiations) were utilized to collect data for each sub-case, the collected data were analyzed separately. For instance, the coding of the English teacher’s interview transcripts was evaluated separately from the mathematics teacher’s interview transcripts. The results were also presented separately in the results section. In sum, the case study method has been selected due to the fact that the topic requires an extensive investigation, and this format enabled investigators to utilize multiple tools to collect extensive data from various sources.

Figure 3.1: Case study method concept map (Yin, 2009, p. 57).

Research Procedures

Participants

The participants in this study were twelve purposefully selected students in grades ten and eleven, as well as three teachers (of English, history, and mathematics) who have been actively using 1:1 tablet computers for teaching and learning at the Achieve Academy High

School in NY. Students in grades ten and eleven were selected for two reasons. The school starts integrating tablet computers into instruction in the ninth grade. Therefore, students in grades ten and eleven should have enough experience using iPads in a learning capacity to share with the researcher. In addition, using such a new or exciting device for more than a year eliminated the novelty effect in students’ responses to the interview questions.

This study focused specifically on English, history, and mathematics classrooms to keep data collection and analysis steps to a manageable size. Miles and Huberman (1994) recommend that qualitative researchers keep sample sizes small, unlike quantitative researchers, and study issues in-depth. They also highly recommend utilizing purposeful rather than random sampling, because “social processes have logic and coherence that random sampling can reduce to uninterpretable sawdust” (p. 27). A randomly selected, small sample size raises reliability concerns. Therefore, purposeful selections of a small sample were used to arrive at an in-depth data analysis. In sum, maximal variation sampling appears to be the most suitable type of purposeful sampling strategy for this research, in order to capture a wide range of perspectives regarding 1:1 TCB teaching and learning.

All tenth- and eleventh-grade students in the school, around 120 in total, and their

English, History, and Mathematics teacher are the two different participant groups of the study.

Purposeful random selection was employed to choose the student participants, based on their 68 academic performance and their teachers’ feedback. First, the students were grouped according to their academic success, rated as low, moderate or high. One male and one female student from each group, as displayed in Table 1, were randomly invited to participate in the study.

Collecting data from students of different genders and of different academic levels enabled the researcher to gain greater insight into the phenomenon. An experienced and successful teacher from each subject area was invited into the study, based on an administrator’s recommendation.

The purpose for selecting successful or experienced teachers is to minimize variations that might impact the success of 1:1 TCB teaching. In sum, twelve purposefully selected students and their

English, history, and mathematics teachers, a total of fifteen participants, participated in the study.

Table 3.1 Student sample selection Gender Academically Academically Academically Total Low Moderate High Male 2 2 2 6

Female 2 2 2 6

Recruitment and Access

A short letter (Appendix A) describing both the purpose of the study and the research process was delivered to the school principal and assistant principal. The researcher sought written permission from the principal to access the participants and school facilities. Then a meeting was scheduled with the school principal and/or assistant principals to introduce the research study in person and to ask for permission to access the research site.

Second, the researcher met with the prospected teachers to explain the details of the 69 study. This provided them with an opportunity to ask questions of the researcher about the study. They were also provided with a short descriptive letter of consent (Appendix C) to be signed. The consent letter briefly summarizes the purpose of the study, ethical considerations, the protection of human rights, confidentiality issues, the contribution the participants are making, and the timeline. The consent letters were collected in the following day. This was to give the teachers time to decide about participating. The researcher also allowed time for further questions while collecting the consent letters.

The research study was briefly introduced to the students with the descriptive student consent letter (Appendix B) during their homeroom period. The researcher was available in the student cafeteria during lunch to collect the consent letters and to address students’ possible questions or concerns. In order to increase student participation, small amount of promotional gift cards were provided to the students who were willing to participate. Upon receiving the student consent letter, the parent-student consent letters (Appendix D) were provided to the participants, to be signed by both the students and their parents. Parents were given a week to return the consent letters, which were collected during the students’ lunch period.

Data Collection

Yin (2009) considers the availability of various data sources and collection tools to be one of the most compelling strengths of case study methodology. This study employed semi- structured focused interviews with the students and the teachers, and field (classroom) observations. This section discusses the details of the data collection process, as well as the rationale for using such data collection strategies.

Semi-structured, focused interviews. Interviews are one of the most essential data sources in case studies (Yin, 2009). According to Yin, a well-designed interview provides 70 insightful information about events or phenomena, as well as important clues to identifying more relevant sources. Semi-structured, focused interviews, lasting roughly forty minutes, were conducted with teachers. Student interviews were shorter, depending on their experiences with tablet computers. The interviews were scheduled for participants’ lunch and/or free periods or after school, and they were conducted in the school’s cafeteria. The school counselor was also seated in a far corner of the cafeteria. Notability (an iPad app) was utilized to record the interviews. Yin’s (2009) two crucial recommendations for following a designated line inquiry and asking questions in an unbiased manner were employed during these interviews. Overall, the interviews with the two groups provided the researcher with insightful knowledge about how tablet computers are used in the various classroom settings and how they engage students in learning during class sessions.

Field Observation. Merriam (2009) finds classroom observation to be critical for the data collection process because the “phenomenon of interest naturally occurs” (p.117) and it provides a firsthand account of the situation. Classroom observations, in this case, provided the researcher with opportunities to observe students and teachers' approaches toward 1:1 TCB teaching in a natural context. In addition, Merriam (2009) points out the importance of field observations for obtaining reference points to improve the interviews. The classroom observations, along with short conversations with students and teachers, helped the researcher build a strong foundation for the interviews by illuminating the context beforehand and helping the researcher to develop a positive relationship with the participants. This enabled the researcher to ask meaningful follow-up questions. Moreover, as recommended by Merriam

(2009), physical settings were observed, including:

• the participants’ overall behaviors,

• the students’ willingness to participate in the class,

• types of learning activities,

• interactions between students and teachers,

• methods of implementing 1:1 tablet computers during the instructional time, and

• students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward tablet computers in education.

Highly descriptive field notes, verbal descriptions, direct quotations and observers' comments (Merriam, 2009) provided data useful for unveiling the way tablet computers are used during classroom activities. Lastly, Merriam (2009) notes the value of field observations in that they enable the observer to witness possible issues that the interviewers may not want to talk about or are not able to recognize, due to selective perception. Therefore, classroom observations were considered essential to this study. Classroom observation has been chosen as a critical data collection tool for observing issues that cannot be recognized through. It also helped with conducting productive interviews.

A selective, unobtrusive classroom observation that focuses on teacher and student behaviors with minimal conversations with participants has been designed to document classroom practices by capturing teacher and student attitudes toward 1:1 TCB teaching.

Interactions among students and teachers, the ways tablet computers are used, and classroom designs were given special attention. This provided the researcher with a holistic view of what students and teachers do with tablet computers and how the computers engage or distract students during the course of learning. Analysis of classroom observation field notes were used to validate the data collected by other means, to better understand how 1:1 tablet computers help or hinder student engagement in learning. The researchers paid special attention on student and 72 teacher’s interactions and durations with tablet computers and the tasks that keep students busy.

Overall, each type of data collection tool has unique features, and these tools complement one another. Student and teacher interviews, and classroom observations provided reliable and valid data from multiple sources to help explain how tablet computers help or hinder student engagement in learning activities.

Student Engagement

Newmann’s (1992) general description of engagement refers to involvement in learning activities, in contrast to superficial participation or lack of interest; however, some studies consider student engagement to be a multidimensional concept. Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris

(2004) classify earlier researchers’ definitions of engagement into behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. Behavioral engagement is described as participation in academic and social activities, while emotional engagement refers to positive attitudes toward school and teachers (Fredricks et al., 2004). Cognitive engagement is a psychological investment in learning and mastering knowledge or skills (Newmann, 1992). On the other hand, Nystrand and

Gamoran (1991) identify two types of engagement: procedural and substantive. Procedural engagement is involvement in school-related work, attending to ongoing activities, not disturbing the classroom and asking questions about the class. Substantive engagement mainly refers to

Fredricks et al.’s (2005) cognitive and emotional engagement. According to Nystrand and

Gamoran (1991), students must engage both procedurally and substantively for successful academic achievement. Students who are procedurally engaged complete work on time in an acceptable manner, listen to the teacher, and sometimes ask questions or put forward their ideas

(Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). Various classifications and definitions of student engagement 73 were considered before developing a tool for measuring student engagement.

Measuring Engagement

Substantive engagement (emotional feelings toward school) appears to be difficult to measure. Therefore, the data collection process focused on indicators of procedural engagement.

Earlier researchers have identified various indicators of procedural engagement. Uekawa,

Borman and Lee (2007), for example, include paying close attention to ongoing classroom activities, interacting with teachers and classmates, and being attentive to the content of lessons as indicators of student engagement. Similarly, Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) consider paying attention to the procedures of an activity, doing the work, and asking questions to be measures of procedural engagement.

A teacher participant in a study by Harris (2008) noticed a group of students who continued to engage in an enjoyable coloring activity while she instructed the others. She noted that these students would have difficulty learning because of their inattentiveness to the content of the lesson. She stated that she spent class time continually warning these students to get back to the work at hand, even though they were not distracting the class (Harris, 2008). Similarly, if the students in tablet computer-integrated classrooms engage in the attractive non-educational features of the tablet computers rather than the content of lessons, they were considered distracted from learning. The observer looked for this kind of involvement.

Overall, various researchers have identified two sets of engagement indicators in the classrooms: conversations between students and teachers, and between students, and student behaviors (Uekawa et al., 2007; Harris, 2008; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). The data collection process relied on these two categories through the lenses of the research questions. 74

Data Storage

Confidentiality in respect to data storage was extensively addressed. All documents were collected electronically; these include transcripts of interviews, and observation notes in

Notability, an iPad app and digital audio files of interviews. To insure the safety of files, they are being stored on password-protected flash drives and computer. In addition, the identities of the participants and the names and locations of schools were kept anonymous. No secondary person has access to the data. The flash drive was backed up on another password-protected flash drive, and this backup was updated every week. Both flash drives are kept in a locked cabinet when not in use. Lastly, after the study is completed, both flash drives will be destroyed to preserve confidentiality.

Data Analysis

Stake (1995) recognizes categorical aggregation as one of the four forms of data analysis.

Correspondingly, Thomas (2006) describes the approach of general inductive analysis as condensing “extensive and varied raw text data into a brief, summary format” (p. 238). Creswell

(2012) employed Stake’s (1995) categorical aggregation method by first aggregating data into 20 categories, and then collapsing them into five themes. This research employed the general inductive analysis approach, which is quite similar to Stake’s (1995) categorical aggregation form, and follow in Creswell’s (2012) footsteps to determine the most common themes from the aggregated data. In addition, Yin (2009) suggests that researchers focus on data that supports the proposition and ignore other data during analysis. Per his recommendation, the data analysis focused only on data that helped provide insight into the way tablet computers have been utilized in various classroom settings. Lastly, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest ongoing data analysis 75 with descriptive and procedural coding. They note that collecting data for months or years without any analysis is a serious mistake. In line with their recommendation, the data collection and analysis processes were run simultaneously. An ongoing data analysis, under the guidance of the general inductive analysis approach, was primarily employed, condensing an extensive compilation of data according to the most common themes.

It is important for those who use research studies like this to understand the school context in order to effectively put suggestions into practice. Creswell (2012) recommends describing a case with its contextual facts, providing “a detailed view of aspects about the case”

(p. 200). The ways teachers use tablet computers within their teaching practices (context) are likely to differ from one another, due to differences in content areas. Therefore, the contextual factors of the school and 1:1 tablet computer use in the Mathematics, History, and English classrooms were depicted in detail. Furthermore, data analysis and evaluation were conducted while taking the subject area into account. All of the data were separately aggregated, analyzed and evaluated for the English, history, and mathematics areas. The contextual factors of each classroom, as well as those of the overall school, were described.

Creswell (2012) recommends four practical steps for analyzing sets of qualitative data:

(1) organizing the data, (2) reading and memorizing, (3) describing, classifying and interpreting, and (4) representing and visualizing. As he suggests, each piece of the data including transcripts of interviews and field notes were first organized into an appropriate text file for analysis. As mentioned earlier, all of the data were aggregated for three separate data analyses. The second step was reading the data several times to get a sense of them overall. The third step was a careful, detailed reading for coding and assigning tags or labels to units of information (Miles &

Huberman, 1994) to dissect the data meaningfully. 76

Descriptive coding, also called “topic coding,” as espoused by Saldana (2009), was employed to categorize the content of the data. According to Sadana’s description, the data need to be summarized by words or short phrases that identify the topic of the content. Similarly,

Miles and Huberman (1994) describe coding as applying a “tag” or “label” to assign a meaning to a unit of data, which might be a sentence or a paragraph. They further consider coding to be a tool for categorizing various chunks of data to help researchers easily pull out and connect various segments relating to the research questions. A second cycle of coding, as described above, was conducted to increase the accuracy and reliability of the coding. In addition, a list of codes with definitions was developed as the study progresses (Miles & Huberman, 1994), to ensure that coding at different times does not mislead the researcher. This was important because the data collection and coding were conducted simultaneously for about three months.

Then the codes were categorized through the lenses of the research questions to identify key emerging themes. The last step of coding was representing the data, which is “a packing of what was found in text, tabular, or figure form” (Creswell, 2012, p. 187).

Overall, the data, as they were collected, were immediately analyzed using the general inductive analysis approach and the descriptive and procedural coding strategy, in an ongoing manner. Following a clear description of the general case (the school) and the sub-cases (the classrooms), the detailed steps described above were strictly followed to condense the massive amount of data into emerging themes, as summarized in Figure 3.2. 77

Figure 3.2: Summarization of the data collection and analysis process

Trustworthiness

In order to prevent a researcher from adopting biased assumptions in a qualitative study, objective measures are necessary (Merriam, 1995). Merriam (1995) describes her approach to the trustworthiness of a qualitative research study in terms of worldview measures of validity, meaning finding results that other researchers would find if they conducted the same study. Her trustworthiness approach guides this study's measures of validity. The two main areas of concern for trustworthiness are the data collection and data analysis processes.

Merriam (1995) begins her suggestions for valid data collection by calling for a thick description of the phenomenon. She then suggests collecting data from various fields or cases. In this study, the contextual factors associated with the 1:1 TCB teaching classrooms, as well as the school, were discussed in detail at the beginning of the results chapter. Per her suggestions, the data were collected from multiple classrooms in different subject areas, namely English, history, and mathematics. Merriam's (1995) second external validity concern is a dearth of variation in the 78 characteristics of the participants. This concern was addressed by selecting participants from different levels of academic performance (low, moderate and high). Denzin (1970) also suggests using multiple methods of collecting data to capture all of the features of the empirical reality of a phenomenon. He also suggests triangulating the data to arrive at reliable inferences. Per his suggestions, the data were collected through three different methods including interviews and classroom observation. The results were then triangulated to generate reliable conclusions.

The accuracy of the data analysis is Merriam's (1995) second concern. Here, the credibility of the data and accuracy of the data analysis was checked using the member checking strategy. The transcripts were provided to the teachers for them to review. Merriam (1995) further suggests peer examination as an effective way to achieve strong consistency during data analysis. The transcripts’ assigned codes were discussed with other two researchers who have experience with similar studies. In short, member checking and peer examination methods were employed, as

Merriam (1995) suggests, achieving a reliable and trustworthy data analysis.

Potential Threats to Internal Validity

Qualitative research examines issues constructed from multiple factors that a researcher must carefully observe to obtain a reliable outcome (Merriam, 1995). Human behavior, an important factor in a classroom environment, is dynamic, and so is the classroom itself.

Repeated measuring of a classroom-related phenomenon is recommended to discover the reality of a class (Merriam, 1995). Per Merriam’s suggestion, multiple classroom observations during different parts of the school day were conducted to obtain accurate data. Collecting data from different sources (teachers, students, and classrooms) also addressed Merriam's (1995) concern about the dynamic nature of the classroom environment. 79

Two additional serious potential threats to internal validity were maturation and the Hawthorne

Effect. Students might have been maturated (too exhausted or hungry) while responding to interview questions. The interviews were held during lunchtime, one of the most relaxing times of the day, in a separate, quiet room. Meeting with students in the middle of the day (before they get tired) avoided a maturation effect.

The Hawthorne Effect might have taken place during classroom observations. If the participants know what researchers are looking for, the participants might change their behaviors during the observation. Although students were informed in advance about the purpose of the study, they did not know what specific behaviors were observed. Lastly, participant students were selected from the participant teachers’ classrooms to correlate the sources of the data. This made triangulation more meaningful. In sum, to address the possible internal validity threats, the following procedures were employed: (1) describing the contexts of the classrooms and the school in detail, (2) repeatedly assessing the classroom environment during different periods of the day, (3) addressing maturation concerns by conducting interviews before participants get tired, (4) keeping the classroom observation rubric hidden from the participants, and (5) collecting the data consistently from the same classrooms.

Protection of Human Subjects

There is minimal potential risk to the participants; however, extra measures were taken to protect the human subjects during the course of this research. First, all participant teachers and students, and their parents, were well informed of the study. This was ensured by providing them with informed consent forms in addition to verbal descriptions, as stated in earlier sections.

The form consisted of (1) a clear explanation of the purpose of the study and the conditions of 80 participation, which will be fully voluntary, (2) informing the participants that they can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and (3) addressing the issue of confidentiality. Using pseudonyms for all participants and keeping the data out of reach of any third party until the study is completed addressed confidentiality. Three years after completion of the study, all records will be destroyed.

More important, all three main concerns of the basic ethical principles of protecting human subjects—respect for persons, beneficence and justice—were carefully addressed. First, no individual was compelled, implicitly or explicitly, to participate in the study, and the participants were well informed regarding their right to withdraw from the study at anytime without any harm. Second, there was actual benefit or harm to the participants of the study other than the benefit of small promotional incentives, and in order to address the justice concerns associated with the small incentives, all students in the designated classrooms were invited to participate. To address human subject concerns, the participants were well informed of the content of the study and of their rights throughout the data collection process. 81

Chapter 4

Summary of Findings

Overview

Implementing TCB teaching is increasingly popular in secondary education in

America. However, there is no consensus about the benefits of such a program.

Researchers continually investigate various aspects of 1:1 TCB teaching to guide educators. Likewise, this study examines how 1:1 TCB teaching improves or hinders students’ procedural engagement in learning, in three subject areas: English, mathematics and history.

It is extremely important to be aware of how tablet computers are used in these cases, in order to correctly interpret the findings and implement the recommendations in other schools. This study examined the cases of three classroom cases where 1:1 TCB teaching has been in place for three years. In all of these cases, tablet computers were used as tools to provide students with traditional teaching resources, including books, notebooks, assignments, dictionaries, and calculators, in electronic formats. In addition, they were used to play content-related, Jeopardy-style games and to provide access to external online resources. The tablet computers provided the teachers and the students with a platform to store, distribute, or submit assignments electronically and to store electronic books and notebooks. A more detailed explanation of how tablet computers were used in each classroom observed can be found at the beginning of the discussion of each case. In sum, the tablet computers were mostly used to read electronic books, to type lecture notes, and to submit completed assignments. It is important to consider these contextual facts when reading the study. 82

Research Questions

How does 1:1 tablet computer-based teaching help or hinder students’ procedural

engagement in high school classrooms?

The following sub-questions will more specifically assist in understanding the overarching question:

1. How do high school teachers use 1:1 tablet computers in their classrooms and

teaching practices?

2. How do high school students use 1:1 tablet computer during a course session?

3. What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the effects of 1:1 tablet

computers on student engagement in learning?

Methodology

A qualitative case study was employed to examine how tablet computers are used in three cases of 1:1 TCB teaching. Kinash et al. (2011) note the importance of conducting educational studies within students’ natural learning environments, without altering the experimental conditions to bridge theory and practice. A qualitative study allowed researcher to examined this program implementation without altering the routines of an educational setting, and, overall, enabled a realistic view of classroom environments without manipulation of the settings. 83

Site and Participants

School Context

The research site was in a middle-class neighborhood in an old three-story school building. The school served a population of 237 high school students, composed of 40 percent Hispanic students, 36 percent White, 15 percent African American, and 8 percent

Asian. Around 50 percent of the student population belonged to economically disadvantaged families, and 4 percent were students with disabilities. Class sizes varied from 12 to 25 students. Overall, students’ behavior in the hallways and the classrooms was quite impressive. No serious negative interactions among students were observed, either in the classrooms or in the hallways or cafeteria. Without running or significant horseplay, the students walked in the hallways and classrooms.

Classroom Context

Various sessions of three different classrooms, a mathematics, English, and history classroom, were observed. For instance, regular English courses were observed with two different groups of students. Students in these classrooms ranged from grades 9-

12; however, the majority of students were in grades 9 to 11. In all three classrooms, interactions among the students, and between the students and the teachers, were quite business-like; yelling, insubordination, or confrontation was not observed. The teachers challenged students who demonstrated behaviors such as putting heads down on desks or failing to work on assigned tasks. The classrooms were equipped with a smart board, a desktop computer, and an LCD projector, besides various traditional content-related materials, such as graphic calculators in the math class, and poster boards. The classroom 84 walls displayed graded student assignments and some content-related posters. In all three classes, the teachers’ desks were placed next to the smart board in a front corner of the room. The students were seated in columns and rows of desks facing the smart board and the teacher’s desk. There was enough space between the rows to allow the teachers to walk between them across the room. More details, including the teaching methods and the instructional practices of each class, are discussed at the beginning of each case analysis.

Participants

In addition to the classroom observations, twelve students and three teachers were interviewed. To select students for interviews, the whole sample was divided into low, middle, and high achievers, based on their current GPA, and four students from each group were randomly selected and invited to participate in interviews. Although all twelve accepted the initial offer, three students failed to return the parental permissions.

Therefore, three other students from the corresponding groups were invited. In the end, five male and seven female students from the sophomore and junior cohorts participated in the study. These were students who had already taken, or were taking, the observed courses from the participating teachers. In addition, one teacher from each of the three subject areas was interviewed. All three had been teaching in this school with tablet computers for at least two years. Therefore, it is worth noting that they were familiar with

1:1 TCB teaching.

Data Collection Procedures

Classroom Observations

A total of 29 course sessions were observed: nine in mathematics, nine in history, and eleven in English. The order and number of observations were based on the schedules of the observed teachers and the researcher. The observations were mostly conducted during the morning hours, while the interviews were conducted in the afternoon, due to students' scheduling concerns. The observed classes included Algebra

1, General Algebra, Personal Finance, US History, English-1, and honors US history and

English-1. The sessions were usually 40 minutes long; however, some sessions in the observation lasted only 30 minutes, due to the school’s opening late in response to inclement weather.

The data collection strategy and tools were extremely helpful for extracting themes during the data analysis. First, every student in a room was labeled, based on the seating arrangement. For example, someone in the first column and the third row was given the ID number 13. Then, activities on the tablet computer screens of the students were recorded with the exact times throughout the class session. In the end, a typical classroom observation data sheet listed eight entries for a student by the ID number, noting the computer activities on the student’s tablet computer, with the exact times.

When the data sheets were sorted in order of the student names, a student's activity on the tablet computer and its duration could be easily identified.

Student Interviews

Twelve semi-structured interviews, averaging fifteen to twenty minutes long, were conducted with students in the counselor’s office or the cafeteria, in the presence of 86 a second adult. The researcher posed follow-up questions to deeply understand the interviewees’ intentions and to widen the conversations, as needed. The interviews were conducted in the afternoon, due to the students’ study hall hours. The conversations were recorded into a tablet computer as sound files.

Teacher interviews

Three semi-structured interviews, averaging forty minutes long, were conducted with individual teachers in their classrooms during their free periods. These teachers were teaching high school-level English, mathematics, and history courses. The school administrators considered them to be successful teachers, based on their classroom management and teaching skills Successful teachers were intentionally selected to minimize the human factor in the collected data. Eleven prepared questions were posed to the teachers, to address how tablet computers helped or hindered student engagement in the classroom. As with the student interviews, various follow-up questions were posed to better understand the teachers’ intention and to widen the conversation, as needed.

Schoology and Kahoot.it

It is important describe two unique terms that this study encountered during the data collection and analysis process. First, Schoology is an online tablet computer application database that enables teachers to store, share, and grade assignments and enables students to submit and track their completed assignments and grades. Second,

Kahoot!it is a website that allows playing tablet computer-mediated Jeopardy-style game.

It enables teachers to load in questions and students to see and respond to them online though their tablet computers. The application instantly grades the students’ answers and 87 gives them feedback. The teachers can also allocate time limits for each question to be answered. Some teachers frequently use this application as part of their instruction.

Data Analysis

First, the transcribed sound file data were saved in Microsoft Excel sheets, and each paragraph was numbered. This enabled the researcher to easily identify and track the data and coding later in the analysis process. Second, after a review of various coding strategies, "process coding" and "descriptive coding" were selected for coding the texts, after consideration of the content of the collected data. Process coding, for instance, is ideal for describing ongoing human action (Saldana, 2012). Correspondingly, the classroom observation data involved students’ activities with tablet computers, so that this form of coding helped to describe the students' overall activities with tablet computers. The descriptive coding method helps to describe, “what is talked or written about” (Tesch, 1990, p. 119). It is an appropriate tool for describing the perceptions and concerns of the teachers and students regarding the TCB teaching and learning.

The coding process included a few steps. First, the text files were scanned to get a broad idea of their content. Second, the texts were coded based on the selected coding method. Third, the data were coded a second time to correct mistakes and refine the coding. Fourth, the codes were categorized based on their overall meaning. Lastly, emerging themes were identified by constantly revisiting the data, codes, and categories.

Data Presentation

Research questions were considered from the reader’s point of view to construct tables to present the emerging themes in a clear way. For example, an educator/practitioner would probably want to see how tablet computers were used in the classroom and how the students and teachers approached TCB teaching and learning.

Therefore, the data tables display the course name, the duration of observation, the activities with the tablet computers, and the duration of each activity in which the students were involved. The content of each data table is explained in short subsequent paragraphs. The results of the teacher interview analysis are displayed based on the most prevalent emerging themes, by the number of occurrences in the interview transcript.

Again, short descriptions of the data were subsequently provided.

The following pages elucidate the results of the classroom observations and the teacher interview analysis. Each classroom was analyzed separately, and the classroom observation data were presented separately for readers who would like to see the details of each observed classroom. Subsequently, the teacher interview data were presented, based on three emerging themes: the teacher's concerns, the teacher’s perceptions, and the manner tablet computers were used in the classroom. In the end, the content of these tables were aggregated into one table to present a summary of the results for each case.

At the end of the chapter, the summaries of the cases were further aggregated into summary tables for discussing the cross-analysis of these results.

The interview participant students were selected from the observed classes to increase the reliability of the data collection process; however, there is a chance that they also shared their experiences from any other classes. Therefore, the results of the student 89 interview analysis are displayed separately from those of the classroom case analyses.

Later, correlations and conflicts between the case and the student interview analyses are discussed. A table displaying the results of the cross-case analysis displays the most prevalent emerging themes from all of the cases, and the discussion that follows should provide the reader a broader and deeper understanding of the overall implications.

Case 1: The English Classroom Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories

This section, after the case description, presents the English teacher interview data, showing the teacher’s concerns, perceptions, and manner of using tablet computers.

Each table is followed by a discussion of the data. Then the overall English classroom observation data analysis is presented, in the form of a table that shows what students were doing with the tablet computers, and for how long. The details of this overall data table can be seen in appendix-G.

Case Description

The English classroom was located very close to the main and administrative offices. The room walls displayed graded student work and a few content-related posters.

The teacher’s desk in the front of the room, next to the smart board, held a desktop computer connected to the LCD and the smart board. The student desks were arranged in five columns and five rows facing the smart board.

Eleven English class sessions were observed. Typical instructional activities included warm-up questions, lectures, and students’ looking up the definitions of vocabulary words, typing lecture notes, and reading books to respond to questions on practice sheets. The teacher provided all of the assignments in both paper and electronic 90 format, and students had their choice. Students could also choose to submit completed work in electronic or paper format, and choose to type notes on tablet computers or write them in notebooks. The teacher usually stayed in the front of the classroom when lecturing. The researcher constantly circulated throughout the room to get precise and accurate data.

The observed course sessions included regular and honors English-1, which is a mandatory course offered to students in their freshman year. There were about twenty students attending each session, which took place once every weekday. The teacher had a master’s degree in English and had been teaching at the same school for three years. The teacher taught six periods in a day. No serious discipline issues, such as yelling, insubordination or excessive disruption, were observed.

English Teacher Interview Results

This section displays the English teacher interview results under three categories: classroom use of tablet computers from the teacher’s point of view, the teacher’s perceptions, and concerns.

Table 4.1 Tablet computer use in English classes according the teacher

Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging Electronic textbooks and reading books are Electronic book 7 used. Playing game or watching 6 Students play games and watch video clips. video Various tablet computer-mediated activities Differentiating instruction 4 are in place. Students type lecture notes on tablet Electronic notebook 2 computers.

Electronic books. The teacher stated that they no longer use paper books. Instead, all textbooks and novels are electronically stored on the tablet computers. However, he personally prefers to use paper books because he finds them more effective when it comes to annotating readings.

Games and videos. The teacher listed playing games and watching videos as the two most common tablet computer-driven off-task activities: "I see some students on some games ... on YouTube, so sometimes I’ll catch the guys watching" (Line 64). He also expressed how pervasive such issues are: "…[E]very day I catch a student off task and that’s just the nature of the beast" (Line 68).

Differentiating instruction. The teacher claimed that tablet computers facilitate student engagement when they are used effectively to mediate interesting activities. After attributing student engagement to tablet computer-mediated activities, he claimed that tablet computers may be used to engage students because, “[I]t is easier to do the task on the tablet computer” (Line 92). He also states that some teachers in the school use the tablet computers in such ways.

Electronic notebooks. The teacher stated that some students use tablet computers to type lecture notes, but the majority prefer handwriting because they find it easier. 92

Table 4.2 English teacher's perceptions Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging

Optional use of Tablet computer use in English class is optional 9 tablet computer for most activities.

Tablet computers should be used as a Supplemental tool 6 supplemental tool only.

New century New century demands technology integration in 6 demands education.

Diminished tablet Student’s tablet computer use gradually 6 computer use diminished.

Student motivation is the key to engagement, not Student motivation 3 the tools.

Optional use. The teacher believes that tablet computers need to be used on a daily basis; however, due to technical problems and students’ failure to bring them to the class, he is hesitant to rely on tablet computers for his lessons. Therefore, he prepares both paper-based and TCB lessons to give students options. He does not mandate them to submit assignments electronically. Students in his classes freely choose TCB or paper- based assignment completion and submission.

Supplemental tool. The teacher insistently stated that a tablet computer should not be used every day; rather, it should be used as a supplemental teaching tool because, "[i]t becomes sometimes as more of a distraction than help but some days it’s much more of a help … for some things it’s definitely beneficial but for others I would rather not use it"

(Line 88). 93

Student motivation for engagement. The teacher attributes student disengagement from the lesson to their motivational intentions. Though he accepts the fact that the students get off-task with tablet computers, he says, “It doesn’t just go to the tablet computer … kids just need to be on task, whether it’s playing with the tablet computer or playing with something else they need to make sure they’re paying attention to me” (Line 40). He further claims that some students get distracted more than others.

New century demands. The teacher considers tablet computer implementation in teaching as a new century demand. He mentioned the required online testing as an example. He uses tablet computers in his teaching because he wants the students to be familiar with the new online testing platform. He is further concerned about student scores that are used to measure his teaching skill: “That’s definitely a big component for me because, … they’re gonna look at my scores and see how the students did” (Line 34).

Lastly, he states that students should learn the effective use of tablet computers during high school, because no adult will guide them in this way when they get to the college.

He wants students to learn to take responsibility for using tablet computers before starting with a college.

Diminishing use. According to his estimation, fewer students used tablet computers this year compared to last year’s class. This might be because this year he gave students the option to use them. According to his statement, the students are not crazy about using tablet computers for learning. He also stated that some students find handwriting more convenient. Overall, he claims that students' enthusiasm for using tablet computers is diminishing. Students return to traditional methods after the novelty wears off.

Table 4.3 English teacher's concerns Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging

Causing distraction 14 Tablet computers cause distractions.

Difficulty with It is difficult to monitor the content of monitoring students' 9 students’ tablet computers during lectures. tablet computers There is a lack of a system to enable Impractical restriction 8 teachers to limit students’ access to certain software content. Various technical problems cause problems Technical problems 6 with using tablet computers. Failure to bring tablet Some students fail to bring tablet 4 computers computers. Typing hinders students’ handwriting Typing instead of writing 2 skills.

Causing distraction. The teacher clearly stated that the students were involved in various activities when using tablet computers. He also raised concerns regarding student participation when using tablet computers. "It provides too many distractions and even if students have the tablet computer you can scroll up/scroll down, flip things up ... I do think it hurts participation a little bit because there kids that will just stare down into it"

(line 50). According to him even, "[a] student would have a good intention and it would go the wrong way” (Line 44) – for instance, visiting Google advertisement links while searching for vocabulary words. Lastly, he stated, "You catch on games or that you catch watching basketball videos” (Line 42).

Difficult monitoring students’ tablet computers. The teacher mentioned the lack of an online system to enable teachers to monitor students’ tablet computers, and the difficulty of identifying whether students are on- or off-task, "where it looks like they could be 95 taking notes” (Line 44). He tries to use proximity, facial expressions, and other body language to identify whether students are on- or off-task.

Impractical restriction software. The teacher expressed a serious need for software that permits teachers to limit students’ accessibility to certain content or applications through tablet computers. He mentioned how ineffective the existing restriction software is: "We had a program but it didn’t work effectively … It doesn’t really provide its goal for us”

(Line 56). According to him, the existing software allows the teacher to restrict the student to only one application. Lastly, he noted that students find ways to get around the restrictions that the administrators have placed in the system.

Technical problems. These are another serious concern. The teacher prepares lessons with alternative instructional delivery in case there are technical problems. He stated that

Internet service interruption is the most common technical problem. In addition, he stated that the students come to the class without re-charging their tablet computers. Then he has to deal with that instead of teaching.

Failure to bring the computers. The teacher repeatedly mentioned that some students constantly fail to bring their tablet computers. He considers this as another serious issue that hinders his reliance on tablet computers for lessons. He further listed this as one of his greatest challenges: “I would say I have three main challenges. Number one would be having the kids bring it” (Line 40).

Typing. The teacher had concerns about students’ losing their handwriting skills, because some students like typing a lot and don’t write at all. He believed in the necessity of having handwriting skills, aside from typing. Therefore, he said, “[T]here are some assignments that I make handwritten” (Line 20). 96

Overall English Classroom Observation Results

Table 4.4 displays the overall findings of the English classroom observation data analysis. The detailed data table of each classroom observation and its explanation were presented in the Appendix-G. It is crucial to review this appendix to understand the content of Table 4.4. This table mainly displays how the students in English classrooms used the tablet computers and for how long. In addition, Table 4.5 displays the summary of the teacher interview analysis. The subsequent briefing explains the three emerging themes of the English classroom observation data analysis: off-task, on-task, and partially on-task. The brief explanation further examines correlations between the English teacher’s interview data (Table 4.5) and emerging themes of the classroom observation data analysis. 97

Table 4.4 Tablet computer use in English classes according to classroom observation data Duration Emerging Activity Percentile (Minute) Theme

Played game or watched video 238 8.50%

Fooled around the Internet 230 8.20%

Studied unrelated task 99 3.50% Off-Task Involved in social media or shopping 55 2.00%

Read online comic book 29 1.00%

Total off-task activity involvement 651 23.10%

Read assigned electronic book 666 23.70%

Typed or reviewed lecture note 580 20.60%

Searched for definition of vocabulary word 502 17.80% On-Task

Worked on assigned task 105 3.70%

Total on-task activity involvement 1853 65.80%

Read online summary of assigned book 104 3.70%

Fooled around the Internet while working on 88 3.10% assigned task Partially Played game while working on assigned task 69 2.50% On-Task

Listened to music while working on assigned task 51 1.80%

Total partially on-task activity involvement 312 11.10%

Grand Total 2816 100%

Table 4.5 Summary of the most emerging themes of the English teacher interview Emerging Theme Description

Electronic book Electronic books are in use. Playing games and watching YouTube video clips are Playing game or watching video popular. Students are given a choice whether to use a tablet Optional use of tablet computer computer or paper. Supplemental tool Tablet computers should be used as a supplemental tool. Change in expectations in the new century requires tablet New century demands computer use. Tablet computers have been used less comparing to Diminishing tablet computer use previous year. Causing distractions Tablet computers cause distractions in various ways. Difficulty with monitoring It is difficult to monitor students’ tablet computers during students' tablet computers lectures.

There is a lack of practical software to enable teachers to Impractical restriction software restrict students' access to certain content.

Off-task activities. A significantly high portion of the students in English classes were involved in off-task activities. It is worth noting that almost all of the off-task activities were Internet-mediated. The teacher also pointed out the most common off-task activities, the same as those noted in the classroom observation data: playing games or watching videos, and fooling around the Internet. He thinks, “It hurts participation a little bit because there kids that will just stare down into it" (Line 50). Involvement in other activities was less than in the first two; consequently, the teacher did not mention them.

On-task activities. The students in English classes use tablet computers about equally for reading electronic books, typing lecture notes, and searching for the definitions of unknown vocabulary words. It is important to note that the students have to read the 99 electronic books and use the online dictionaries because they are not provided with paper copies of the assigned books or dictionaries. It is also important to note that the electronic note-taking rate was significantly high. As the teacher mentioned, he gives the student an option of whether to take notes on tablet computers or in notebooks. This statistic shows that a large number of students in these classes prefer typing. In contrast, the statistics disclose that the students prefer to complete assignments on paper rather than on tablet computers. This highlights another fact about this class, that the teacher does not require the online submission of assignments.

Partially on-task activities. Involvement in off-task activities as working on assigned task in English classes is significantly small. If reading the online summary of the book is considered to be on-task, the partially on-task activities would be reduced even below

10%. The off-task activities, both in the partially on-task and the off-task groups are the same: playing games or watching videos, and fooling around the Internet. It is noteworthy that these three are the most pervasive tablet computer-driven distracting activities. Overall, there is a strong correlation between the teacher interview and the classroom observation data.

Case 2: Mathematics Classroom Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories

This section, after the case description, presents the mathematics teacher interview data, showing the teacher’s concerns, perceptions, and manner of using tablet computers. Each table is followed by a discussion of the data. Then the overall mathematics classroom observation data analysis is presented, in the form of a table that 100 shows what students were doing with the tablet computers, and for how long. The details of this overall data table can be seen in appendix-H.

Case Description

The math classroom was also near the main and administrative offices on the first floor. The classroom walls displayed graded student assignments and subject-related posters. The smart board was connected to the teacher’s desktop, located in a front corner of the room. A set of graphic calculators was also available for the students’ use. The students’ desks were arranged in three pairs of columns and four rows, facing toward the front of the room.

A total of nine regular various course sessions of Algebra-1, Financial Literacy, and General Algebra were observed. The majority of the student population was in grades ten and eleven. All of these courses were offered for one period every weekday. Typical instructional activities included introducing new content, solving practice problems on the smart board, and working on practice sheets, either individually or in groups. The students were given a chance to complete the assignment and take notes on either paper or tablet computers.

The teacher has been teaching the same courses to the same grade levels with tablet computers for two years. The teacher mostly stays near the smart board while lecturing. Frequent joking and smiling describes the relationship between the students and the teacher. No serious discipline problems, such as yelling or insubordination, were observed. This section presents an analysis of the mathematics classroom case only. 101

Mathematics Teacher Interview Results

This section displays the mathematics teacher interview results under three categories: classroom use of tablet computers from the teacher’s point of view, the teacher’s perceptions, and concerns.

Table 4.6 Tablet computer use in Mathematics classes according the teacher Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging Playing game or Playing games and watching YouTube video 10 watching video clips are popular. Students submit their assignments through tablet Electronic filing 6 computers. Allowing instant Tablet computers allow teachers to provide 3 feedback students quick feedback. Involvement in shopping and social media is not Shopping or social media 3 very common. Tablet computer allow students quick access to Quick access to resources 3 resources.

Playing games and watching videos. These are the two most emerging themes of the teacher interview. She claimed that teachers were tired of warning the students about playing games and watching videos. “How many times do you say, put your tablet computer away, don’t be on YouTube, don’t play games” (Line 122). She further claims that these two are the two most common tablet computer-driven distractions students are engaged in. Lastly, she stated that the students “find a way to get the game on the tablet computers” (line 138), even though the administrators limit their ability to upload them.

Electronic filing. Tablet computers allow students to receive and submit all assignments electronically; however, the mathematics teachers assign their work in paper format. The teacher said that she requires the students to submit electronically because it helps them 102 to track their assignment submissions. The teacher also mentioned how convenient it is to assign and grade various tasks, “You are able to create rubrics, different projects, they could just send it directly to you … So it’s easy just seeing -- oh, this is student A, he submitted this, and I’m easily able to grade it” (Line 26).

Instant Feedback. The teacher uses tablet computers to quickly assess student learning and provide them with instant feedback. She mentioned that various tablet computer applications enable her to generate quizzes to see how well each student is learning the content: “If it’s like, A, B, C, D and the kids take the quiz -- it’s graded, it’s done, everything is imputed ... just immediate computer, send grade, done” (Line 266).

Shopping and Social Media. The math teacher mentioned that shopping and using social media are not common among students. The classroom observations support her argument. These two activities were rarely observed.

Quick Access to Resources. The teacher mentioned that tablet computers allow the students quick access to various resources. These are stored either on the tablets or online. Many students were observed accessing Internet sources, their digital notebooks, textbooks, or the assigned work. 103

Table 4.7 Mathematics teacher's concerns

Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging It is easy to plagiarize with tablet Plagiarism 19 computers. Tablet computers cause distractions in Causing distractions 17 various ways. Students easily break the blocks that Over-riding restrictions 14 administrators have established. Difficulty monitoring It is difficult to monitor students’ tablet 12 students' tablet computers computers during lectures. Impractical restriction There is a lack of practical systems for 10 software limiting students' access to certain content.

Plagiarism. One of the teacher’s most serious concerns was plagiarism through the use of tablet computers. She frequently emphasized how tablet computers allow students to easily plagiarize one from another: “copy, send, paste, e-mail” (Line 23) after making some format changes. She stated that it takes time to check each and every assignment for plagiarism. Therefore, she does not spend time checking plagiarism on homework assignments because they do not significantly impact the final grades.

Causing distractions. The teacher observed that she uses tablet computer significantly less than she used to in the previous year because the students get off-task easily:

“Whenever they had the chance to get off of whatever we were doing, that is what they did” (Line 7). She further considers this issue the most serious challenge of using tablet computers: “The challenge is keeping the kids on task and making sure they are on task at the same time” (Line 94). She thinks that students get involved in off-task activities when she turns her back to them. She continually attributes such a challenge to the excessive 104 entertaining possibilities that the tablet computers offer: “Now it’s, oh, I could on the internet ,.. go play a game, … talk to one of my friends. I could email them, going back and forth. There is a lot of things that kids can do now” (Line 126). She strongly warns teachers using tablet computers for the first time, “Be aware that there is going to be problems” (Line 290).

Over-riding restrictions. Over-riding the restrictions established by the network administrator is one of the most emerging themes. The teacher stated that students are highly motivated to break such restrictions: “Kids are smart and they are able to figure out immediately, oh, I’m blocked on this, how can I get around it? So they are going to try their best to try and get around it” (Line 7). According to her, the students even waste time during lessons to escape the restrictions. She further mentions that before end of the day, a student will find a workaround and share the tip with the whole school.

Difficulty monitoring or restricting the students’ tablet computers. Unlike the other two teachers, the mathematics teacher strongly emphasized the need for effective software that would enable the teacher to monitor the content on the students’ tablet computers and control their accessibility to certain applications during lessons. She stated that it is difficult to make sure that students are on task because they play a perfect role of being attentive: “I’m standing in the front of the room teaching and it looks like they are looking at their tablet computer and they are touching the tablet computer, I don’t know what is on the tablet computer” (Line 94). She further thinks that students could be engaging in a wide range of activities, from playing games to watching videos. In addition, she mentioned how ineffective the software was for limiting students’ accessibility to certain applications. Therefore, she strongly recommended that new 105 teachers constantly circulate around the room to make sure that the students are on task during the lessons.

Table 4.8 Mathematics teacher's perception Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging Diminished tablet Tablet computers have been used less 14 computers use compared to the previous year The tablet computers distract unmotivated Student motivation 9 students more than the others Misuse of educational Students misuse various features of 6 applications educational applications Participation in fun The participation rate is high for tablet 5 activities computer-driven fun activities

Diminished tablet computer use. The teacher primarily and strongly noted that her tablet computer use is winding down, since she first started using them. She provides paper copies of all instructional materials, along with the electronic books. The majority of the students use tablet computers as supplemental tools – as calculators, graphing devices, or as a means of accessing class-wide Kahoot!. The teacher attributed this to the difficulty involved in typing mathematical expressions. Moreover, she did not want to use them, because she is unable to monitor or control the students’ tablet computers.

Student motivation. The teacher thinks that tablet computers used in teaching and learning are a great tool for motivating students. According to her, a large portion of the student population is disinterested in learning: “It’s being uninterested in what is happening. I think they just want to be doing something else” (Line 113). She says,

“They might not be interested in school as a general sense” (Line 113). Therefore, they 106 get easily distracted with tablet computers by involving themselves in various non- educational activities, such as playing games, watching video clips, and plagiarizing.

Misusing the educational applications. According to the teacher, students also misuse the educational applications in various ways, such as to draw pictures, color with the highlighter, and play with zooming. She stated, “They can doodle all they want to” (Line

226). The teacher also told a story of how even she found herself drawing in one of the faculty meetings. She thought, “This is how the kids feel when they have the tablet computer, they are doing the same exact thing” (Line 234).

Participation in fun activities. The teacher stated that students participate in the lesson if tablet computers mediate fun activities. She mentioned the Kahoot! as an example of a fun activity that draws the students’ attention.

Overall Mathematics Classroom Observation Results

Table 4.9 displays the overall findings of the mathematics classroom observation data analysis. The detailed data table of each classroom observation and its explanation were presented in the Appendix-H. It is crucial to review this appendix to understand the content of Table 4.9. This table mainly displays how the students in mathematics classrooms used the tablet computers and for how long. In addition, Table 4.10 displays the summary of the teacher interview analysis. The subsequent briefing explains the three emerging themes of the mathematics classroom observation data analysis: off-task, on- task, and partially on-task. The brief explanation further examines correlations between the mathematics teacher’s interview data (Table 4.10) and emerging themes of the classroom observation data analysis. 107

Table 4.9 Tablet computer use in Mathematics classes according to classroom observation data

Duration Emerging Activity Percentile (Minute) Theme

Played game or watched video 248 25%

Studied unrelated task 162 16%

Fooled around the Internet 135 13%

Listened to music 43 4% Off-Task

Read online comic book 32 3%

Involved in social media or shopping 9 1%

Total off-task activity involvement 629 63%

Participated in the Kahoot! 140 14%

Used tablet computer calculator 54 5% On-Task Typed lecture note on tablet computer 29 3%

Total on-task activity involvement 223 22%

Fooled around the Internet while working on 61 6% assigned task

Listened to music while working on assigned task 50 5%

Partially Used social media while working on assigned task 29 3% On-Task

Used tablet computer calculator and played games 11 1%

Total partially on-task activity involvement 151 15%

Grand Total 1003 100% 108

Table 4.10 Summary of the most emerging themes of the Mathematics teacher interview

Emerging Theme Description

Plagiarism It is easy to plagiarize with tablet computers.

Causing distractions Tablet computers cause distractions in various ways.

Students easily break the blocks that the administrators Over-riding restrictions have established. Diminishing tablet computers Tablet computers are being used less compared to the use previous year Difficulty monitoring students' It is difficult to monitor students’ tablet computers during tablet computers lectures. Playing game or watching Playing games and watching YouTube video clips are video popular. Tablet computers distract unmotivated students more than Student motivation the others.

Electronic filing Students can submit their assignments online.

Off-task activities. Off-task activities are clearly the most emerging theme in both the teacher interview and the classroom observation data. The teacher points to playing games and watching videos as the two most common off-task activities. These activities were also listed in the classroom observation data as the most frequent activities in the classroom. It is quite critical to recognize the fact that 63% of the classroom activities with tablet computers were off-task. This portion even increases if one considers the off- task activities of the partially on-task groups. For such reasons, the teacher’s overall approach to TCB teaching is summed up as follows: “There is so many great things that can happen with the tablet computer, but there are so many setbacks as well … you are like, why don’t you just use a notebook, pen and paper” (Line 81). Although the teacher did not mention fooling around the Internet as a common off-task activity, the 109

observation data disclose that tablet computers are used for it at a significantly high rate.

Similarly, a small amount of time was used to complete the other course assignments. On the other hand, both sources of data support the theme that using social media and shopping are rare.

Both the classroom observation and the teacher interview data indicate that playing online games and watching YouTube videos were the most pervasive tablet computer-mediated activities in the mathematics sessions. These are the most recorded activities over all nine sessions of the classroom observations. Likewise, the teacher described playing games and watching videos as the most two common tablet computer- driven violations (Lane 128). She thinks that students are having difficulty saying “no” to tablet computer-mediated entertainment: “The games are winning, the YouTube clips are winning” (Line 334). She also stated that the teachers were getting tired of warning students to not watch videos or play games.

On-task activities. The Kahoot! game constituted almost the entire portion of the on-task activity in the class. Interestingly, some students did not even use the tablet computer as a calculator. They preferred to use actual calculators from the class set. The only significantly high rate of on-task activities with tablet computer was on the Kahoot!.

Regardless of such activity, the tablet computers are not truly being used for learning purposes in the mathematics classes. This supports another emerging theme of the teacher interview; students participate in the lesson if the tablet computer drives fun activities.

Overall tablet computer use was actually quite rare in this class. As the teacher pointed out, the tablet computer use rate is diminishing; the classroom observation data also 110

disclose that the students prefer to use paper and pencil in mathematics class more than tablet computers.

Partially on-task activities. The rate of partially on-task activities was slightly less than the on-task activity rate. The classroom observation data show that, similar to the off-task activity, fooling around the Internet and listening to music while working on a given assignment were the most common tablet computer-driven activities.

Electronic filing. Electronic filing might be considered the most pervasive tablet computer-driven student activity, because the teacher requires the students to submit completed assignments electronically, for effective tracking purposes. Although the teacher gives the students printed assignments, the students submit a picture of them after completion. The classroom observation data does not provide any clues about assignment submission because the students conduct such activities mostly at home after completing assignments. Students note that this makes their job easy because they are able to submit the assignments whenever they are available.

Case 3: History Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories

This section, after the case description, presents the history teacher interview data, showing the teacher’s concerns, perceptions, and manner of using tablet computers. Each table is followed by a discussion of the data. Then the overall history classroom observation data analysis is presented, in the form of a table that shows what students were doing with the tablet computers, and for how long. The details of this overall data table can be seen in Appendix-I. 111

Case Description

The history classroom was located on the second floor. Like the other two classrooms, it was equipped with a smart board, a LCD projector, a desktop computer, and a teacher’s tablet computer. All of these devices were connected to each other. The teacher’s desk was near the smart board in the front of the class. Social studies-related posters hung on the walls. The student desks were in five columns by five rows, facing forward towards the smart board.

A total of nine US History course sessions were observed, including both regular and honors sections. The student population was composed of high school sophomores and juniors. The sizes of the classes ranged from 19 to 24 students. They met with the teacher once every weekday. On a typical day, the instructional activities included a short warm-up, a lecture with notes displayed on the smart board, worksheets for working with content, and occasional content-related, Kahoot! games. Students were expected to copy the lecture notes as they appeared on the smart board. All of the assignments and the instructional resources were on tablet computers; there were no print-based assignments.

The teacher was constantly circulating around the room while lecturing. The researcher also frequently circulated around the room to collect precise and accurate data.

The teacher holds a master’s degree in Education and has been teaching in high school for several years. He had also been teaching these same courses with tablet computers for two years in this school. He taught six periods in a day. No serious discipline problems, such as yelling, insubordination, vulgarity, excessive disruption, or other, were observed. The teacher challenged students who got slightly out of line, such 112

as failing to follow instructions or chitchatting. In almost all cases, the students responded to him positively.

History Teacher Interview Results

This section displays the history teacher interview results under three categories: classroom use of tablet computers from the teacher’s point of view, the teacher’s perceptions, and concerns.

Table 4.11 Tablet computer use in History classes according the teacher Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging Teachers and students share assignments Electronic filing 10 electronically.

Electronic book 9 Electronic copies of the textbooks are used.

Students take notes on their tablet Electronic notebook 8 computers. Tablet computers help students organize all Organization 7 their assignments and resources. Tablet computers allow the students and Access to external resources 6 the teacher to access online resources. Playing game or watching Some students play games and watch video 5 video clips with tablet computers.

Electronic filing. The teacher repeatedly mentioned that he assigns students electronic worksheets and requires them to submit online. He does this to “encourage them to use the electronic device" (Line 14). He requires online submission even if the assignment is given in print. He further thinks that completing the assignment on a tablet computer is convenient because various applications are available for working and submitting assignments electronically. 113

Electronic books. The teacher, after stating both the benefits and hindrances of electronic books, stated that all of his textbooks are in electronic format. According to him, "Flipping through the book to something I saw is more effective … putting in a key word for them cuts out a whole lot of time; they can do a search of the entire text "(Line

28). His overall approach to electronic books, regardless of their hindrances, is positive.

He likes keeping all sources, such as books, notebooks, assessments, worksheets and other material, on one light device that enables students to access them any time.

Note taking. The students are required to type and submit the lecture notes for grading.

The teacher says that some students take notes directly on tablet computers during the lectures, while others take notes in their notebooks, then transfer them onto the tablet computers for submission. In addition, he admits that he recognizes some students don’t type the lecture notes because he shares them with the students at least eleven hours before the major assessments. However, he is happy that the majority of the students type the notes before he shares them.

Organization. According to the teacher, having all assignments on one device helps students become more organized. The teacher mentioned the functions of Schoology that help the students keep, organize, and track all their assignments. The teacher also stated,

"It also helps that student uploads it onto that and there is no chance that it’s ever getting lost because it’s right there" (Line 18). According to his statements, this application allows the teachers to electronically grade an assignment. Once the grading is done, the students are able to see their grades and the teacher’s feedback. The teacher expressed how thankful he was for the feature that provides students with instant online feedback. 114

Access to external resources. The teacher briefly but strongly stated that tablet computers are very useful for accessing information outside of the classroom. He noted that this benefit could not be attained without tablet computers.

Games and videos. The teacher listed playing games and watching videos as the two most common distracting activities with tablet computers in a classroom: "Games are always popular” (Line 78) and “Watching sports are also very common” (Line 84). He additionally stated, “ Yes, I do catch them doing it. That’s part of my job, being a vigilant teacher" (Line 78). According to the teacher, when students get bored or disconnected from a lesson, they can easily find a game to play with. He gave this example: "[One] student got fed up because he wasn’t winning [in the Kahoot! game], so he went and played a game on his tablet computer" (Line 60).

Table 4.12 History teacher's perceptions

Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging

Tablet computers should be used as a Supplemental tool 8 supplemental tool, not the only tool. A well-designed lesson is needed for the Well-designed Lesson 7 effective use of tablet computers in teaching. Enforcement to use tablet Students are forced to use the tablet 6 computers computers.

Student motivation is the key to engagement Student motivation 5 not the tool.

Being able to type notes engages some Typing instead of writing 5 students.

115

Supplemental tool. The teacher finds the idea of developing effective TCB lessons every day to be unrealistic. Although he carries an overall positive perception about TCB teaching and wants to continue using tablet computers in his classrooms, he stated, “Not every lesson, as far as I’m concerned – and I love to use technology in every way, shape and form – but not every lesson can be tablet computer-centric” (Line 56). His overall suggestion is to use them only as a supplemental tool, “Just make sure that you’re using it as a tool and not the center of the lesson” (Line 108).

Well-designed lesson. The teacher actually recommends using the tablet computer as a tool because he considers effective implementation of tablet computers to be a challenge.

He thinks that a well-designed lesson can overcome such a challenge: “Depending on how I design a particular lesson, I can overcome a significant number of challenges”

(Line 58).

Student motivation and enforcement to use tablet computers. The teacher attributes the students' distraction with tablet computers to their motivational orientation in learning, “Whether they have electronic media or not, students would get off task regardless"(Line 42). He further links student participation in class to their motivation:

“Students are going to participate as much as they themselves choose to participate ... whether they have a tablet computer or not … [Some students] will not be actively engaged because they are not an extroverted type of student" (Line 64). He further declared that students are forced to use tablet computers in his classrooms. He mandates that the students submit all assignments electronically and type the lecture notes on tablet computers as an assignment. 116

Typing instead of writing. According to the teacher, some students are having a hard time typing because they are not used to it. He says that these students prefer to take notes in their notebook and then transfer them onto the tablet computers at home. He also considers typing an engaging factor for other students who don’t like handwriting: “I have seen, for convenience sake, students take their notes on their tablet computer” (Line

14).

Table 4.13 History teacher's concerns Number of Emerging Theme Description Emerging

Tablet computers cause distractions when Causing distractions 23 students get bored.

Impractical restriction There is no effective system for teachers to 17 software limit student access to certain content

Various technical issues hinder tablet Technical issue 9 computer use in teaching. There is no effective electronic system to Difficulty monitoring 9 enable teachers to monitor student tablet students' tablet computers computers. It is easy to plagiarize electronic Plagiarism 9 assignments.

Causing distractions. The teacher very strongly stated that tablet computers cause distractions: "Admittedly, they are. I’ll be the first to tell you that students do go to other applications while they’re in class” (Line 42). He also admits, "I’ve been able to minimize it but wiping it out is not going to happen – as much as I would like to be optimistic about that"(Line 78). He attributed the distractions to the availability of attractive non-educational applications that the tablet computers offer. In addition, he 117

pointed out an important feature of electronic textbooks – hyperlinks – as another distracting factor. He considers hyperlinks embedded in electronic books to be a hindrance to student learning. He claims that hyper links provide direct knowledge that prevents students from thinking, “Here’s bread crumb A, here’s bread crumb B, here’s bread crumb C, tell me what D is … [Instead it should be] here is A, here is D, now how do these combine? …" (Line 34).

Impractical restriction software. The teacher pointed to the Internet and the availability of multiple applications as the two most distracting tablet computer-driven factors.

According to him, students, unlike adults, do not use the Internet to complete their work.

Rather, they abuse it: "I think of myself as a good teacher but even I am incapable of keeping these kids from doing that all the time" (Line 36). Therefore, he wants to limit students’ access to the Internet and those applications, when necessary. He said, "A push of one button would lock ‘em all out or I do not want this student to be on the Internet"

(Line 36). He referred to existing software that supposedly allows teachers to restrict the students’ tablet computers from accessing certain content, if necessary. However, he this to be impractical; for example: “I have to do that [guided reading] one tablet computer at a time and for a class of twenty-five” (Line 74). Therefore, it takes too much time to put a class on guided reading. He mentioned another impracticality: “[I could put them] in a mode where they can only access what I want ... Then I have to be able to undo it so that the next teacher that has them in class has access to whatever they need"(74). Overall, in order to minimize the misuse of tablet computers, he would like having user-friendly software "to limit their ability to go off task"(Line 40). 118

Technical issues. The teacher, after noting frequent unexpected technical issues with tablet computers, stated that he is ready for them. He prepares alternative ways of delivering lessons. He listed interruptions of Internet service, the failure of Schoology functions, and students’ broken tablet computers as the most frequent technical issues he faces. Therefore, he prepares print copies of assignments for such contingencies. He further recommends that teachers learn how to fix small technical problems to prevent some distractions, because some students attempt to excuse themselves on the basis of small technical problems with the tablet computers.

Difficult monitoring student tablet computers. The teacher expressed a serious need for a software program that would enable teachers to monitor the content of the students’ tablet computers during instruction. According to him, no matter how good a teacher is, it is impossible to monitor all of the tablet computers at the time: "If I’m in the middle of a lecture I can’t be standing over every student’s shoulder all at one time” (Line 36). He observes students’ facial expressions and constantly circulates through the room to identify off-task students. He thinks that this prevents students from getting off-task. He continually stated that even in this case, the students very quickly switch between applications before the teacher catches them: “A press of one button twice means now suddenly you are on a game that you had paused because I was walking by earlier and didn’t see you on that particular desk" (Line 36). Furthermore, he randomly asks questions to overcome this problem.

Plagiarism. The teacher stated that students can easily plagiarize with tablet computers.

He further thinks that if care is not taken, "Plagiarism can be a significant problem" (Line 119

98). However, he accepts the fact that it is not an easy task to identify plagiarism or cheating. He uses his subjective judgment to identify them.

Overall History Classroom Observation Results

Table 4.14 displays the overall findings of the history classroom observation data analysis. The detailed data table of each classroom observation and its explanation were presented in the Appendix-I. It is crucial to review this appendix to understand the content of Table 4.14. This table mainly displays how the students in history classrooms used the tablet computers and for how long. In addition, Table 4.15 displays summary of the teacher interview analysis. The subsequent briefing explains the three emerging themes of the history classroom observation data analysis: off-task, on-task, and partially on-task. The brief explanation further examines correlations between the history teacher’s interview data (Table 4.15) and emerging themes of the classroom observation data analysis.

120

Table 4.14 Tablet computer use in History classes according to classroom observation data Duration Emerging Activity Percentile (Minute) Theme

Played game or watched video 205 10.40%

Studied unrelated task 204 10.40%

Fooled around the Internet 139 7.10% Off-Task Performed various off-task activities 29 1.50%

Listened to music 8 0.40%

Total off-task activity involvement 585 29.80%

Typed lecture note on tablet computer 454 23.10%

Participated in Kahoot! game 448 22.80% On-Task Worked on assigned task 51 2.60%

Total on-task activity involvement 953 48.50%

Fooled around the Internet while working on assigned 253 13% task

Studied unrelated task while working on assigned task 60 3%

Performed various off-task activities while working 57 3% on assigned task Partially Played game or watched video while working on On-Task 32 2% assigned task

Listened to music while working on assigned task 24 1%

Total partially on-task activity involvement 426 21.70%

Grand Total 1964 100%

121

Table 4.15 Summary of the most emerging themes of the History teacher interview Emerging Theme Description

Causing distractions Tablet computers cause distractions in various ways. There is a lack of effective software enabling Impractical restriction software teachers to restrict students' access to certain content. Difficulty monitoring students' It is difficult to monitor students’ tablet computers tablet computers during lectures. Tablet computers should be used as a supplemental Supplemental tool tool. Well-designed lesson needed TCB well-designed lessons are needed.

Electronic filing Students can submit their assignments online.

Electronic books Electronic books are in use.

Electronic notebook Students type lecture notes on tablet computers.

Off-task activities and the teacher’s concerns. As seen in the table, the students spent about one-third of their time with tablet computers on off-task activities. The most emerging off-task activities included playing games or watching video clips. Although it is not listed on the summary of the teacher interview data in Table 4.44, the history teacher noted that playing games is the most common tablet computer-driven distraction.

The classroom observation data suggests that studying unrelated tasks is the second most common distracting activity with tablet computers; however, no teacher statement mentions it. The teacher’s two key emerging concerns, impractical software for restricting access to content and difficulty monitoring students’ tablet computers, clarify the contradiction between the teacher interview and the classroom observation data regarding the study of unrelated tasks. It is likely that the teacher is unable to identify the students who study unrelated tasks because of the lack of a software program to monitor 122

their devices. Lastly, another significantly pervasive off-task activity is fooling around the Internet. Correspondingly, the teacher mentions disruptive Internet-mediated activities as a serious concern.

On-task activities and the classroom use of tablet computers. The data in Table 4.44 clearly show that the students spent about half of the recorded time on task. The major

On-task activities were typing the lecture notes on tablet computers, participating in the

Kahoot! game, and completing the electronic assignments. Correspondingly, the teacher stated that tablet computers were widely used to submit completed assignments and

Typed lecture note to be graded. In contrast to the classroom observation data, the teacher clearly stated that the students used electronic copies of the textbooks. This contradiction might be because the content of the lessons during the classroom observations may not have required use of the textbooks.

Partially on-task activities. As seen in Table 4.44, the students were involved in various off-task activities while performing the expected on-task activities. The most common off-task involvement as working on assigned tasks was fooling around the Internet. The other activities were insignificant compared to this. In the interview, the teacher also attributed tablet computer-driven distractions to the Internet access. The data also show, interestingly, that students mostly do not play games or watch videos while working on assigned tasks. This might be because such activities require more student attention than fooling around the Internet.

123

Student Interview Discussion of Themes and Sub-Categories

This section presents students’ concerns and perceptions about TCB learning and about how the tablet computers are used in the classroom. The following sections discuss the content of each table, and the correlations between them and the previously analyzed classroom observation and teacher interview data.

Student’s Concerns

Table 4.16 Students' concerns about tablet computer use in learning Number of Number of Emerging Theme Descriptions Students Appearance Difficulty monitoring Students can adeptly feign being students' tablet 11 41 attentive and on task. computers Teacher quality plays a critical role Teacher factors 6 17 for the effective use of tablet computers. Technical problems hinder the tablet Technical problems 7 16 computer use. Some students find it difficult to use Inconvenient for math 5 15 tablet computers in mathematics courses. Problems adapting to the Some students had difficulty getting 5 14 use of tablet computers used to the tablet computers Students can easily cheat on tablet Plagiarism and cheating 3 13 computer-mediated assignments. Students easily find ways to Over-riding restrictions 6 10 overcome the administrative blocks. Impractical restriction Teachers are unable to restrict student 4 9 software access to certain content or apps.

Difficulty monitoring student’s tablet computers. Almost all of the participant students pointed out that it is difficult for teachers to monitor student tablet computers during lecturing. In a correlation with the classroom observation data analysis, the students 124

mentioned that the teachers either circulate around the room or observe students' facial expressions to determine whether they are on- or off-task. Students also mentioned that their friends are expert at pretending they are on task by quickly switching to the assigned task as the teacher approaches or by presenting a blank face to the teacher when they are off-task. They strongly argue that teachers are unable to identify most of the off-task students during a lesson.

Teacher factors. Students clearly attribute the productive use of tablet computers in teaching to teacher quality, related to the prevention of distractions: "If the teacher is teaching actually grabbing your attention ..." (Jose, line 38). One student mentioned his anatomy teacher the previous year as an exemplary tablet computers user who used various applications to productively grab students' attention. According to him, no student misused the tablet computers in her classes. He added that the other teachers do not use them as she did. Likewise, another student claimed, “The teacher is really not caring what the class is doing” (Melissa, line 46); therefore, students misuse the tablet computers. Four students also mentioned that some teachers stopped be concerned about how the students were using the tablet computers in the classroom. They would rather teach the content and move on.

Technical problems. Although just a few technical difficulties were encountered during the classroom observations, seven students mentioned the frequent technical interruptions that caused difficulties with using tablet computers. These included being unable to load learning materials onto the tablet computers, Internet service interruptions, and distortions of tablet computers. Similar difficulties were recorded during the classroom observations. Furthermore, the English teacher listed technical issue as a factor that 125

hindered his tablet computer use in teaching. He stated that he prepares print assignments so the class does not get because of technical difficulties.

Inconvenient for math. Almost all of the participants stated that they use tablet computers less in math because typing mathematical expressions on a tablet computer is quite difficult. For example, one student said, "We put all tablet computers down in the math class (Noor, line 48) ... It is good for some classes but it also had disadvantages, for example, say math ... because it is a lot better with hand writing … functions" (Sham, line

20). Another student pointed out the convenience of handwriting: "For me it is easier just to write it down because I am using numbers and stuff like" (Sam, line 10). The mathematics teacher raised the same concerns. Similarly, the classroom observation data statistics display a significant difference in the tablet computer use rates between the mathematics and the other two subject sessions.

Getting accustomed. Quite a few students stated that they experience difficulties using tablet computers. They mentioned glitches when they type notes and the inability to work on multiple tasks at a time on a screen. For example, a student said, "Some of it is kind of

’glitchy‘ or like sometimes it’s annoying to type on something" (Jennifer, line 16). In contrast, one student found them very easy to use. Overall, the statements suggest that some students need more time to get fully accustomed to using tablet computers in learning.

Plagiarism. Although only three students mentioned the existence of cheating on tests or quizzes, one student very strongly expressed how easy it is to cheat with tablet computers, and how pervasive: "Taking your quiz right here ... and I can just look at my notes and none of the teachers know" (Nalan, line 16). She further stated that her 126

chemistry teacher stopped giving TCB tests for this reason. Another student similarly stated, "Even like in tests actually some of the students cheat, especially digitally" (Khan, line 124). The third student also noted the ease of cheating with tablet computers: "It’s not that common but it can be done. It’s easier to be done if you have an electronic device …"(Melissa, line 52).

Over-riding restrictions. Six students mentioned how eager students were to over-ride the blocks that the school IT team established to limit their access to certain content, and how successful. A student observed, "People will tell the whole grade, ‘Oh “so-n-so”’ website is blocked, and then someone will find a new one within the day and everyone will be watching it on that" (John, line 64). The mathematics teacher also stated that when a student over-ride a block, she or he immediately shares it with the whole school.

Impractical restriction software. Four students expressed how ineffective the existing system is for the teacher to limit student access to certain content when necessary.

Teachers can put tablet computers on guided access with a password, but this blocks other course materials. Therefore, the teacher has to enter a password on each tablet computer, one by one, to lock and unlock it. The teachers say this takes too long for a class of twenty-five students. 127

How Tablets Are Used in the Classroom from the Student Perspective

Table 4.17 Tablet computer use in teaching and learning according to the students Number of Number of Emerging Theme Descriptions Students Appearance Students type lecture notes instead of Use as electronic notebook 12 52 handwriting them. Playing game or watching Playing online games and watching 11 47 video YouTube video are common. Given the option to use Teachers provide print copies of 10 35 tablet computers assignments as an option. Use of electronic books Electronic books with dictionaries are 12 33 and dictionaries in use. Accessing external Google searches allow students to 11 29 resources access online resources. Working on electronic 8 23 Electronic worksheets are in use. assignments Assignments can be electronically Filing assignments online 12 23 submitted. Using social media and Using social media and shopping 8 13 shopping online are rare. Students can quickly find desired Navigating in texts 5 11 content in resources.

Note taking. All the participant students stated that they use tablet computers to type lecture notes, especially in English and history classes; however, they find it difficult to type mathematical expressions on tablet computers. Therefore, they preferred to use paper and pencils in mathematics course sessions. Classroom observations also disclosed that the students pervasively use a note-taking application, Notability, in English and history classes, whereas they mostly take notes in their notebooks in mathematics classes.

One student, conversely, raised a concern about losing his handwriting skills because of his constantly typing instead of writing. The English teacher expressed the same concern. 128

Overall, all of the participant students stated that they use tablet computers to type lecture notes because typing is easy and fast.

Playing games or watching videos. Again, almost all of the participant students pointed out playing online games and watching videos as the two most common tablet computer- driven distractions. Students stated that they play online games because the school network does not allow them to go to the Apple Store to download game applications.

For instance, a student said, "Play games, watch videos that are sometimes inappropriate.

They distract the class" (Jennifer, line 42). According to their statements, these video clips range widely, from super ball game to comic video clips.

Option to use tablet computers. Almost all of the participant students mentioned that most teachers provide students with the option to work on print or electronic copies of the assignments. However, the history and the mathematics teachers require students to submit the assignments online for tracking reasons. In contrast, the English teacher does not even require online submission. The students in math and history classes take pictures of completed print assignments to submit them online. Lastly, as the classroom observation data suggest, the students mentioned that the teachers do not impose consequences for students who fail to bring their tablet computers to school.

Electronic books and dictionaries. All of the participant students, like the teachers, mentioned that electronic books are in use in almost all classes, with a few exceptions, where electronic books are not yet available. In addition, all of the participants have a positive perspective about electronic books. According to them, the benefits are that it is easy to carry multiple books in one light device, that they can quickly navigate or search within a book, that they have a text-embedded dictionary and interactive components. A 129

student, for instance, said, "I don’t really see anyone on social media ... shopping – not really" (Jenny, line 22). Another student stated, "eBooks there’s like videos and pictures.

Like interactive, yeah, those things also help a lot" (Khan, line 70). Only one student complained about the distracting pop-ups that are embedded in the books. Like the history teacher, she pointed out how distracting the interactive component of the books was.

Access to external resources. The tablet computers’ Internet connection is considered an important feature of TCB learning. The high-performing students in particular strongly emphasized this feature: "If I don't grasp the concept, I go online ... to pull it up there"

(Jose, line 18). A few students mentioned that they searched for answers to questions when they got stuck. For example, a student said, "I just research with the questions usually"(Nalan, line 20). It is critical to investigate whether students look for more information or for answers to questions in order to plagiarize. This generates a controversial issue concerning cognitive engagement. It may prevent students from cognitively engaging in problem solving if they choose a short-cut and copy and paste the answers to questions. This matter will be discussed more in the future study section.

Electronic assignments and online filing. The participants mentioned that they use tablet computers to access and complete worksheets when they are assigned electronically. Some students declared that they saw no significant difference between completing assignments on the tablet computer or on paper, whereas others preferred the tablet computer because they found typing easier than handwriting. A student, for instance, stated, "Handwriting is messed up ... it takes too long to write. On the tablet computer you just think of something and just type it down" (Noor, line 15). It is worth 130

noting that most teachers provide assignments in both print and electronic form. In addition, some students like TCB assignments because they have quick access to certain tools, such as a calculator, a dictionary, and the Internet.

An analysis of all data discloses that most teachers require students to submit electronic versions of assignments. Although some teachers provide students with print copies of the assignments as an option, the students are required to take a picture of them to submit. The participants find this feature very effective for tracking assignment submissions: "The most important ones because that’s where we get all our assignments and grades and everything from" (Melissa, line 5). The teachers also made the same point.

Using social media and shopping. Similar to suggestions found in the classroom observation data analysis, the students disclosed that online shopping and using social media during classroom instruction are rare. For instance, a student said, " Shopping, I’ve seen at lunch. I haven’t seen in class too much" (Jenny, line 68).

Quick searching in texts. A relatively small number of students declared that tablet computers are useful for quick keyword searches and access to content in sources such as notebooks, textbooks, and assignments. A student claimed, "The most part it’s faster and you can get information that normally would take a while"(Jose, line 20). Similarly another student claimed the tablet computer helps with searching in previous notes; "I look at my notes that I took in October" (Sam, line 9). 131

Students’ Perceptions about the TCB learning

Table 4.18 Student's perceptions of using tablet computers in learning Number of Number of Emerging Theme Descriptions Students Emerging Tablet computers cause Causes distractions 12 102 distractions.

Tablet computers allow access to Anytime, anywhere 11 50 resources anytime, anywhere.

Helps students to be Tablet computers are helpful for 12 47 organized organizing learning materials. Student motivation in learning is Student motivation 12 44 the key to the misuse of tablet computers. Tablet computer-driven interactive Interactive lessons 10 28 lessons engage students. Internalizing tablet Students internalize tablet computer 5 12 computer use use in learning.

Causing distractions. All of the students strongly stated that tablet computers distract them from learning. The majority of the participants claim that only certain number of students who are unmotivated in learning constantly misuse the tablet computers during instructions. They continually stated that about half the students in many classrooms are such students. A student, for example, responded to a question regarding the misuse of tablet computers, saying, "Definitely, definitely ... So out of the 60 I think like 50 of them." The participants also listed the most prevalent off-task activities, as seen in the

Table 4.47. Like the history teacher, some think that tablet computers provide students with quick access to entertaining activities. A student, for example, said, “Getting distracted is a lot easier compared to if you had nothing" (Sham, line 36). Lastly, in line 132

with the history teacher, almost all of the students attributed the misuse of tablet computers to the availability of Internet access.

Organization. All of the participant students and strongly stated that one of the most beneficial features of tablet computers is their capacity to help them organize their learning resources. They keep all of their resources, such as books, assignments, notes, calculators, and dictionaries, on one device. Therefore, they stated that they no longer lose assignments and can easily track their submissions with tablet computers. A student said, "So you don’t have to worry about, oh my God, I forgot" (Ashley, line 34).

Student motivation. All of the participant students connected the misuse of tablet computers, with strong expressions, to the lack of student motivation in learning. They think that if students are not interested in learning the content or a subject, they use the tablet computers to entertain themselves, instead of attempting to learn. Most students said that they don't misuse the tablet computers in important classes. For instance one said, "They get bored, like if they know everything the teacher is talking about they'll just go on Google and type up a game or something" (Noor, line 34). Another said, "If they don’t care about their grades that’s going to show in how they misuse their tablet computers" (Melissa, line 56). A third stated, "I mean you really have to have a lot of focus and interest in the class and to not be fooling around on the tablet computer" (Sam, line 40).

Anytime, anywhere. Accessing resources anytime and anywhere via a tablet computer is considered another important benefit of using tablet computers in learning. Almost all of the participant students stated that they love tablet computers because they enable them to access all of their resources and assignments anytime, anywhere. For example, some of 133

their statements are, "Everything is always with us" (Sam, line 3), "To get my assignment

... is probably the best thing from having tablet computers" (Sam, line 2), and "The biggest advantage ... work and homework ... you can access that" (Sam, line 16). In addition, students strongly expressed that it is great to easily carry all their learning tools, especially otherwise heavy textbooks, in a light device. One student linked it to his organizational orientation, "If there was no tablet computer,... I would practically be a mess because ... a lot of textbooks and notebook. So I wouldn’t be very organized"

(Jennifer, 14). Another student said, "You just have to take the tablet computer ... you don't have to carry textbooks" (Noor, line 26).

Interactive lessons engage students. Many participants are aware of the benefits of TCB learning when it is effectively used. Some of them pointed out interactive learning activities and instant feedback as examples of effective ways of using tablet computers in learning. Many of them mentioned the Kahoot! that afforded interactive student participation. The classroom observation data also note the highest student participation during the Kahoot!.

Internalizing tablet computer use. The student interviews disclosed an interesting fact, that the students internalized the use of tablet computers. One of the strong emerging themes is that most students relied for their learning on their tablet computers. The students considered the tablet computers as necessary as a textbook or pencil for learning.

They believed that they wouldn’t learn without them. Correspondingly, the classroom observations note that failure to carry the tablet computers to class is quite rare. A student’s statement summarizes their overall feeling, "People are not forgetting their 134

tablet computers ... So once they lose the tablet computer, they pretty much are at a very big loss in class because they don’t have all these files" (Khan, line132).

Overview of findings of the student interview

This section summarizes the aggregated data analysis of the student interviews.

The big picture of the student interviews discloses the fact that TCB teaching carries both disadvantages and advantages. The students identified tablet computer-driven distractions as the most critical disadvantage. They collectively stated that unmotivated students suffer this downside of TCB learning because they are frequently involved in off-task, computer-mediated entertainment activities. According to the analysis, around half of the students frequently get off-task during lessons. They listed playing games and watching

YouTube videos as the two most distracting activities.

The majority of the participant students still would like to continue using tablet computers in learning because it helps them easily organize and track their assignments, and gives them quick access to their assignments and learning resources anytime and anywhere, especially to their textbooks, which would typically be heavy. In addition, they pointed out the ease of typing notes and the various helpful features of electronic books, such as electronic dictionaries and the quick search and navigation features within the books.

The students also pointed to concerns that hinder the effective use of tablet computers. These include teacher-driven ineffective implementation and the difficulty teachers have monitoring and controlling the content of the students’ tablet computers.

They suggest that teachers develop TCB interactive lessons to increase student participation in learning. They further noted the ease of plagiarism and cheating with 135

tablet computers. A few students claimed that cheating with tablet computers is very easy and pervasive.

Table 4.19 Student's overall perceptions of using tablet computers in learning Number of Emerging Theme Descriptions Students One student was not sure about using or not using Overall Neutral 1 tablet computers. Three students wanted to opt out of tablet Overall Negative 3 computer-driven learning. Eight students wanted to continue with tablet Overall Positive 8 computer-driven learning.

Overall perspective. An interview question on whether students want to continue using tablet computers in their learning was asked to measure students’ overall perceptions of learning with tablet computers. As Table 4.19 shows, the majority of the students would like to continue learning with tablet computers. They listed various benefits of TCB learning, such as help with being more organized, being able to access resources at anytime anywhere, and the advantages of electronic books, discussed above. On the other hand, three students would like to go back to learning with traditional tools without tablet computers. Their main concerns were the pervasive misuse of tablet computers, the difficulty with handling multiple resources on one single screen, and ineffectiveness in learning. Only one student was not sure about the benefits or hindrances of tablet computers in her engagement in learning. The students’ overall perceptions suggested that they had internalized learning with tablet computers.

136

Chapter Summary: Cross-Case Analysis

This section compares and contrasts the key emerging themes of each classroom case and their link with the emerging themes of the student interviews. Like the teacher interview discussion, this cross-case analysis was conducted based on concerns, perceptions, and tablet computer use in the classrooms. The order of the items in the tables follows the degree of Emerging, from the most to the least.

Comparisons of the Most Emergent Concerns

Table 4.20 compares all of the participants’ concerns about using tablet computers in the classrooms.

Table 4.20 Comparisons of the most emerging concerns about 1:1 TCB teaching

Order English Teacher Math Teacher History Teacher Students

1 Causes distractions Plagiarism Causes distractions Causes distractions

Difficulty Difficulty Impractical monitoring 2 monitoring students’ Causes distractions restriction software students’ tablet tablet computers computers Difficulty Breaking Impractical monitoring Inconvenient for 3 administrative restriction software students’ tablet math use blocks computers

As seen in the table, almost all of the teachers and the students raised the same or similar concerns, such as tablet computer-driven distractions, the difficulty for teachers to monitor students’ tablet computers during instruction, and the lack of a practical online system that enables teachers to limit the students’ access to certain content when necessary. In addition, the mathematics teacher raised plagiarism as a serious concern. 137

Although it is not one of the first three priorities for the other two teachers or the students, they also strongly mentioned plagiarism as a concern. Lastly, the students found typing mathematical expressions on tablet computers inconvenient. The classroom observation data also show that the majority of the mathematics students prefer using paper and pencils rather than tablet computers in mathematics classes.

Causing distractions. This is almost all of the participants’ first concern. According to one student, some teachers don’t even allow tablet computers to be used, due to distractions. The English teacher stated that he catches off-task students every day.

However, he noted that the excessive tablet computer-driven distractions are limited to certain students, “Yes, I do find that some students – more than others – find it very distracting.” The classroom observation data also show that at least a few students in each session get off-task, but some students excessively misuse them. The participant students claimed that sometimes even the high-performing students get off-task with tablet computers. The mathematics teacher argues that students have hard time staying away the distractions of tablet computers. She supported this with an example: “Even when I’m with my tablet computer, [in a meeting] I found myself … coloring the page and the drawing a flower and a sun and I felt like, this is how the kids feel when they have the tablet computer” (Line 234). From a slight different angle, the history teacher considered

Internet access with tablet computers the most serious factor for distraction. He claimed,

“Given the opportunity, they will stay on the Internet all day” (Line 36). Similarly, the

English teacher considered the Internet to be the main distraction factor, even for the

“good” students. He gave Google advertisements as an example of something that draws students’ attention, even when they are using the tablet computers with good intentions to 138

learn. Lastly, it is worth noting that many participant students think that tablet computers distract about half of the students in the classroom.

Difficulty monitoring student’s tablet computer and impractical restriction software. The other two concerns – teacher’s difficulty monitoring students’ tablet computers’ and controlling content during lectures – are connected. All three teachers claimed that it is quite difficult to monitor what students are doing with tablet computers during teaching, because the teachers cannot access the students’ screens from their desktop or tablet computers, due to lack of an online monitoring system. They want to limit students’ access to certain content or applications that can distract them; however, the current technological infrastructure does not provide them with such a capability. It should be noted that there is an online application that lets teachers restrict the students to one application during a class; however, all of the participants noted the impractically of this system. According to them, first, it takes too much time to lock the tablet computers one at a time in a class of twenty students. Second, the system blocks the students’ tablet computers from all applications except one, so that the students cannot use any other application needed during the lesson. Third, all of these locked tablet computers need to be unlocked for use in the next class.

Teachers are currently trying to develop various strategies to determine whether or not students are on task. All of the participants stated that the teachers are paying attention to students’ facial expressions and circulating through the room to identify off- task students. However the students stated that off-task students can disguise their facial expressions to trick the teachers and can quickly switch away from off-task applications when the teacher approaches to check the screen. For example, a student said, “They’re 139

just like, click it, swipe, go on with it, whatever the student’s on”(Ashley, line 81).

Another student said, “If they just have a blank face the teacher won't notice” (Ashley, line 46). Finally, all of the teachers desire an effective system for controlling the content of the students’ tablet computers.

Comparisons of the Most Emerging Perceptions

Unlike the list of emerging concerns, all of the participants, with a few exceptions, had diverse perceptions about TCB teaching and learning.

Table 4.21 Comparisons of the most emerging perceptions about 1:1 TCB teaching Order English Teacher Math Teacher History Teacher Students

Optional use of Diminishing tablet Helping users to 1 Supplemental Tool tablet computer computer use be organized

Supplemental Well designed 2 Student motivation Teacher factor tool lesson needed Diminishing Misuse of Enforcement to Student 3 tablet computer educational use tablet motivation use applications computers

Supplemental tool and optional use of tablet computers. The English and history teachers thought that it was unrealistic to generate, every day, tablet computer-centric lessons. Although both had overall positive perceptions about using tablet computers in education, they thought that they should be used on an as-needed basis, as a supplemental teaching tool. For example, the history teacher said, “[It] is a beneficial tool, as long as it’s remembered that that’s exactly what it is – a tool” (line 90). The English teacher even currently uses it only as an optional tool for typing lecture notes and completing worksheets. Similarly, the mathematics teacher does not require students to use tablet 140

computers in the classroom, but she mandates electronic submission of the completed assignments for reasons of tracking.

The classroom observation data also illustrate that the students in these two courses are freely choosing to take notes on tablet computers or in notebooks and to complete electronic or print worksheets. The classroom observations show that students are provided with print copies of assignments in the English and mathematics courses. On the other hand, the history teacher enforces tablet computer use in his classrooms. For example, he provides students only with an electronic copy of the assignments and requires electronic submissions upon completion. The classroom observation statistics also reflect the teachers’ different approaches to tablet computer use in these classrooms.

For instance, a very small portion of the students in the English classes completed assignments on tablet computers, whereas a very large portion of the students in the history class sessions Typed lecture note on their tablet computers. Overall, the teachers would like to use tablet computers as supplemental tools on an as-needed basis, rather than for every day TCB teaching, and two of the teachers do not even mandate that students use tablet computers on a daily basis.

Diminishing tablet computer use. The mathematics and English teachers stated that tablet computer use had diminished compared to the previous year. Many students stated that the teachers provided students with paper and pencil assignments besides electronic assignments. This gave the students an option whether to use paper and pencil or tablet computers to complete assignments or take lecture notes. Almost all of the students and the mathematics teacher found tablet computers to be inconvenient for typing mathematical expressions. The mathematics teacher attributed the decline in tablet 141

computing in her class to such a concern. She wished to go back to the traditional teaching tools. This may also impact the students’ tablet computer use in the mathematics classes. The English teacher thought that some students have a hard time typing.

Therefore, they choose to handwrite. He, as mentioned in earlier section, was concerned about students’ handwriting skills. He required some assignments in handwriting. This may also have an impact on students’ tablet computer use.

Unmotivated students. The mathematics teacher and the participant students strongly highlighted student motivation as a factor that deeply impacts students’ activities with tablet computers during instruction. According to many students, tablet computers are used to keep them occupied when they are not motivated or interested in the lesson.

Similarly, the mathematics teacher said that the motivated students use their tablet computers effectively, whereas the unmotivated students use them as a cool tool to play game. Correspondingly, a student stated that they use tablet computers actively in AP classes. The statement of another student agrees: “In regular [not honor] classes, I mean sometimes the students don’t take it so seriously. They’re not taking their education as seriously… playing on games or doing something” (Sam, line 50). The classroom observation data also show that there is less misuse of tablet computers in honors than in regular classes. The mathematics teacher further stated, “The kids just need to be on task, whether it’s playing with the tablet computer or playing with something else” (line 40). A student also claimed that a lot of students misuse the tablet computer because “[They] have this idea that like you can come to school and it’s not about learning, it’s about, like, goofing off and playing with your friends” (John, line 54). The discrepancies between 142

motivated and unmotivated students in their use of tablet computers may raise another issue: a widening achievement gap between the two groups of students.

The teacher factor and well designed lessons. The teacher factor and well-designed lessons are directly linked. The students and the history teacher attributed the productive use of tablet computers to the teacher’s preparation of lessons. The history teacher thinks that students benefit a lot from a well-designed lesson with tablet computers. After stating that actively integrating tablet computers in education is a challenge, he argued,

“Depending on how I design a particular lesson, I can overcome a significant number of challenges in there” (Line 58). Correspondingly, a student pointed out a teacher who productively used the tablet computers: “We had apps that would cost normally $40/$50 on the tablet computer and she [anatomy teacher] always integrated her lessons with those apps and stuff like that. And I think she was one of the best teachers for that”

(Sam, line 21). He later strongly stated that none of the other teachers used tablet computers as effectively as the anatomy teacher. Similarly, another student attributed the effective use of tablet computers to the teachers rather than to the device itself: “To be honest, our school is not using our tablet computer the most productive way they can. …

[Teachers] can do a lot better with this than they already are” (Khan, line 64). It may be worth noting that the classroom observation data discloses that the teachers are using tablet computers to have students access electronic versions of the textbooks, type lecture notes, and complete electronic versions of the assignments.

Helping users to be organized. All of the participant students strongly stated, and the teachers moderately stated, that tablet computers help students organize their assignments and learning tools for effective use. A student stated, “Everything organized right there so 143

if you need to go back I have it right here” (Jennifer, line 10). Another student said, “I don’t forget my things for class. Everyone’s always prepared for class if they have their tablet computer because it has everything” (Jennifer, line 56). Evan, a student who had a negative perception toward tablet computers, stated that access to resources anytime and anywhere is the only advantage of carrying a tablet computer. It seems that helping students to keep their assignments and learning resources on one light device played an important role in students’ internalization of tablet computer use in the TCB classes. All of the students expressed how helpful the tablet computers were for accessing resources anytime and anywhere, and for filing assignments electronically and enabling them to track their submissions.

Comparisons of How Tablet Computers Are Used

Table 4.22 displays a cross-analysis of the classroom observation data to compare and contrast how tablet computers were used in each case.

Table 4.22 Comparisons of the most emerging tablet computer use in teaching Order English Teacher Math Teacher History Teacher

Reading the assigned Playing game or 1 Typing lecture note electronic book watching video

Typing or reviewing Studying unrelated Participating in Kahoot! 2 lecture note tasks game

Searching for definitions Participating in Playing game or watching 3 of vocabulary words Kahoot! game video

English case’s uniqueness. It is worth noting that the students’ use of tablet computers in the English case is unique. For example, they are given worksheets to work on, but all of the students must read online books to complete the worksheet. In another example, 144

they are given a list of vocabulary words and required to find the definitions. They all must use the online dictionary, because there is no print copy of a dictionary in the room.

For such reasons, there are almost no correlations between the English case and the other two.

Typing lecture notes. The students preferred typing lecture notes in both the English and history classes because, according to the teachers, many students liked typing more than writing. On the other hand, the students preferred taking notes in notebooks in the mathematics classes because they found it difficult to type mathematical expressions on tablet computers. In addition, the history teacher required students to submit electronic copies of lecture notes as assignments, which was not the case in the mathematics or

English classes. The history teacher further required students to take notes on tablet computers and graded the electronic copy of their lecture notes, whereas the English and mathematics teachers gave students the option to type notes on tablet computers. Lastly, a few students and the English teacher were concerned that typing all notes and assignments led to a strong possibility that students could lose their handwriting skills.

Playing game or watching video. Playing games and watching videos was the most emerging theme in the classroom observation data, but also the teacher and student interviews clearly disclose that these two distracting activities are pervasive among the students. According to the students and the teachers, mostly students unmotivated to learn get distracted with games. The students further claimed that these students make up about half of the classes. The statistics of the classroom observation data support both arguments; about half of some classes play games or watch videos during instruction.

Students mentioned that the school administrators block them from downloading game 145

applications; however, they can play Web-based games as long as the tablet computers are connected to the Internet. The classroom observation data also show that all of the observed games were online rather than applications. In addition, students watched

YouTube video clips. The content of the clips was varied, but it included basketball games, movies, street fights, and music clips. Overall, all of the teachers and students pointed to games and videos as the most pervasive distracting activities, and the classroom observation data as well.

Kahoot! game. As described in earlier sections, the tablet computers mediate Jeopardy- style games on the Kahoot! web site, which the teachers occasionally use. The classroom observation data disclose that almost all of the students in the observed sessions participated in subject-related the Kahoot!. It was observed that even the distracted students ceased their off-task activities to participate in the Kahoot!. The classroom observation data analysis discloses that some students used the tablet computers only to participate in such games, not in any other activities. The history teacher, in addition, provided small incentives such as homework tickets or points added to exam scores for the winners. Many participant students also stated that they liked being interactive in the classroom, and the tablet computers helped to establish such interaction with the Kahoot! for a group participatory activity. A student even suggested that teachers should develop more lessons like these. Their procedural engagement in these games may be considered a clue to a potential increase in student engagement when tablet computers are used effectively. 146

Chapter 5

Discussion of Findings and Implications for Practice

Schools are rapidly purchasing tablet computers for 1:1 Tablet Computer Based (TCB) teaching and replacing printed teaching materials and notebooks with electronic versions. This fundamental change from print to electronic media should be examined from various perspectives before school districts invest dwindling public funds in tablet computers. It is important for educational leaders and policy makers to understand how 1:1 TCB teaching and learning enhance or hinder student engagement in the classroom for enhanced student learning.

If this fundamental change in the delivery of instruction fails to achieve the desired goal – enhanced student learning – the education of thousands of students may be at serious risk. In addition, if this pedagogical change in education does not meet the goal, public funds spent for tablet computers will have been wasted. Therefore, educators must look at how the implementation of TCB teaching has affected the education of students in the infancy of the initiative. In sum, this research study examined one aspect of TCB teaching: how it helps or hinders students’ procedural engagement in learning activities. The study aims to inform educators and policy makers about the pros and cons of 1:1 TCB teaching in regard to students’ procedural engagement.

Research Questions

How does 1:1 tablet computer-based teaching help or hinder students’ procedural

engagement in high school classrooms? 147

The following sub-questions will more specifically assist in understanding the overarching question:

1. How do high school teachers use 1:1 tablet computers in their classrooms and

teaching practices?

2. How do high school students use 1:1 tablet computer during a course session?

3. What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the effects of 1:1 tablet computers on

student engagement in learning?

Limitations of the Study

Collecting data from a classroom where students exhibit their natural daily behaviors is critical to obtaining accurate results. Although it was clearly communicated that the researcher had no professional relationship to the school administrators and that the collected data would not be shared with any of them, having an outsider in their classrooms made students uncomfortable. The students tried to conceal their typical classroom behaviors to some extent.

For example, during the classroom observations, a few students tried to hide their tablet computer screens from the researcher. It appeared that they feared being reported to the administrators or losing their tablet computers. A trustful relationship between the students and the researcher would eliminate such an obstacle; however, it was difficult for the researcher to establish trust with students or the interview participants in such a short period of data collection.

The researcher tried to observe the classrooms from various classroom locations to overcome such a limitation. For example, students were observed from the front of the room to identify the tablet computer users at a given moment. Then the researcher walked between the desks or 148 moved to the back of the room to identify the activities on their screens. Lastly, multiple class sessions were observed to increase the accuracy of the classroom observation data.

Similar limitations were experienced during the interviews. A few students tried to conceal their negative perspectives about the TCB teaching or learning during interviews, because they were afraid to lose their tablet computers. This was obvious because their answers to the interview questions were in conflict with one another. For example, a student listed many negative tablet computer-driven activities taking place in the classroom at the beginning of the interview, but she later claimed that the tablet computers are beneficial in learning.

Subsequently, she stated that she wanted to keep her tablet computer. In such situations, crosschecking follow-up questions were posed to understand the students’ true perspectives on

TCB teaching or learning. Both of these limitations might have been overcome had the researcher been able to spend a longer amount of time to establish better trust with the students such as in a year long study or as a daily member of the class.

Research Design Review

A qualitative case study method was employed to examine how 1:1 TCB teaching was implemented in English, mathematics, and history classes in a public school located in a middle- class neighborhood on the East Coast of the United States. As Denzin and Lincoln (2003) note, qualitative studies allow the researcher to conduct research in pre-existing settings to understand the nature of the case. The qualitative case study method was helpful for understanding students’ and teachers’ true experiences with 1:1 TCB teaching and learning in a classroom setting, with no manipulation of daily routines or educational elements. A qualitative study was chosen due to the need for a holistic approach to investigating real classroom environments, with no 149 manipulation of the setting, to determine how 1:1 TCB teaching helps or hinders students’ procedural engagement in the classroom.

Credibility and Trustworthiness

Marriam’s (1995) approaches to trustworthiness were employed to find a worldview result, which means that the same or similar results would emerge if various researchers conducted the same study. First, the validity of the data collection was addressed by collecting data from various sources, including observations of three different classrooms, teacher interviews, and student interviews. Triangulation of these sources of data increased the credibility of the study. Second, successful TCB teachers were identified by the principal and selected for the observations and interviews, to minimize the human factor in 1:1 TCB teaching.

For example, a first-year teacher’s weak classroom management could negatively impact TCB teaching and a set of data collected from such a classroom would mislead the researcher. Third, the students were selected from various academic and gender backgrounds to take advantage of various points of view. The data include the perspectives of students from low-, moderate- and high-performing groups. Fourth, observing the classroom in its regular context was a priority.

For example, one classroom observation was cancelled because a school administrator walked into the room to observe the teacher; the teacher and students would not exhibit their regular, daily behaviors while the school principal was in the room. Overall, the triangulation of carefully collected data from various sources allowed the researcher to capture all of the features of the empirical reality of the TCB teaching.

The accuracy of the data analysis, one of Merriam's (1995) concerns, was addressed by taking various measures. The most appropriate coding methods were selected based on the types 150 of data sought. The details of this are discussed in the data analysis section. Three coding cycles were conducted to increase the accuracy of coding. In the third round of coding, the codes were grouped into categories. In addition, per Merriam’s (1995) suggestions, two peer examiners, who had experience with similar studies, reviewed the coding and the categories to achieve a strong consistency of data analysis. Overall, after multiple steps of the coding process, two other researchers examined the accuracy of the data coding.

Potential Threats to Internal Validity

The most serious potential threat to internal validity, as Merriam (1995) mentions, is human behavior. The classroom observations were conducted very carefully to minimize the

Hawthorne Effect, changes in behavior due to the presence of an outsider. First, the researcher was introduced to the students as an outsider with no professional relations with the school administration or the teachers. They were informed that the researcher’s observations would not be shared with anyone in the school. This was critical to ensure that they would exhibit their natural behaviors during the observation. Second, they were observed from various points of view to see their interactions with the tablet computers. Third, multiple class sessions, a total of

29, were observed to identify authentic daily tablet computer-mediated activities.

Another serious potential threat to internal validity is the maturation effect, which refers to the participants’ physical and mental frustration. The interviews were held during the most available and relaxing times, free periods or study hall periods, right after lunch, to eliminate maturation (participants’ being too exhausted or hungry). Lastly, crosschecking questions were asked when gathering the interview data.

151

Overview and Discussion of Findings

Causing Distractions

The data analysis revealed that tablet computers distract a significant portion of the student population in a classroom. Analysis of all three data types disclosed that students diverted themselves with various entertaining activities, such as playing games, watching videos, studying unrelated tasks and loitering on the Internet. This result confirms the Activity

Engagement Theory’s (AET) main argument, that people’s activity identifications determine their motivational orientation (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Just as the AET’s experimental study provided students with books with text to read and pages to color (two intrinsic motivations), the tablet computers in this study provided students simultaneously with both content-related and entertaining activities (two intrinsic motivations). As the AET experimental results suggest, some students chose activities based on their primary identification of them. This study found that these students chose tablet computer-mediated entertainment rather than content-related activities.

The second argument of the theory is that primary and the secondary identifications are in continuous competition (Higgins & Trope, 1990) to draw the students’ attention. The data analysis revealed that some students involved themselves in entertaining activities, either toward the end of the class or after quickly completing the given task. In addition, a third group of students involved themselves in entertaining activities while working on assigned tasks. These two groups of students’ involvements confirm that the their secondary identifications of activities with the tablet computers win this competition. Correspondingly, a participant teacher clearly stated that entertaining activities that the tablet computers offer, such as games and videos, win over learning activities. 152

Third, the AET argues that contextual factors may change students’ activity identifications and, in turn, their motivational orientation. Lee (1994) explains this with an example of an intramural volleyball game. Students playing the game may initially identify the game as "socializing," but when the coach warns them, “Let’s play hard and get a good workout"

(Lee 1994, p. 7), their perception may change to "exercising.” Similarly, students who were initially involved in entertaining activities with tablet computers fully engaged in the lesson when the teacher began the Jeopardy-style games. The nature of the game and its small incentives changed the students’ motivational orientation to the lessons.

This study examined the integration of tablet computers in the classrooms where they were used to deliver traditional learning tools – textbooks, notebooks, and worksheets – in electronic format. The teachers in these classrooms utilized conventional instructional practices such as lecturing, solving practice problems on the board, and having students read texts from electronic books, take notes, and complete practice sheets on their tablet computers. The evidence collected from such a learning setting suggested that the tablet computers distract students’ from procedural engagement in learning activities. This confirms the argument of

Benloch-Dualde et al. (2010), which attributes distraction to the traditional educational approach, namely, direct instruction, recitation and solving problems on the blackboard. The evidence also supports the idea that students procedurally engage in activities if tablet computers are used productively.

In addition, some research studies found Internet access through 1:1 tablet computers during instruction to be a serious distraction factor (Adams, 2006; Kinash et al., 2011; Nworie &

Hauhton, 2008). Similarly, this study confirms that the most distracting activities – playing games, watching videos, and visiting various sites – are Internet-driven activities. It is worth 153 noting that the Internet-mediated distractions found by this study found differ from those identified in previous studies, which included (1) social networking, (2) paying bills, (3) shopping online, (4) downloading documents, and (5) surfing the web (Nworie & Hauhton,

2008). Contextual factors may contribute to such a discrepancy. Moreover Adams (2006), an experienced college instructor, found himself unable to compete against Internet-connected tablet computers. Therefore, teachers desire to have the technical ability to limit students’ access to the Internet when it is not needed for learning.

This study, unlike others in the research literature, found that distractions varied from classroom to classroom, depending on the students' perceptions of the content, on whether it was

"important to learn it or not," and on how convenient it was to use the device. For example, the student interview data revealed that students were less engaged in the history classes than in the mathematics or English classes. The classroom observation data analysis also disclosed that the students were distracted in history classes more than English classes. Moreover, students found the tablet computers inconvenient to use in mathematics classes, due to the difficulty of typing mathematical expressions. Likewise, the evidence disclosed that the tablet computers were used much less in mathematics than in the other two classrooms, and that the distraction rate in mathematics was more than in the other subjects.

All of the evidence strongly suggests that tablet computers cause distraction from a significant portion of students' procedural engagement in learning when they are used as electronic textbooks, notebooks, or worksheets. The study revealed that such a finding is linked to a problem of program implementation – the lack of a practical software program that would enable teachers to monitor and control the contents of students’ tablet computers during lessons.

Since the devices offer very quick access to multiple, attractive and entertaining, non-educational 154 applications besides learning opportunities, some students easily choose to use them, and teachers are unable to identify these students while lecturing. The teachers used various

“manual” strategies to monitor the students’ tablet computers while working in the classroom, but they experienced serious difficulties catching and stopping them from misusing the devices.

In addition, the existing technological structure does not enable teachers to restrict students’ access to certain content or applications. Although there was a software program that limits the students’ computers, it was impractical. The lack of monitoring software program and the tablet computers’ allowance to quickly switch between entertaining and educational applications provide students opportunities to misuse the tablet computers without being caught. Lastly, it is hoped that developments in technology will resolve these technical problems by creating viable monitoring and controlling software.

Overall, 1:1 TCB teaching hinders some students' procedural engagement with learning activities, variously depending on their perceptions of the content of lessons and their ability to use tablet computers. This finding emphasizes the significance of the problem of practice; failure to teach with tablet computers may put student’s education at serious risk. As the findings suggest, tablet computers distract a large portion of the students from engaging in learning activities depending on subject areas. This raises two other concerns. One is that while some students benefit from the use of tablet computers, others are distracted. This may widen the achievement gap between these two groups of students. Second, achievement in different subjects may be drastically different. For example, while the students are successful in English, they may perform very poorly in history classes. 155

Advantages of Tablet Computers in Teaching

The second significant finding is the three critical advantages that tablet computers offer.

First, the evidence suggests that tablet computers are a significantly helpful tool for enabling students to organize and access learning resources anytime and anywhere. Since all learning materials, such as assignments, otherwise large and heavy textbooks, notebooks, dictionaries, calculators, and so forth, are on one light device, the students are able to access any of them at anytime, anywhere. For instance, a student can read lecture notes taken several months ago while eating lunch. The evidence suggests that such accommodations improve students’ involvement in a class because they can no longer excuse themselves for forgetting assignments or leaving a textbook or a notebook at home.

Second, tablet computers enable teachers to assign tasks online, and students can submit the completed assignments online as well. The data analysis disclosed that this electronic file exchange was considered a great tool for tracking assignment submissions. The teachers were able to assign a task, and the students could submit the completed assignments at any time. The students could also easily follow up the grading of these assignments because the teachers provided feedback and grades electronically.

Third, the data analysis revealed that students and teachers frequently used the tablet computers to access resources outside of the class for deeper learning. Similarly, Kinash et al.

(2012) note that portable devices expand learning experiences outside of the classroom. The teachers incorporated external online resources into their instruction, whereas the students looked for additional online resources when they got stuck on a problem or had questions. As mentioned earlier, this study did not reveal how effectively the online resources were being used. There is a chance that students were using this capability to plagiarize when completing assignments. 156

Furthermore, a participant teacher claimed that the external online resources provided students the pure answers of the higher order thinking problems. He was concerned that such access to answers of the problems might prevent the students from deep critical thinking to internalize the learning. In particular, this study did not reveal how the students utilized the Google search engine.

In addition, the study found that students internalized the TCB learning, because of the advantages listed earlier. The student interviews revealed that students no longer want to deal with carrying heavy textbooks or forgetting their assignments or leaving their resources at home.

This finding confirms the claim of Hutchnison et al. (2012) that portability (availability anywhere, anytime) is one of the motivational factors behind 1:1 tablet computer integration in education. Correspondingly, students in a study by Swan et al, (2005) also identified the portability of mobile computing devices as a critical factor in increasing their engagement with learning. After stating how helpful it is to be able to carry all learning materials in one light device, a large portion of the participant students said they would like to continue using tablet computers, regardless of their hindrance to the users’ overall engagement in learning activities.

Technical Problems

One last finding of this study concerned the occurrence of occasional technical problems.

The data analysis revealed that technical problems such as the interruption of Internet services, failures to download instructional material to the tablet computers, and dysfunctional tablet computers were a hindrance to some teachers, and to students’ motivation to use the tablet computers. This might be considered a small, but critical, problem that could interfere with overall program implementation. 157

Finally, these findings do not indicate whether TCB teaching is beneficial or harmful to student’s procedural engagement in all cases. It is crucial to remember that this study examined classes involving three different subjects (English, mathematics, and history), in which the 1:1 tablet computers were mainly used to access traditional teaching materials, including textbooks, notebooks, dictionaries, and worksheets. Therefore, the findings do not mean that tablet computers distract students in all cases, regardless of teaching strategies. As mentioned earlier, the evidence supports a finding that students do seriously engage with some tablet computer- driven interactive activities. However, the evidence also strongly suggests that 1:1 TCB use with traditional methods, which include lecturing, individual work on practice sheets, and note taking, seriously distracts some students’ procedural engagement in learning. It is important to recognize that this study does not reveal the motivational orientation or academic performance of these distracted students.

Summary of Discussions

This study examined three different cases in subject areas where tablet computers have being mainly used as tools to deliver resources such as textbooks, notebooks, and worksheets to students in electronic format. In such a circumstance, the study found that 1:1 TCB teaching distracts high school students from a significantly large portion of procedural engagement in learning activities. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the tablet computers offer various advantages that improve students’ overall involvement in learning process. This section briefly presents these two major findings.

The evidence discloses that tablet computers distract students from a large portion of procedural engagement in learning, in various ways, and it confirms the three claims of the theoretical framework of the study. The AET argues that, when two intrinsic motivational 158 activities are offered simultaneously, students engage in an activity based on their primary identification of the activities (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Evidence suggests that some students, shortly after a class session begins, involve themselves in what they perceive to be their primary activity, tablet computer-mediated entertainment. Second, the AET argues that students may change their motivational orientation based on competition between the primary and the secondary identifications (Higgins & Trope, 1990). The data analysis revealed that some students became involved in entertaining activities later in a class period, seemingly as a result of such competition. Lastly, the theory argues that contextual factors impact students’ activity identifications (Higgins & Trope, 1990). Correspondingly, the majority of the distracted students quickly became engaged in learning activities like the Jeopardy-style game. Overall, the findings of the study confirm the three aspects of the AET.

The first finding mentioned above also confirms findings in the literature. For example,

Skiba (2011) observed that students frequently become distracted during instruction due to the entertaining features of tablet computers. Correspondingly, this study found that a large portion of the student population was involved in playing games, watching videos, or loitering on the

Internet during instruction. In addition, Sharples (2002) states that 1:1 mobile computers with a wireless Internet connection may cause chaos in a learning environment, because they allow students to freely communicate with the outside, non-educative world. In compliance with his finding, almost all of the distracting activities that this study identified were Internet-mediated.

Unlike previous studies, this study found that the distractions varied among the classes, depending on the students’ perceptions of the need to learn the content and on the convenience of tablet computer use. The data analysis disclosed that the distraction rate is higher in history classes than in English classes because students think that history is not as important as English. 159

Similarly the degree of distraction in mathematics is highest because the students find tablet computers impractical for typing mathematical expressions. Lastly, this study, unlike others, found that the teachers’ difficulties with monitoring and controlling the content of students’ computers during lectures triggered the high rate of distraction in the classrooms.

The second critical finding of this study is the multiple benefits the tablet computers offer. Like some other studies, this study found the students internalized 1:1 TCB learning, because tablet computers enabled them to access their learning resources at any time, anywhere, and to easily track their assignment submissions and their grades. For instance, according to

Arnone et al. (2011), portability enables the construction of a learning environment that promotes the personal organization and management of resources. Sharples et al. (2007) also consider portability one of the main reasons for promoting 1:1 TCB teaching. The data analysis disclosed that three-quarters of the students would like to continue using the tablet computers in their learning, regardless of the distractions to student engagement in learning activities. Overall, the evidence strongly suggests that students internalized TCB learning due to the ability to access learning resources anytime, anywhere, and to easily track assignment submissions and grades.

In brief, this study does not mean that 1:1 TCB teaching distract students in all cases, regardless of how tablet computers are used, nor does it mean that tablet computers distract all of the students in a classroom. Rather, the study found that tablet computers distract a significantly large proportion of students in situations where tablet computers are mainly utilized for reading electronic textbooks and typing lecture notes. The participant teachers and the students claimed that the distracted students were the unmotivated ones. However, this study did not profile the continually distracted students. This is a matter for further study.

160

Implications and Recommendations for Practice

The main concern of this study was whether 1:1 TCB teaching improves or hinders students’ procedural engagement in learning activities. It is crucial to remember that the three cases examined were utilizing the tablet computers mainly to have students access textbooks, take notes, and work on assignments. The findings suggest that TCB teaching in this context distracts a large portion of the student population, and might subject those students’ education to serious risk, as discussed above. Moreover the study suggests that students’ procedural engagement unpredictably increased when the TCB activity promoted student interactivity. For instance, almost all of the students were engaged during tablet computer-mediated interactive

Jeopardy-style games. Therefore, a new way to approach 1:1 TCB teaching implementation is strongly suggested.

The participant teachers stated that conceiving of productive ways to utilize tablet computers in teaching requires an extensive amount of time. The evidence collected also suggests that preparing lessons that effectively utilize the computers is not feasible without prior experience. Therefore, this study suggests that policy makers and school administrators should begin using tablet computers as supplemental tools in the classroom, until teachers gain enough experience to prepare productive lessons with them. For instance, teachers could be provided with a set of tablet computers to use in the classrooms as a supplemental tool for two years. Then they could be closely monitored and encouraged to develop productive lessons with them.

Professional development opportunities could also be arranged to help them develop such lessons during the pilot period. With such an approach, it could be expected that all of the teachers would expand their repertoire of productive lessons with tablet computers within two years or so. After making sure that all of the teachers were ready for an effective implementation 161 of 1:1 TCB teaching, the school administration could move all teaching materials, including textbooks, notebooks, and worksheets onto the tablet computers. Such a gradual implementation would likely address this study's main concern, putting students' education at serious risk.

The inability of teachers to monitor or control the content of students’ tablet computers is considered one of the distraction-driving factors. The evidence suggests that some students get distracted even during the most engaging Jeopardy-style game activities and that teachers are unable to identify them and so are unable to address the problem. There is chance that the tablet computers will drive distractions even when teachers develop productive lessons. Therefore, this study suggests that school administrators address the problem by providing software that enables teachers to monitor students’ devices and limit their access to irrelevant Internet content.

Teachers need to be aware of the fact that a large portion of students in their classes are frequently involved in off-task activities and successfully hiding such behaviors. Teachers who try to implement 1:1 TCB teaching without effective software applications for monitoring and controlling students’ tablet computers need to be vigilant in monitoring for themselves the distracting activities identified in this study, until schools can address the problem. Practices currently utilized by the teachers participating in this study – constantly circulation around the room, observing students’ facial expressions, and posing pop questions – might be employed to identify those who are involved in off-task activities.

Another problem that school administrators need to consider is technology-driven interruptions. The data analysis disclosed technical problems such as Internet service interruptions, broken or uncharged tablet computers, and software-driven downloading issues.

School administrators need to provide teachers with either quick solutions to these problems when they occur or with alternative ways to deliver instruction. Basing a lesson on tablet 162 computers that frequently suffer technical problems may discourage teachers from using them in subsequent lessons. Lastly, it is recommended that there be consistency in the software programs that teachers and the students use. Frequent changes in software may make it difficult for users to get accustomed to the applications and result in user-driven problems that may also interrupt teaching and learning.

The final word to educators is that using older models of teaching in conjunction with tablet computers – reading electronic textbooks, typing lecture notes, and working on electronic copies of the assignments – fails to engage students in learning activities. Therefore, educators should seek productive uses for tablet computers in teaching and not rush to start a 1:1 TCB teaching program before they have accumulated enough experience and practice to use tablet computers productively. Last teachers integrating tablets into their classrooms should become familiar with the framework, Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). This framework helps to provide a connection between the three areas and prepare educators to teach in a technology driven environment. Online resources and collaboration with educators across the world about how to effectively implement 1:1 TCB teaching might be the first step for a teacher. For example, the TPACK group allows educators to collaborate in improving teaching practices with technology- mediated pedagogies. Tablet computer-based teaching is one of the areas that educators collaborate on in their group

Implications for Future Study

Evidence suggests that students frequently use the Google search engine to access external educational resources to better understand learning content. Although the students’ statements make it sound as though one of the benefits of tablet computers is learning more, they 163 may, in fact, be using Google to copy and paste the answers to assignments. There is no difference between copying and pasting answers from a friend or from the Internet. If tablet computers facilitate plagiarism, students’ learning may be subject to hidden risk because providing students with direct answers to questions prevents them from engaging in critical thinking. In addition, the resulting high scores on assignments, due to correct answers, may mislead both teachers and parents. Therefore, a further study could investigate how students use the Google search engine with their tablet computers in the classroom.

This study found that the tablet computers distract some students. Allegedly, these are the low-performing or unmotivated students. If such is the case, 1:1 TCB teaching presents the strong possibility of widening the achievement gap between low- and high-achievers. Therefore, further research might investigate the academic achievement and motivational orientation of the distracted students. Finding the profile of the distracted students and assessing their needs may guide educators in modifying their programs.

This study examined three classes – in English, mathematics, and history – in a public high school located in a middle-class neighborhood. Therefore, the results may not apply to various other contexts. In order to come to a complete picture of how tablet computers engage or distract students, further studies could be conducted in middle and elementary schools in middle- class neighborhoods. This would enable educators to get a complete picture of the situation in middle-class neighborhood schools.

As mentioned earlier, this study was conducted in a school whose students mainly belong to socioeconomically middle-class families. The same study might also be conducted in socioeconomically varied neighborhood schools, such as urban or suburban high schools, in classrooms dedicated to the same three subjects. Comparisons of the findings of such studies 164 would give a complete picture of how 1:1 TCB teaching impacts high schools students’ procedural engagement. This would also guide educators working in different contexts in improving their program implementation.

This study examined only three subject areas; however, 1:1 TCB teaching has been implemented throughout the entire curriculum. Further studies may examine the same concerns in different subject areas, such as science, art, music, and so forth. The combined results of such studies would provide educators with a comprehensive idea of how 1:1 TCB teaching impacts the students’ procedural engagement in high school overall. This would guide educators in improving the implementation of tablet computers by considering the needs of various subjects.

Lastly, this study found that 1:1 TCB teaching positively impacts students’ procedural engagement when it is used productively. For example, student engagement significantly improved in learning when the tablet computers were used to promote students’ interactive participation in learning. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers work on developing productive lessons with tablet computers. Further study may investigate productive ways of implementing 1:1 TCB teaching strategies in these three subject areas, or in others.

Conclusion

TCB teaching with traditional instructional strategies such as direct instruction, solving sample problems on the board, and having students take notes in tablet computers and complete the digital practice worksheets in the classroom distract a significantly large number of students from procedurally engaging in learning content. As the existing literatures strongly support that the most distracting activities – playing games, watching videos, and visiting various sites – are

Internet-driven activities. The study also revealed that there is a serious need of a software 165 program that would enable teachers to monitor and control the content of students’ tablet computers. This software program should allow the teachers be able to limit students’ access to the Internet or certain applications as needed. In addition the software should permit a teacher to monitor the content of students’ tablet computers during instruction from his or her computer.

Another significant conclusion is that in general, the students internalized TCB learning due to its multiple affordances, such as helping users to access all learning materials anytime, anywhere, to organize learning materials, and to track assignment submissions. The most internalized tablet computer affordances are accessing to contents of heavy textbooks, external online resources, and previous lecture notes and completed worksheets in addition to easily following up the assignment submissions and grades. The study also found that students’ procedural engagement in learning content is significantly high when the tablet computers are used to promote students’ interactive participation in instructional activity. These two findings strongly suggest the school administrators or policy makers to allow the teachers extensive amount of time before fully implementing the 1:1 TCB teaching. This time would be crucial for the teachers to prepare productive TCB lessons. 166

References

Adams, D. (2006). Wireless laptops in the classroom (and the Sesame Street syndrome).

Communications of the ACM, 49(9), 25-27.

Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A. & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and

engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda.

Education Tech Reserch Dev, 59(1), 181-198.

Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod Touch in K–12 education: Visions and vices.

Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131.

Baird, C. & Henninger, M. (2011). Serious play, serious problems: Issues with eBook

applications. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 3(2), 1-17.

Baloian, N., Pino, J.A., & Hoppe, H. U. (2008). Dealing with the students' attention problem in

computer supported face-to-face lecturing. Lecturing Educational Technology and

Society, 11(2), 192-205.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active

learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3),

245-263.

Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in

undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48(8), 30-43.

Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 1, 199-218. 167

Benlloch-Dualde, J., Buendia, F., & Cano, J. (2010). On the design of interactive classroom

environments based on the tablet PC technology. Washington, DC: Crown.

Burrel, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements

of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.

Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., & Hoppe, U. (2006).

One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research

collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1 (1), 3-29.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, conduction, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (Fourth Edition). New Delhi, India: Pearson

Education.

Crompton, H. & Julie, K. (2010). Implementation of a one-to-one iPod touch program in a

middle school. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11 (1), 1-17.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox American Educational Research

Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.

Culen, A. L. & Gasparini, A. A. (2012). iPad: A new classroom technology? A report from two

pilot studies. INFuture Proceedings, 10 (2), 199-208.

Culen, A. L., Engen, B. K., Gasparini, A. A., & Herstaqd, J (2013). The use of iPad in

academic setting: Ownership issues in relation to technology (non)adoption. Retrieved

from https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37253 168

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press

Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.

Chicago, IL: Aldine

Denzin N.K. & Y. S. Lincoln (2003). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Dunleavy, M. & Heinecke, W.F. (2007). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math

and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Shool, 24 (3), 7-22.

Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to fostering motivation and

self-regulated learning The Journal of Experimental Education, 77 (1), 3-20.

EDUCAUSE (2011). The 2011 ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and

Information Technology retreived February 15, 2014, from,

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/EIG1103.pdf,

Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., Levin, D., & State Educational Technology Directors Association

(2012). Out of Print: Reimagining the K-12 Textbook in a Digital Age. State Educational

Technology Directors Association, Association [serial online]. January 1,

2012;Available from: ERIC, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 16, 2014.

Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 10 (4), 261-275.

Franklin, T., & Peng, L. W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile

learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69-80. 169

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74 (1), 59-109.

Fried, C.B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its eVects on student learning. Computers &

Education, 50 (3), 906-914.

Galligan, L., Loch, B., McDonald, C., & Taylor, J. A. (2010). he use of tablet and related

technologies in mathematics teaching Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24 (1), 38-

51.

Gasparini, A.A. & Culen, A. L. (2013). The iPad in a classroom: A cool personal item or

simply an educational tool?. In ACHI 2013 : The Sixth International Conference on

Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (pp. 204-209).

Geist, E. (2011). The game changer: Using iPads in college teacher education classes. Collge

Student Journal, 45 (4), .

Greve, H. R. (1998). Performance aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adminisrative

Science Quarterly, 43 (1), 58-86.

Harris, L. R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student

engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35 (1), 57-79.

Haselton, T. (2013). Apple: More than 8 million iPads sold to educational institutions. Retrieved

from http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/03/03/apple-8-million-ipad-school/

Hawks, M. & Hategakimana C. (2010). Impacts of tablet computer on student learning in the

university: A comparison of course assessment data. Educational Technology Systems,

38 (1), 63-74. 170

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley

Higgins, E. T., & Trope, Y (1990). Activity engagement theory: Implications of multiply

identifiable input for intrinsic motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),

Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 229–264).

New York, NY: Guilfors.

Higgins, E. T., Lee, J., Kwon, J., & Trope, Y. (1995). When combining intrinsic motivations

undermines interest: A test of activity engagement theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 68 (3), 749-767.

Higgins, E. T., Trope, Y., & Kwon, J. (1999). Augmentation and undermining from combining

activities: The role of choice in activity engagement theory. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 35, 285-307.

Hurford, A., & Hamilton, E. (2008). Effects of tablet computers and collaborative classroom

software on student engagement and learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference,

2008. FIE 2008, 38th Annual (pp. 3-15).

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt‐Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad

for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66 (1), 15-23.

ISTE (2011). Blogger Beat: Are we getting distracted from what really matters? (2011).

February, 2011), Retrieved June, 13, 2012 from.

http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person

perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New

York, NY : Academic Press 171

Johnstone, B. (2003). Nevermind the laptops: Kids, computers, and the transformation of

learning. Lincoln, NE : IUniverse, Inc.

Jones, A. & Issroff, K. (2007). Motivation and mobile devices: Exploring the role of

appropriation and coping strategies. Research in Learning Technology, 15 (3), 247-258.

Kerawalla, L. & Crook, C. (2002). Children's computer use at home and at school: Context and

continuity. British Educational Research Journal, 28 (6), 751-771.

Kirkpatrick, H. & Cuban, L. (1998). Computers make kids smarter—right?. Technos Quarterly,

7 (2), 1-11.

Kinash, S., Brand, J., Mathew, T., & Kordyban, R. (2011). Uncoupling mobility and learning:

When one does not guarantee the other. In Enhancing Learning Through Technology.

Education Unplugged: Mobile Technologies and Web 2.0 (pp. 342-350), Springer

Berling: Heidelberg

Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through

research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads. Australasian

journal of educational technology, 28 (4), 639-655.

Lee, J. Y. (1994). Motivational consequences of combining fun activities: A test of activity

engagement theory. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University), pg. n/a.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest

with extrinsic reward: A test of the" overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality

and social Psychology,, 28 (1), 129. 172

Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2010). 1: 1

mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning

effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (3), 269-287.

Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., ... & Soloway, E (2009).

Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way Computers & Education, 53 (4), 1120-

1132.

Lytle, R. (2012). Tablets trump laptops in high school classrooms. Retrieved, October 13, 2013,

from http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2012/08/03/tablets-trump-

laptops-in-high-school-classrooms

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.

Maninger, R. M., & Holden, M. E. (2009). Put the Textbooks Away: Preparation and Support

for a Middle School One-to-One Laptop Initiative. American Secondary Education, 38

(1), 5-33.

Mayberry, J., Hargis, J., Boles, L., Dugas, A., O’Neill, D., Rivera, A., & Meler, M. (2012).

Exploring teaching and learning using an iTouch mobile device.. Active Learning in

Higher Education, 13 (3), 203-217.

Mearns, R. M. (2010). A comparative case study of perceptions of effective instruction in four

Illinois community college GED programs (Doctoral dissertation, TEACHERS

COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY).

Merriam, S. (1995). What can you yell from an N of 1?: Issues of Validity and Reliability in

Qualitative Research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4 (3), 50-60. 173

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Miller, W. (2012). Chapter 9: iTeaching and Learning. Library Technology Reports, 48 (8), 54-

59.

Moore, E., Utschig, T. T., Haas, K. A., Klein, B., Yoder, P. D., Zhang, Y., & Hayes, M. H

(2008). Tablet PC technology for the enhancement of synchronous distributed education

Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on, 1 (12), 105-116.

Murphy, G. D. (2011). Post-PC devices: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in

tertiary environments. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 5

(1), 18-32.

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Enrollment trend. Electronic Reference.

(September, 2012). Retrevied September 27, 2012 from

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65

Naismith, L., Sharples, M., Vavoula, G., & Lonsdale, P. (2004). Literature review in mobile

technologies and learning. Electronic Reference. (February, 2012)., Retrieved January

29, 2014 fromhttp://telearn.archives-

ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/01/43/PDF/Naismith_2004.pdf

NMC Horizon Report (2012). Higher edcuation edition (2012) Electronic Reference. (February,

2012)., Retrieved January 12, 2014 from. www.educause.edu/eli 174

NETP (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powerd by technology (2010)

Electronic Reference. (November, 2010)., Retrieved January 14, 2014 from.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

Newmann, F.M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools.

New York, NY: Teacher College Press

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature

achievement Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (3), 261-290.

Nworie, J. & Haughton, N. (2008). Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The unintended

consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning environments.

Tech Trends, 52 (5), 52-58.

Otta, M., & Tavella, M. (2010). Motivation and engagement in computer-based learning tasks:

Investigating key contributing factors. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2 (1),

1-15.

Peluso, D. C. (2012). The fast‐paced iPad revolution: Can educators stay up to date and relevant

about these ubiquitous devices?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (4), 125-

127.

Penuel, W. R (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research

synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3), 329-348.

Pittman, T. S., & Heller, J. F. (1987). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 461-

489.

Powner, L. C., & Allendoerfer, M. G. (2008). Evaluating hypotheses about active learning.

International Studies Perspectives, 9 (1), 75-89. 175

Project Tomorrow (2010). Unleashing the future: Educators “speak up” about the use of

emerging technologies for learning. Speak Up 2009: National findings—Teachers,

aspiring teachers, and administrators Retreived February 15, 2014, from

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/su09UnleashingTheFuture.pdf,

Rosen, Y. & Back-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop

environment in teaching and learning: Lesson from the Time to Know program. JRTE,

44 (3), 225-241.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications

Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: mobile technology for conversational learning.

International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 12

(5), 504-520.

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning.

Proceedings of mLearn 2005, 1 (1), 1-9.

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. In R.

Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Elearning Research.

London, UK (Sage), 221-247.

Skiba, D. (2011). Are they a distraction or another learning tool? Technology with Technology,

32 (3), 195-197.

Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students

and information technology, 2009 Electronic Reference. (2009)., Retrieved January 12,

2014 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1006/rs/ers1006w.pdf (), . 176

Stake, R (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb's learning cycle to improve student learning Journal of

Engineering Education, 77 (5), 291-296.

Su, K. D (2011). An intensive ICT-integrated environmental learning strategy for enhancing

student performance. nternational Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6

(1), 39-58.

Swan, K., Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Unger, D. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing

devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (1), 99-

108.

Thomas, D. R (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data..

American Journal of Evaluation, 13 (3), 333-342.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The moving finger

writes and having writ.... . The International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 8 (2), 1-11.

Uekawa, K., Borman, K., & Lee, R. (2007). Student engagement in US urban high school

mathematics and science classrooms: Findings on social organization, race, and ethnicity

The Urban Review, 39 (1), 1-43.

Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1986). Action identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.

Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior

(pp. 550-582). New York, NY: Guilford Press

Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing

Research Quarterly, 27 (2), 188-196. 177

Wickens, C.D. & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd

Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ (Printice Hall), .

Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth grade student engagement in teacher‐centered and

student‐centered technology enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91 (5),

727-749.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

178

Appendices

Appendix A

Letter to School Administration

Dear Achieve Academy School Administers,

I am Ugur Kocak, an educator and a doctoral student at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. In fulfillment of my doctoral program, I will be conducting a research study about the effects of 1:1 iPad integration on student engagement. The purpose of this study is to investigate how tablet PCs truly engage high school students in the learning process. I respectfully ask permission to collect data from your school.

Data collection includes interviews with English, History and Mathematics teachers and students who have been utilizing iPads for at least one complete academic year, classroom observations, and documents that were developed during the establishment period of the iPad program. These may include memos, policies, rules, and regulations regarding tablet PC use, and course syllabuses. All participation in this research process will be on a voluntary basis, and the participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. A $5 Star Bucks coffee gift card will be offered. Interviews will be scheduled at the most convenient time for the participants in order to prevent any possible distraction to the school routines.

There are few risks or discomforts associated with this study. The expected benefits associated with participation in the study are that results of the study will provide the school valuable data to evaluate the current iPad integration program.

Once again, your approval in no way obligates teacher or students to participate in this study. Consent to participation is entirely optional, and participants may opt out at any point. Should you have questions about the study, you may contact the researcher, Ugur Kocak at [email protected] or Dr. Carol Young, principal investigator, at [email protected].

Should you have any questions about rights of a research participant, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, at [email protected].

Thank you very much for your consideration. Should you approve this request, please sign the below:

I, ______(insert name), hereby give Ugur Kocak permission to contact teachers and high school students at ______(insert school name) in order to conduct research. Individual teachers or students may, then, decide whether or not to participate individually and may opt out at any time.

Signed: ______Date: ______

Sincerely, Ugur Kocak, researcher 179

Appendix B

Volunteer Student Consent Form

Dear Achieve Academy School Students,

I am Ugur Kocak, a licensed teacher in the state of New Jersey and administrator for over ten years, as well as a doctoral student at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. In fulfillment of my doctoral program, I will be conducting a research study about the effects of 1:1 iPad integration on student engagements. The purpose of the study is to determine how tablet PCs truly engage high school students in learning process. Upon receiving the principal’s permission, I would like to collect data from English, History, and Mathematics classes.

This letter is to ask you participate in my study, which includes about a 45 minute-long individual interview. Your participation in this research process is completely voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Additionally please be advised that interviews will take place at your convenience in a confidential location. No real names will be used during data collection, and all personal information will be kept strictly confidential. A $5 Star Bucks gift card will be offered to you for your participation.

Consent to participation is entirely optional, and you may opt out at any point. Additionally, all responses will be 100% confidential. Should you have questions about the study, you may contact the researcher, Ugur Kocak at [email protected] or Dr. Carol Young, principal investigator, at [email protected].

Should you have any questions about rights of a research participant, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, at [email protected].

I thank you in advance for your time and for contribution to this research.

Sincerely, Ugur Kocak, researcher

Please feel free to fill out your information below if you interested in participating in the study.

Student’s Name: ______

Student’s Signature: ______

Grade level (______) Date: ______

180

Appendix C

Teacher Informed Consent Letter

Principal Investigator: Dr. Carol Young, Student Investigator: Ugur Kocak

Title of Research Study: An Investigation of Integration of 1:1 Tablet Computing in the Secondary English, History, and Mathematics Classrooms

You are invited to take part in a research study that investigates how tablet computers engage high school student in learning. This letters inform you about the study, however feel free to ask any further clarification questions to the researcher. Your first hand experience with iPad integration your classroom will help the researcher understand how iPad integration in instruction engage students in learning. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions about the study before, during, or after your participation. Once the study is completed, the researcher will be happy to share the findings with you. However, your name will not be associated with the research findings in any way, and only the researcher will know your identity as a participant.

Please be informed that your participation is strictly voluntary and that you may withdraw at any time for any reason without any penalty. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to answer 10-15 interview questions regarding your experiences with the iPad using in the classroom. About 45-minute long interview will be held during mutually most available time and location of your choosing. Upon completion of data analysis, you will receive the list of emerging themes via e-mail. You will be asked to review them to provide the researcher quick feedback about their accuracy.

There is no foreseeable risk however finding time for the interview might be an inconvenience. The researcher will make sure that the interview sessions will be held during the student’s best available time. Only the researcher, Ugur Kocak, will be involved in the collection and analysis of the data. Although no personal information will be collected during interviews, confidentially will be addressed by using pseudonyms for all participants and keeping the data out of reach of a third party until the study is completed.

The researcher will request your permission to start audio recording the interview. All audio files will be stored on password-protected flash drives. Except the student researcher, no secondary person will have access to the data including the list of pseudonyms. After the study is completed, the flash drives will be destroyed to preserve confidentiality.

There will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in the study. However it is hoped that the teachers will benefit from the study by being part of a research project that seeks to identify how 1:1 iPad use truly engages students in learning activities. Reflecting on your experience may provide you with a better understanding of how iPads help student engagement in your class. I hope it will be an enlightening experience for you.

There is no cost to the participants. A $5 Star Bucks gift card will be offered. 181

Once again, consent to this interview is entirely optional, and you may opt out at any point. Should you have questions about the study, you may contact the researcher, Ugur Kocak at [email protected] or Dr. Carol Young, principal investigator, at [email protected].

If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 960 Renaissance Park, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish.

I agree to take part in this research.

______Signature of person agreeing to take part Date

______Printed name of person above

182

Appendix D

Parent-Student Informed Consent Letter

Principal Investigator: Dr. Carol Young, Student Investigator: Ugur Kocak

Title of Research Study: An Investigation of Integration of 1:1 Tablet Computing in the Secondary English, History, and Mathematics Classrooms

Your child is invited to take part in a research study that investigates how tablet computers engage high school student in learning. This letters inform you about the study, however feel free to ask any further clarification questions to the researcher. Your child’s first hand experience with iPad integration in learning will help the researcher to understand how iPad integration in instruction affects student engagement in learning. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions about the study. The researcher will be available at the school tomorrow after school to meet with you about the study. If there is a better time to meet with me, please let me know. Your child’s name will not be associated with the research findings in any way, and only the researcher will know your identity as a participant.

Please be informed that participation is strictly voluntary and that your child may withdraw at any time for any reason without any penalty. If you agree to have your child participate and your child also agrees to participate, your child will be asked to answer 10-15 interview questions regarding personal experiences with the iPad using in the classrooms. About 45-minute long interview will be held during mutually most available time such as lunch or after school in a pre- determined available classroom. There will be an adult witness in the room at all times.

There is no foreseeable risks or harms that the participants may experience. The only possible discomfort for the students is the feeling of being singled out. Therefore the study allows the student to quit at anytime without any harm. Only the researcher, Ugur Kocak, will be involved in the collection and analysis of the data. Although no personal information will be collected during interviews, confidentially will be addressed by using pseudonyms for all participants and keeping the data out of reach of a third party until the study is completed.

The researcher will start audio recording the interview after receiving verbal permission from the student. All audio files will be stored on password-protected flash drives. Except the student researcher, no secondary person will have access to the data including the list of pseudonyms. After the study is completed, the flash drives will be destroyed to preserve confidentiality.

There will be no direct benefit to participants for taking part in the study. However it is hoped that the students will benefit from the study by being part of a research project that seeks to identify how 1:1 iPad use truly engages students to learning activities. Reflecting on personal experience may provide your child with a better understanding of how iPads help student engagement in learning. I hope it will be an enlightening experience for you child.

There is not cost to the participants. A $5 Star Bucks gift card will be offered.

183

Once again, consent to this interview is entirely optional, and your child may opt out at any point. Should you have questions about the study, you may contact the researcher, Ugur Kocak at [email protected] or Dr. Carol Young, principal investigator, at [email protected].

______Student Signature

______Student Name

I agree to have my child take part in this research.

______Parent Signature Date

______Parent Name 184

Appendix E

Interview Protocol - Teacher

Institution: Achieve Academy School Interviewee: Achieve Academy School, Mathematics/English Teacher Interviewer: Ugur Kocak

PART#1: Introduction

Purpose of the Study There has been a rapid increase in employing 1:1 mobile computing-based teaching in the secondary education sector in America. The purpose of this study is to understand how 1:1 tablet computer integration in teaching engages students in learning at Achieve Academy School in NY.

Academic Ethics I would like to reiterate an important aspect, confidentiality, of the data collection process. I am once more ensuring you that data collection of this study is completely anonymous; your name will not be recorded or shared with any other third party. Therefore, this data collection process will never (neither positive nor negative) influence your career.

PART #2: Interview Questions A. Participant background Before we start, could you just remind me again? 1. The grade level you currently teaching 2. How long you have been teaching 3. How long you have been teaching this level 4. How long you have been teaching with 1:1 iPad

B. Teachers’ use of iPads during a class session 1. Can you briefly elaborate how you use iPad on a daily basis in your classroom? a. Does a student have to bring it into the class everyday? b. What are the consequences if one does not bring it? c. How do you handle homework or classwork assignment submission? 2. Do you use e-textbook? How effective to use it? Did you encounter any down side of it? a. Did you make any change in the way of using iPad since you began to use it? b. What are these changes? c. Why did you have to change? d. If you had a chance, what else would you want to change? Why? 3. What are your current challenges of using iPad as an instructional tool? a. What generates these challenges? b. What do you do to overcome such challenges? 4. What are the common iPad-driven violations that students conduct in your class? 5. Does the iPad improve student participation in a class? How or why not? 185

6. During a class session, does the technical infrastructure of the school allow you to block the student iPads from the Internet access? a. If not, are the students attempting to sneak in the Internet? If so, what websites do they sneak in the most? b. How do you make sure that students are not sneaking in the Internet as you lecture? 7. During a class session, does the technical infrastructure of the school allow you to block students from using unrelated applications such as games? a. Are the students attempting to sneak in unrelated applications? What are these applications? b. How often are your students attempting to sneak in such applications? c. How do you make sure that students are not using an unrelated application as you lecture? d. If a student sneaks in an unrelated application, how soon do you discover it in a class? e. What are the consequences if you find a student using an unrelated application? 8. Do you want to continue using iPad in your classroom instruction? Why? 9. What do you achieve by using iPad that cannot be achieved without it? a. What are the advantages or disadvantages of using iPad in student engagement? 10. What advice would you give to the teachers who are about to begin using iPad in teaching? 11. Is there anything else, which we did not discussed, you would like to share about your experiences of using the iPad?

186

Appendix F

Interview Protocol - Student

Institution: Achieve Academy School Interviewee: Achieve Academy School, Students Interviewer: Ugur Kocak

PART#1: Introduction Purpose of the Study There has been a rapid increase in employing 1:1 mobile computing-based teaching in the secondary education sector in America. The purpose of this study is to understand how 1:1 tablet computer integration in teaching engages students in learning at Achieve Academy School in NY.

PART #1: Interview Questions 1. Can you briefly elaborate how your teachers use iPad on a daily basis as an instructional tool? a. What is the consequence if you fail to bring it to the class? 2. If you were a teacher how would you use it? 3. Can you elaborate how you use iPad in your learning? a. Does it help you complete assignments more effectively? How? b. Do you use e-textbooks? What are the advantages or disadvantages of using it? 4. What are challenges of using iPad as a learning tool? a. What generates these challenges? b. What do you do to overcome such challenges? 5. Do the students attempt to misuse the iPads during a class session? a. If so, how? What feature of the iPad allow/promote such misuses? b. How do the teachers address this issue? 6. Are the students attempting to sneak in the Internet or unrelated applications such as games during lecturing? a. If so, what websites or applications do they sneak in the most? b. How often does it happen? c. If a student sneaks in an unrelated application, how soon does the teacher discover it? d. How does a teacher make sure that students are on the assigned task during lecturing? 7. Considering everything you’ve done in school this year, what lesson(s) have been the most engaging and interesting to you? Why? a. What aspect(s) was the most engaging/interesting? 187

b. What aspect(s) were the least engaging/interesting? c. How did you use the iPad in these lessons? 8. Do you want to continue using iPad in your learning? Why? 9. What are the advantages or disadvantages of using iPad in your engagement in learning? What advice would you give to a student who is about to start using iPads in learning? STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 188

Appendix G

English Classroom Observation Details

The following tables present the English classroom observation data analysis, in the form of tables that show what students were doing with the tablet computers and for how long. The subsequent paragraphs describe the activities that the tables present.

Table G.1 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session

Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 15 9 Fooled around the Internet # 16 10 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 36 11 Fooled around the Internet Worked on assigned task and used # 21 12 dictionary.com Worked on assigned task and used # 23 12 dictionary.com Worked on assigned task and used # 24 12 dictionary.com Worked on assigned task and used # 25 12 On-Task dictionary.com # 33 17 Searched for definition - Google # 46 17 Searched for definition - Google Searched for definition - dictionary.com (16 Multiple 17 students) Note. A total of 21 out of 21 students (100%) used a tablet computer during the 29 minutes of the classroom observation period. Due to a late school opening, this session was only 30 minutes long. Instructional Practices. First, the teacher announced the agenda of the day, then handed out a worksheet. He reminded students that they could access the same assignment through the tablet computers. All of the students received the paper copy of the assignment; however, four students later ended up completing it on the tablet computers.

The assignment required them to find the definitions of new vocabulary words. Ten STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 189 minutes before the bell rang, the teacher announced that the fully completed assignment was due the next day. The teacher went back to his seat as the students completed the assignment. No other instruction or activity was observed.

Off-task activities. Students 15, 16, and 36 visited various websites that were displaying unrelated images. Student 36 kept regarding the researcher to see if her screen was being monitored. She ended up shutting it off.

On-task activities. Students 21, 23, 24, and 25 completed the assignment on tablet computers, while the other 17 worked on the paper copies. Students 33 and 46 used the

Google search engine to find the definitions, whereas the other 16 students used

Dictionary.com. Most of the Disctionary.com students worked as groups. One student in a group would locate the definitions on the Internet, while the others copied them onto their worksheets.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 190

Table G.2 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 11 8 Read online comic book # 35 6 Watched video Off-Task # 45 7 Watched video # 46 11 Watched video # 11 3 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 22 12 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 25 11 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 34 5 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 41 16 Searched for definition - dictionary.com On-Task # 42 14 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 45 13 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 46 13 Searched for definition - dictionary.com # 35 3 Searched for definition - Google Searched for definition - dictionary.com (4 Multiple 5 Students) Partially # 44 18 Listened to music while using dictionary.com On-Task Note. A total of 17 out of 19 students (89%) used tablet computers during the 29 minutes of the classroom observation period. Due to a late school opening, this session was only 30 minutes long.

Instructional practice. The same instructional practices as in the previous session were observed.

Off-task activities. Student 11 read a comic book on the Internet. The same book was also seen in other course sessions. This student spent only about three minutes on the assigned work. Students 35, 45, and 46 watched a video clip of a basketball game. It is worth noting that all three of these students sat in the back of the room. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 191

On-task activities. Twelve students used tablet computers to locate the definitions on

Dictionary.com. Student 35 used the Google search engine to find the definitions.

Partially on-task activities. Student 44 listened to music while searching for and writing down the definitions. She wore headphones throughout the session. The teacher did not address this.

Table G.3 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session

Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 45 6 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task

# 11 15 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 13 7 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 16 6 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 25 12 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 31 4 Searched for definition - dictionary.com On-Task # 36 16 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 42 3 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 43 6 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 46 14 Searched for definition - dictionary.com

# 44 13 Worked on assigned task Fooled around the Internet while working on assigned # 15 16 task Partially On-Task # 34 8 Played with formatting of electronic assignment Note. A total of 13 out of 25 students (52%) used tablet computers during the 25 minutes of the classroom observation period. Due to a late school opening, this session was only 30 minutes long.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 192

Instructional practices. The same instructional practices as in the previous two sessions were observed.

Off-task activities. Student 45 played around with the tablet computer’s settings and spent some time surfing the Internet.

On-task activities. Students 11, 13, 16, 25, 31, 36, 42, 43, and 46 used tablet computers to find the definitions of vocabulary words on Dictionary.com. Student 44 took a picture of the assignment to work on the tablet computer with the application called Notability.

Partially on-task activities. Student 15 flipped through some pictures on the Internet while completing the given assignment. After completing the digital copy of the assignment, student 34 played with its formatting for about 8 minutes.

Table G.4 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session

Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 43 10 Fooled around the Internet # 14 14 Typed messages Off-Task # 11 23 Typed messages and studied unrelated task Multiple 8 Reviewed lecture note (5 students) # 14 4 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 21 8 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 26 34 Typed and reviewed lecture note Fooled around the Internet while typing lecture note # 12 16 in tablet computer Fooled around the Internet while typing or Partially # 16 20 reviewing lecture note On-Task # 24 10 Worked on the yesterday's assignment Note. A total of 12 out of 24 students (50%) used tablet computers during the 46 minutes of the classroom observation period. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 193

Instructional practices. First, the teacher checked homework completion for about five minutes. Second, he reviewed the vocabulary words that the students had worked on the previous day. Third, the teacher read out various statements one at a time and wanted the students to type or write their perspectives about the statements (agree or disagree).

Fourth, the teacher read out the same statements one at a time and asked the students to move to the stations to display their perspectives to the class. Lastly, the teacher discussed these statements with the students during the last 10 minutes of the class.

Off-task activities. Student 43 flipped through screens on the tablet computer as the teacher checked the homework and reviewed the vocabulary words. Students 11 and 14 typed messages to each other for about 14 minutes. Student 11 also worked on a mathematics assignment.

On-task activities. Students 13, 16, 35, and 46 reviewed their notes as the teacher explained the definitions of the vocabulary words. Students 14, 21, and 26 typed new notes into the tablet computers or reviewed their previous notes as the teacher lectured.

Partially on-task activities. Students 12 and 16 flipped through various pictures and websites on the Internet while taking lecture notes on the tablet computers. Student 24 completed the vocabulary assignment given in the previous day. He seemed to have been off-task the previous day while the others were working on this assignment. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 194

Table G.5 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 11 10 Read online comic book # 26 3 Played game Off-Task # 36 5 Looked at pictures of shoes # 14 30 Fooled around the Internet and played game # 21 15 Typed and reviewed lecture note # 22 15 Typed and reviewed lecture note # 24 16 Typed and reviewed lecture note On-Task # 26 17 Typed and reviewed lecture note # 36 17 Typed and reviewed lecture note # 35 3 Searched for definitions - Dictionary.com Partially # 46 22 Typed lecture note and e-mails on tablet computer On-Task Note. A total of 11 out of 20 students (55%) used tablet computers during the 40 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The same instructional practices were observed as in the previous session.

Off-task activities. Student 11 read a comic book on the Internet. This book was also seen in previous classroom observations. Student 26 played a game in which a motorcycle was moving down a hill. This game was also often seen in other observations.

Student 36 looked at pictures of sneakers with their prices. He seemed to be shopping.

Student 14 visited various websites and played a game for about 30 minutes, which constituted most of the period. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 195

On-task activities. Students 21, 22, 23, 26, and 36 Typed lecture note on tablet computers as the teacher was lecturing. Student 35 searched for vocabulary words from

Dictionary.com for a few minutes.

Partially on-task. Student 46 Typed lecture note and sent a few messages during the period.

Table G.6 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 35 5 Studied unrelated task # 22 19 Fooled around the Internet # 23 15 Fooled around the Internet # 45 5 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 11 3 Played game # 32 5 Played game # 46 13 Involved in social media # 33 28 Watched video Typed lecture note on tablet computer (10 Multiple 5 students) On-Task # 36 25 Typed and reviewed lecture note Note. A total of 13 out of 17 students (76%) used tablet computers during the 39 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The same instructional practices followed in the previous two sessions took place.

Off-task activities. Student 35 worked on an assignment on a tablet computer. She seemed to be trying to complete an assignment while teacher was checking others’ homework completion. Students 22, 23, and 45 visited various websites and flipped through pictures. Students 11 and 32 played a game named Sim City. Student 46 logged onto Twitter. It is worth noting that she was the only student who logged onto Twitter STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 196 during the observations. Student 33 watched street fight video clips from YouTube with the volume off. This student used his notebook to take notes.

On-task activities. Students 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 31, 32, 43, 45, and 46 typed their perspectives on tablet computers as the teacher asked for. The other students used notebooks to write their perspectives. Student 36 reviewed his previous notes besides typing his perspectives on the tablet computer.

Table G.7 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 21 18 Studied unrelated task # 34 9 Fooled around the tablet computer # 14 8 Played game # 15 5 Played game Off-Task # 36 5 Played game # 46 5 Played game # 11 11 Read online comic book # 23 5 Watched video # 15 20 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 21 17 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 22 35 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 24 37 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 33 10 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 34 27 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 36 25 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 46 7 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 16 29 Typed and reviewed lecture note # 25 37 Typed and reviewed lecture note Typed and reviewed lecture note while playing # 26 33 game Partially Typed and reviewed lecture note while playing On-Task # 44 36 game and studying unrelated task Note. A total of 15 out of 20 students (75%) used tablet computers during the 40 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 197

Instructional practices. After a short announcement, the teacher asked the students to copy the lecture notes. He then lectured for about 30 minutes and posed short answer questions. The last activity within the last 10 minutes of the class was a worksheet that required the students to practice the topic of the day.

Off-task activities. Student 21 reviewed an unrelated text during the lecture. Student 34 drew pictures on her tablet computer after receiving the worksheet. Students 14, 15, 36, and 46 played unidentified games during the lecture and/or self-study time. Student 11 read an online comic book. She had been reading it for a couple of days. Student 23 watched a basketball game.

On-task activities. Students 15, 21, 22, 24, 33, 34, 36, and 46 Typed lecture note from the smart board during the lecture. Students 16 and 25 Typed lecture note on the tablet computers and reviewed their previous notes while completing the given assignment.

Partially on-task activities. Students 26 and 44 Typed lecture note on the tablet computers and reviewed their previous notes while completing the given assignment.

They were involved in playing games and dealing with unrelated tasks. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 198

Table G.8 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 Class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 16 8 Studied unrelated task # 11 11 Fooled around the Internet # 15 5 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 31 26 Played game # 35 16 Played game # 13 14 Played game and drew picture # 15 5 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 16 8 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 21 19 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 35 9 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 36 21 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 44 11 Typed lecture note on tablet computer Typed lecture note and Fooled around tablet Partially # 45 12 computer On-Task Note. A total of 10 out of 22 students (45%) used tablet computers during the 37 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The teacher asked the students to free-write a case story in the first 15 minutes of the class. The teacher discussed the emerging cases with the class. He also shared some lecture notes on the smart board and asked them to copy the notes during the discussion. Lastly, he handed out a worksheet to work on through the end of the class.

Off-task activities. Student 16 worked on a history assignment on his tablet computer.

Students 11 and 15 searched for music clips and kept staring at the screen during the lecture. They also read a text from an unrelated electronic book. Students 13, 31, and 35 played unidentified games during the free writing assignment and discussion. Student 13 drew a picture of a fat man on his tablet computer, besides playing a game. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 199

On-task activities. Students 15, 16, 21, 35, 36, and 44 Typed lecture note on the tablet computers as the teacher displayed them on the smart board.

Partially on-task activities. Student 16 copied lecture notes on his tablet computer after completing the history assignment. Student 45 typed the lecture notes and played around with the tablet computer. He kept touching the screen.

Table G.9 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 13 11 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 21 4 Fooled around the Internet # 11 27 Read assigned electronic book # 12 26 Read assigned electronic book # 13 15 Read assigned electronic book # 16 11 Read assigned electronic book # 21 13 Read assigned electronic book # 33 22 Read assigned electronic book On-Task # 34 22 Read assigned electronic book # 36 23 Read assigned electronic book # 44 28 Read assigned electronic book # 45 28 Read assigned electronic book # 46 4 Read assigned electronic book Multiple 30 Read assigned electronic book (8 students) Moved back and forth between electronic # 41 23 book and its online summary Moved back and forth between electronic # 42 21 Partially book and its online summary On-Task # 16 25 Read online summary of assigned book # 21 7 Read online summary of assigned book Note. A total of 21 out of 21 students (100%) used tablet computers during the 42 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 200

Instructional practices. The teacher asked the students to respond to questions on a worksheet while reading from an electronic book. He then went to his seat. Due to technical difficulties downloading the book, an IT technician was called in to visit the room. About 15 minutes before the bell, the teacher notified students that the remaining questions would be homework. It is worth noting that this class involved in using tablet computer the most. Students had to use them to access the book. Some students read a summary of the book from the Internet instead of the actual book. They were considered as partially on-task.

Off-task activities. Student 13 spent time with various unrelated notes and pictures from

Schoology. Student 21 flipped through various pictures on the Internet.

On-task activities. All of the listed students in the Table 4.9 read the electronic book.

Student 26, in addition, visited the online summary of the book once. Student 22 started to read the book about 10 minutes after it was assigned. Student 43 tried to hide the tablet computer from the researcher once. Student 44 was once seen flipping through various pictures on his screen.

Partially on-task activities. Students 41 and 42 switched back and forth between the online summary and the actual book. Student 41 also visited a social media portal.

Students 16 and 21 read the online summary of the book. They seemed to prefer a short cut to finding the answers, instead of reading the whole book. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 201

Table G.10 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 24 19 Studied unrelated task # 44 31 Studied unrelated task # 16 10 Fooled around the Internet # 22 12 Fooled around the Internet # 26 36 Fooled around the Internet # 46 12 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 15 5 Played game # 23 5 Watched video # 36 5 Watched video # 43 15 Watched video # 45 31 Watched video and played game # 15 14 Read assigned electronic book # 16 17 Read assigned electronic book # 21 10 Read assigned electronic book # 23 5 Read assigned electronic book # 25 21 Read assigned electronic book On-Task # 32 15 Read assigned electronic book # 33 27 Read assigned electronic book # 34 27 Read assigned electronic book # 41 16 Read assigned electronic book # 42 6 Read assigned electronic book # 36 10 Read assigned electronic book while listening to music # 46 12 Read assigned electronic book while listening to music Partially On-Task Read assigned electronic book and fooled around the # 11 24 Internet. Note. A total of 19 out of 19 students (100%) used tablet computers during the 38 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 202

Instructional practices. The same instructional practices as in the previous class took place, and the IT technician showed up to help students download the books. It is worth noting that there was a significant difference between the students’ interactions with tablet computers in the previous honors class and this regular one.

Off-task activities. Students 24 and 44 studied unrelated assignments. Student 24 also briefly visited a game site. Students 16, 22, 26, and 46 were involved in various activities on the Internet, such as looking at pictures, playing games, listening to music, and surfing. Student 15 played an unidentified game. Students 23, 36, 43, and 45 watched various video clips from YouTube. Most of these clips were basketball games. Student 45 also visited the electronic book once.

On-task activities. Students 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 32, 33, 34, 42, and 42 read the assigned book on the tablet computers. Student 33 started by watching a basketball game but later moved to reading the book.

Partially on-task activities. Students 36 and 46 read the book on the tablet computers while listening to music. Student 11 read the book on the tablet computer while looking at online pictures and listening to music.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 203

Table G.11 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular English-1 class session

Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 11 17 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 33 18 Fooled around the Internet # 12 16 Read assigned electronic book # 13 3 Read assigned electronic book # 22 16 Read assigned electronic book On-Task # 31 3 Read assigned electronic book # 32 11 Read assigned electronic book # 35 16 Read assigned electronic book # 24 3 Read online summary of assigned book # 25 18 Read online summary of assigned book # 43 11 Read online summary of assigned book Partially # 45 21 Read online summary of assigned book On-Task # 46 13 Read online summary of assigned book Read assigned electronic book while listening to # 41 11 music Note. A total of 14 out of 21 students (67%) used tablet computers during the 23 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The same instructional practices as in the previous two classes took place, and the IT technician showed up to help students download the books. The tablet computer user rate was small because some students worked with others to respond to the questions. Some students searched for a summary of the book or answers to the questions on Google.

Off-task activities. Students 11 and 33 visited various off-task sites. They flipped through screens until the last two minutes of the class. Student 33 watched sports video STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 204 clips, listened to music, and looked at various pictures of shoes during this time period.

He also briefly visited the electronic book.

On-task activities. Students 12, 13, 22, 31, 32, and 35 read the electronic book on the tablet computers. Student 32 stayed on a summary of the book for about three minutes.

Partially on-task activities. Students 24, 25, 43, 45, and 46 read an online summary of the book. Student 25 started reading the electronic book, but after a few minutes, she moved to the online summary. In addition, student 45 briefly visited a social media portal, and student 46 reviewed some shopping sites.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 205

Appendix H

Mathematics Classroom Observation Details

The following tables present the Mathematics classroom observation data analysis, in the form of tables that show what students were doing with the tablet computers and for how long. The subsequent paragraphs describe the activities that the tables present.

Table H.1 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular integrated mathematics class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 42 28 Listened to music # 62 5 Listened to music # 22 6 Watched video Off-Task # 32 5 Watched video # 62 10 Watched video Involved in social media while working on assigned # 64 29 task Partially # 41 30 Listened to music as working on assigned task On-Task # 62 20 Listened to music as working on assigned task Note. A total of 6 out of 10 students (60%) used tablet computers during the 43 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. First, the students worked on a practice sheet individually for 20 minutes. The teacher rarely reminded them of the remaining time for completing the assignment. Then the teacher discussed and reviewed, on the board, the solutions of the practice problems with the students. The teacher frequently posed questions during the discussion. She concluded the lesson five minutes before the bell rang. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 206

Off-task activities. Student 42 listened to music on the Internet during the individual assignment time. Student 62 watched a movie as the teacher reviewed the answers on the board. Students 22 and 62 watched a soccer game and listened to music through the last five minutes of the class, the free time. Student 32 watched a video clip during the discussion.

Partially on-task activities. Students 41 and 62 listened to music while working on the given assignment. They continued listening to music with earbud in one ear during the discussion period. Student 64 was on a social media platform. She occasionally looked at her tablet computer and typed messages while copying the answers into her notebook.

Table H.2 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme #22 15 Studied unrelated task and drew picture #31 3 Studied unrelated task #32 19 Fooled around the tablet computer #53 3 Fooled around the tablet computer Off-Task #11 36 Played game #12 7 Played game #22 7 Played game #12 13 Typed lecture note on tablet computer #22 6 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task #32 10 Typed lecture note on tablet computer #63 21 Used tablet computer calculator Note. A total of 6 out of 12 students (50%) used tablet computers during the 46 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The teacher first reviewed the content of the previous lessons for about five minutes. She then introduced the new topic and solved sample problems STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 207 for about 25 minutes. She also reminded the students to copy the lecture notes in their notebooks. She occasionally posed questions to the students during lecturing. Lastly, she handed out a practice problem sheet for them to work on individually for the last 10 minutes of the session.

Off-task activities. Students 11, 12, and 22 played an unidentified game during the lesson. Student 11 also occasionally turned off the tablet computer, but shortly after, he continued playing the same game. Students 32, 53, and 22 visited various applications and used the Internet during the lesson.

On-task activities. Students 22, 12, and 32 Typed lecture note into the tablet computers, and student 63 used a calculator application on her tablet computer.

Table H.3 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Financial Literacy class

Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

#22 10 Studied unrelated task

#12 14 Studied unrelated task

#13 13 Studied unrelated task

#33 12 Studied unrelated task

#43 26 Studied unrelated task Off-Task

#23 35 Fooled around the Internet

#63 3 Fooled around the Internet

#31 11 Played game

#13 6 Shopped - looked at pictures of jackets Note. A total of 4 out of 8 students (50%) used tablet computers during the 36 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 208

Instructional practices. The only instructional activity was reviewing and discussing a set of practice problems from the book. First, the teacher picked individuals to read out a question and asked the class to respond. The teacher used a printed book in this course session because this book has no electronic version.

Off-task activities. Students 12, 13, 22, 33, and 43 searched for an unrelated text on the

Google search engine and copied it into their notebooks during the problem solving and discussion period. All of these tablet computer screens were showing the same text: Gate

Control Theory. This activity can also be considered plagiarism because the students copied the text from the Internet. Student 31 played an unidentified game, whereas students 63 and 23 were involved in various activities such as using social media, shopping, and Internet surfing.

Table H.4 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme #41 5 Studied unrelated task #31 3 Fooled around the Internet #31 3 Played game #31 12 Watched video Off-Task #41 4 Watched video #43 14 Watched video #52 3 Watched video #11 4 Used tablet computer calculator #52 14 Used tablet computer calculator On-Task #53 15 Used tablet computer calculator Partially #11 11 Used tablet computer calculator and played game On-Task Note. A total of 6 out of 10 students (60%) used tablet computers during the 23 minutes of the classroom observation period. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 209

Instructional practices. The teacher first reviewed a few sample problem solutions, then handed out a worksheet to be completed individually. The teacher waited in her seat and asked the students to submit their completed assignments to her so she could check the answers. She provided individual feedback to the ones who brought them to her.

Off-task activities Student 31 was involved in various off-task activities, such as fooling around the Internet, watching video clips, and playing a game. This student did not even touch the assigned worksheet. Students 41, 43, and 53 watched various video clips and read an unrelated text from the Internet after completing the given assignment.

On-task activities. Students 11, 52, and 53 used a calculator application on their tablet computers. It is worth noting that although not many students used tablet computers, all of the students completed the given worksheet on papers and received feedback from the teacher.

Partially on-task activities. Student 11 used the tablet computer’s calculator to complete the assignment, but played a game as well.

Table H.5 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

#53 7 Fooled around tablet computer Off-Task

Fooled around tablet computer while working on #11 30 assigned task Partially Fooled around tablet computer while working on On-Task #51 15 assigned task Note. A total of 3 out of 15 students (20%) used tablet computers during the 34 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 210

Instructional practices. Students were given a worksheet to individually solve problems.

The teacher checked their completed work and then gave them a second sheet to work on.

The majority of the class did not even touch the tablet computers. All of the students completed the given assignment on the printed sheets.

Off-task activities. Student 53 visited various sites on the Internet. There was a map on his computer screen.

Partially on-task activities. Student 11 watched a video clip and fooled around the tablet computer while working on the given assignment. Student 51 played around on his tablet computer.

Table H.6 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme #61 10 Listened to music #43 21 Fooled around the Internet #53 15 Fooled around the Internet #11 13 Played game Off-Task #12 17 Played game #33 32 Read online comic book #51 33 Watched video Note. A total of 7 out of 16 students (44%) used tablet computers during the 37 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. Students were given a worksheet of practice problems to solve.

Later, she called on individuals to solve problems on the board. She walked through the solutions of the problems with the class as the individuals showed them on the board.

Off-task activities. Students 11 and 12 played games while the class worked on the practice sheet or solved the problems on the board. One played Sim City; another played a STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 211 fighting game. Student 33 read an online comic book, which was also seen in other sessions. This student did not complete the given assignment. Students 43, 51, and 53 flipped through various pictures on the Internet or watched YouTube video clips. Student

51’s seat was about a yard away from the teacher. Student 61 listened to music with headphones on one ear. She was also sitting about one yard away from the teacher. Since the tablet computers’ screens were facing away from the teacher, the teacher was unable to see them.

Table H.7 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Integrated Mathematics class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 22 3 Involved in social media

# 23 24 Played game Off-Task

# 64 40 Studied unrelated task Note. A total of 3 out of 9 students (33%) used tablet computers during the 40 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The teacher first reviewed sample problem solutions on the smart board for about 20 minutes. Then she gave students a study package to work on individually. She also reviewed solutions to a couple of problems from the package.

Off-task activities. Student 23 visited a couple of game sites and chose one to play.

Student 64 flipped through tablet computer screens for a long time; however, it was difficult to identify the content because the screen was facing the ceiling. Obviously, he was off-task, because the given assignment had nothing to do with the tablet computer, and he stared at the tablet computer’s screen without picking up his eyes as the teacher lectured. Student 22 had his computer plugged into an electric outlet in the back of the STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 212 room during the whole period. He read and typed messages for a short amount of time in the middle of the session.

Table H.8 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Algebra-1 class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme #31 11 Studied unrelated task #13 7 Fooled around the Internet #15 4 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 34 13 Fooled around the Internet # 35 5 Fooled around the Internet # 42 25 Played game Multiple 10 Participated in jeopardy game (14 Students) On-Task Fooled around the tablet computer while working on Partially #24 9 assigned task On-Task Note. A total of 17 out of 19 students (89%) used tablet computers during the 30 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. After a twenty-minute lecture, the teacher asked the students to open up an assignment from Schoology, but it was not functioning due to a technical problem. After a five-minute trial and error period, she moved to Kahoot.it, the jeopardy game, until the end of the session. Students 23 and 33 did not have tablet computers to join the session.

Off-task activities. Students 13, 15, 34, and 35 flipped through the screen and played games until the Kahoot! session started. All of these students participated in the game.

Student 31 did not respond to the Kahoot! questions. She preferred to work on other math problems. Student 42 played an unidentified game throughout the session. He was the only student who did not log onto Kahoot!. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 213

On-task activities. Fourteen students participated in and completed the given task involving the game.

Partially on-task activities. Student 24 played a game and Fooled around the Internet, besides solving the math problems while the teacher reviewed them.

Table H.9 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular Financial Literacy class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme #31 7 Studied unrelated task #43 6 Studied unrelated task #61 3 Played game Off-Task #11 8 Watched video #14 7 Watched video Fooled around the tablet computer while working Partially #54 7 on assigned task On-Task Note. A total of 6 out of 16 students (38%) used tablet computers during the 12 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The last twenty minutes of this class session were observed.

After a period of lecturing, the teacher handed out a practice sheet for the students to work on individually.

Off-task activities. Students 11 and 14 watched YouTube video clips, and student 31 copied something from the tablet computer onto the worksheet for an unrelated subject.

An unrelated text appeared on student 43’s tablet computer. Student 61 played an unidentified game through the end of the session.

Partially on-task activities. Student 54 continually flipped through the tablet computer’s screen while working on the given assignment. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 214

Appendix I

History Classroom Observation Details

The following tables present the History classroom observation data analysis, in the form of tables that show what students were doing with the tablet computers and for how long.

The subsequent paragraphs describe the activities that the tables present.

Table I.1 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class sessions Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 11 15 Studied unrelated task Off-Task # 54 39 Played game # 53 4 Reviewed lecture note On-Task Multiple 21 Typed lecture note on tablet computers (12 students) Fooled around tablet computer while typing lecture # 12 21 note Partially # 43 21 Studied unrelated task On-Task # 52 19 Played game while typing lecture note Note. A total of 19 out of 20 students (95%) used tablet computers during the 41 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional Practices. First, a class discussion was held for about 10 minutes, regarding a previous lesson. Then a lecture based on a Powerpoint presentation, which summarized the content, lasted about 30 minutes. The students were asked to copy the notes on their tablet computers or in their notebooks while they listened to the teacher.

Off-task activities. Student 11’s tablet computer was displaying a text unrelated to the content of the lesson. He later was seen flipping through the screen during the lecture.

Student 54 played a game in which an animated boy was riding down a hill on a STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 215 motorcycle. As the researcher approached his seat, the student switched to another application and placed the tablet computer upside down

On-task activities. Student 53 reviewed his previous notes as the teacher was explaining them. A total of 12 students copied lecture notes into their tablet computers as the teacher went through the slides. It might be worth noting that most of these students were sitting closer to the board.

Partially on-task activities. Student12 moved back and forth between copying the lecture notes and visiting various websites. Similarly, student 43’s screen was occasionally showing unrelated texts as well as lecture notes. Student 52 played an online game, besides typing the lecture notes.

Table I.2 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors US History class sessions Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme Fooled around the Internet and studied unrelated # 52 8 task # 15 28 Studied unrelated task # 51 3 Studied unrelated task Off-Task # 54 14 Studied unrelated task # 55 28 Studied unrelated task Copied and pasted answer from Google (12 Multiple 15 students) # 23 21 Copied and pasted answer from Google # 35 26 Copied and pasted answer from Google Partially # 51 13 Copied and pasted answer from Google On-Task # 52 14 Copied and pasted answer from Google Fooled around the Internet while copying and # 34 24 pasting answer from Google # 14 13 Played game while working on assigned task Note. A total of 17 out of 19 students (89%) used tablet computers during the 42 minutes of the classroom observation period. A substitute teacher led this class. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 216

Instructional practices. The history teacher was out sick during this observation. A substitute teacher handed out a print copy of an assignment, which required the students to respond to the questions on the sheet. This was the only assignment for the period. The substitute teacher mostly stayed at the teacher’s desk throughout the session. This session was intentionally observed to capture a picture of an honors class with a substitute teacher.

Off-task activities. It is worth noting that these students were involved in such off-task activities after completing the given assignment. Students 52, 15, 51, 54, and 55 studied an unrelated task. Some of these tasks included solving math problems, working on an assignment in an application called Numbers, and copying a text into their notebooks.

Student 52 played around with the tablet computer’s settings, besides studying an unrelated task.

Partially on-task activities. The students searched for answers of the assigned questions on Google. Although they copied the answers directly from the Internet, they were considered to be partially on-task because they completed the assigned task in the end. It is also important to note that many students worked in groups of three or four. In each group, one student found the answers from Google, while the others copied them. Since all of the students in a group accessed the answers through a tablet computer, they were all considered to be using tablet computers. Most of these students were not involved in any other TCB activity after completing the given assignment. Lastly, student 14 played an online math game, called Get to 10, after completing the given assignment. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 217

Table I.3 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 14 10 Played game # 15 13 Played game # 43 10 Studied unrelated task Off-Task # 54 8 Listened to music # 55 11 Watched video # 21 5 Listened to music while working on assigned task # 22 4 Listened to music while working on assigned task # 24 10 Listened to music while working on assigned task

# 31 5 Listened to music while working on assigned task Partially # 23 10 Copied and pasted answer from Google On-Task # 25 10 Copied and pasted answer from Google # 41 7 Copied and pasted answer from Google # 52 9 Copied and pasted answer from Google Note. A total of 13 out of 20 students (65%) used tablet computers during the 16 minutes of the classroom observation period. A substitute teacher led this class.

Instructional practices. This class was observed to get a picture of a regular class with a substitute teacher. As in the previous session, the teacher sat at the teacher’s desk after handing out a worksheet. Unlike the previous session, the students completed the given ask individually. Thirteen students used tablet computers during the16 minutes of the observation period. The rest of the class may have completed the given task within the first 30 minutes.

Off-task activities. Students 14 and 15 played an online game. An animated character was sliding on a snowboard on the screen. Student 43 copied an unrelated text from a STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 218 worksheet on the tablet computer. The student seemed to be plagiarizing or transferring his answers. Student 54 listened to music with headphones. Similarly, Student 55 watched a video with headphones on.

Partially on-task activities. Students 21, 22, 24, and 31 listened to music with headphones on, while copying and pasting the answers from Google. Students 21 and 31 were sharing a pair of headphones. Students 23, 25, 41 and 52 copied and pasted the answers from Google.

Table I.4 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honors US History class Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 51 8 Watched video # 13 13 Fooled around the Internet # 28 6 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 34 10 Studied unrelated task # 44 21 Studied unrelated task # 55 16 Studied unrelated task # 11 30 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 14 13 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 35 16 Typed lecture note on tablet computer Multiple 10 Participated in Kahoot! game (16 students) # 18 18 Took screen shot on the tablet computer Partially Studied unrelated task while typing lecture # 31 5 On-Task note on tablet computer Note. A total of 19 out of 20 students (95%) used tablet computers during the 42 minutes of the classroom observation period.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 219

Instructional Practices. The teacher lectured for about 15 minutes while presenting the lecture notes on a PowerPoint presentation. The students were expected to type the notes while listening to the teacher. Then a Kahoot! game took place for about 10 minutes. The teacher discussed the answers with the students for another 10 minutes. Two students did not have the tablet computers, and one student’s tablet computer was being charged in the room. These students were not involved in any instructional activity. The teacher did not address it.

Off-task activities. Student 51 watched a soccer game with the volume off during the last eight minutes of the class, after the Kahoot! game. Students 13 and 28 were surfing the Internet. They switched to Notability when the researcher walked toward them.

Students 34, 44, and 55 Studied unrelated task during the lecture or discussion. Student

34 took a picture of the student in front of her and spent some time with it. Student 55 worked on a mathematics assignment on her tablet computer during the game. Student 44 typed a long text from his tablet computer into a notebook during the lecture and the game.

On-task activities. Students 11, 14, and 35 Typed lecture note on their tablet computers during the lecture. Sixteen students actively participated in the game. During this activity, all of these students were very focused on the screen.

Partially on-task activities. Student 18 took a photo of the smart board when the lecture notes showed up. Student 31 dealt with an unrelated task while typing the lecture notes. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 220

Table I.5 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 14 5 Watched video # 33 17 Played game and studied unrelated task # 11 5 Played game # 12 5 Played game Off-Task # 34 12 Studied unrelated task # 43 10 Studied unrelated task # 54 25 Studied unrelated task # 32 16 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 34 12 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task Multiple 8 Participated in Kahoot! game (19 students) Fooled around tablet computer while working on # 11 14 assigned task Fooled around tablet computer while working on # 12 10 assigned task Fooled around tablet computer while working on # 14 15 assigned task Partially Fooled around tablet computer while working on # 52 4 On-Task assigned task Fooled around tablet computer while working on # 55 19 assigned task # 43 6 Took screen shot on tablet computer # 44 6 Took screen shot on tablet computer Note. A total of 19 out of 20 students (95%) used tablet computers during the 38 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional practices. The Kahoot! game was the first activity. The teacher stood by the smart board to manage the game. Then the teacher explained the lecture notes as they appeared on the smart board. Students were asked to type the lecture notes. Five students preferred to take notes in notebooks. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 221

Off-task activities. Various off-task activities were observed during the instructional time, especially the last five minutes of the class. These include playing games, watching videos, using social media, and studying unrelated tasks, as listed in the table. Student 14 tried to hide the tablet computer screen from the researcher.

On-task activities. During the Kahoot! game, students were quiet and focused; almost all carefully followed the screen and responded to the questions. For example, a student commented, “Come on, I am the second place and etc.” The teacher posed various questions while discussing the answers. Two students, 32 and 34, typed notes and listened to the teacher.

Partially on-task activities. Two students took screen shots on the tablet computers when the correct answers appeared. Other students visited various applications or sites while typing the lecture notes.

222

Table I.6 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 14 7 Fooled around tablet computer # 15 5 Studied unrelated task # 21 4 Watched video and used social media # 23 4 Played game Off-Task # 34 9 Fooled around tablet computer and played game # 53 4 Watched video and used social media # 54 10 Watched video and played game # 55 29 Watched video # 15 5 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 31 12 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 32 4 Typed lecture note on tablet computer Multiple 10 Participated in Kahoot! game (19 Students) Fooled around the Internet while typing lecture note Partially # 22 19 on tablet computer On-Task Note. A total of 21 out of 21 students (100%) used tablet computers during the 35 minutes of the classroom observation period. Instructional practices. About half of the class was using tablet computers before the lesson started. After the explanation of the agenda, a content-related, Kahoot! game was played. The students who scored high on the game received awards: a homework pass, five points, and three extra points for the test. They were excited about the awards. It important to note that some students used the tablet computers just to participate in the Kahoot!. Lastly, the teacher explained the lecture notes for the next 18 minutes while circulating around the room.

Off-task activities. Students 14, 22, and 34 visited various websites after completing the

Kahoot! game. Student 14 turned off the tablet computer as the researcher walked towards him. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 223

Student 15 worked on an unrelated assignment. Students 23, 34, and 54 played various video games after the Kahoot!. An animated character in one game was moving down a hill. Student 54 played a game or watched video and student 55 watched a soccer game even during the Kahoot!.

On-task activities. Students 31 and 32 typed the lecture notes after the Kahoot!. Nineteen students participated in the Kahoot! for about 8 minutes. Most of these were not involved in any other activity with tablet computers.

Partially on-task activities. The only partially on-task student was 21, who briefly visited a social media site and played a short game after the Kahoot!.

Table I.7 Students' activities with tablet computers in an honor US History class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme

# 23 7 Studied unrelated task Fooled around the Internet and took screen shot of the Off-Task # 55 8 quiz # 21 8 Typed lecture note on tablet computer # 31 5 Typed lecture note on tablet computer On-Task # 51 8 Typed lecture note on tablet computer Studied unrelated task while typing lecture note on # 41 10 tablet computer Partially Studied unrelated task while typing lecture note on On-Task # 54 5 tablet computer Note. A total of 7 out of 19 students (37%) used tablet computers during the 19 minutes of the classroom observation period. Because of the school’s closing due to inclement weather, the period length was shortened.

Instructional activity. The students took an electronic test during the first 30 minutes of the session. All of them typed quietly on the tablet computers while the teacher continuously circulated around the room. Then the teacher lectured and posed quick questions for the last 10 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 224 minutes, showing notes on the smart board. As he lectured, the students were expected to copy the notes and listen to the teacher.

Off-task activities. After the test was done, students 23 and 55 reviewed an electronic textbook for another subject. Student 55 took a screen shot of the quiz.

On-task activities. Students 21, 31, and 51 Typed lecture note on tablet computers during the lecture.

Partially on-task activities. Students 41 and 54 reviewed a PDF file and a text from Google while typing the lecture notes.

Table I.8 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 11 4 Fooled around the Internet # 14 8 Fooled around the Internet # 32 21 Fooled around the Internet

# 23 14 Played game Off-Task # 34 14 Played game and studied unrelated task Took screen shot on the tablet computer while fooling # 22 4 around the Internet Took screen shot on the tablet computer while fooling # 25 17 around the Internet Fooled around the Internet while typing lecture note on # 24 25 tablet computer Fooled around the Internet while typing lecture note on Partially # 55 26 tablet computer On-Task Studied unrelated task while typing lecture note on # 31 19 tablet computer Note. A total of 10 out of 21 students (48%) used tablet computers during the 29 minutes of the classroom observation period. Because of the school’s closing due to inclement weather, the period length was shortened.

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 225

Instructional activities. The teacher had to change his original plan because Schoology was down, and students were unable to reach the electronic quiz file. Therefore, he had to lecture as displaying the notes on the smart board, for about 25 minutes. Students were expected to type the notes, listen to the teacher, and respond to any questions that were posed. In addition, the students were supposed to work on an electronic worksheet, but the teacher gave them a print copy because of the technical problem. This class was a half-day session (30 minutes) because of the late opening due to inclement weather.

Off-task activities. Students 11, 14, and 32 flipped through their tablet computers’ screens during the lecture, when they were expected to be typing the notes. Student 32 kept switching screens as the teacher approached her. Students 22 and 25 took screen shots on their tablet computers, besides visiting various websites. Students 23 and 34 played a game in which a toy car was moving across the screen as they continually touched it. They also spent some time with a text on the Internet.

Partially on-task activities. Students 24 and 55 visited various websites besides typing the lecture notes. Student 55 was on her tablet computer while she was supposed to be completing the print copy of the assignment. Student 31 reviewed a text from an electronic book besides typing the lecture notes. 226

Table I.9 Students' activities with tablet computers in a regular US History class session Student Duration Emerging Activity ID (minute) Theme # 12 13 Watched video # 13 5 Fooled around the Internet # 14 6 Fooled around the Internet Off-Task # 33 14 Fooled around the Internet # 42 9 Fooled around the Internet # 53 29 Performed various off-task activities # 12 10 Worked on assigned task # 13 9 Worked on assigned task # 33 5 Worked on assigned task # 34 12 Worked on assigned task # 42 15 Worked on assigned task On-Task # 43 3 Typed lecture note in tablet computer Typed lecture note on tablet computer and worked on # 31 28 assigned task Typed lecture note on tablet computer and worked on # 41 25 assigned task Typed lecture note on tablet computer and worked on # 45 13 assigned task # 11 16 Fooled around the Internet while working on assigned task Fooled around the Internet and played game while working # 32 35 on assigned task Partially # 54 25 Fooled around the Internet while working on assigned task On-Task Performed various off-task activities while working on # 24 37 assigned task Note. A total of 15 out of 22 students (68%) used tablet computers during the 39 minutes of the classroom observation period.

Instructional Activities. The session started with a “Do It Now” assignment, where the students responded to content-related questions. Then the teacher discussed the answers with the class and STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH 1:1 TCB TEACHING 227 lectured as displaying the notes on the smart board. Lastly, students were assigned an electronic worksheet through Schoology. The teacher kept circulating through the room as the students worked individually on the assignment.

Off-task activities. It was difficult to identify the activities that fooling around students were involved in, because they shut off the tablet computers whenever the researcher approached them. However, they were staring at or flipping through the tablet computers’ screens while the teacher was explaining the content at the board. Student 12 watched a video clip. It should be noted that students 12, 13, and 42 completed the assignment during the second half of the session. Student 42 read the news during the lecture. Student 14 completed the print copy of the assignment but played with his tablet computer screen. Student 53 was involved in various off- task activities, including listening to music, looking at pictures on the Internet, and watching a video clip of a drum performance.

On-task activities. Students 31, 41, and 44 typed the lecture notes and completed the given assignment on their tablet computers. The rest of the students listed on the Table 4.39 either typed the lecture notes or completed the given assignments. Interestingly, they did not do both.

Partially on-task activities. Student 11 completed the assigned worksheet while visiting various sites. His screen was showing various pictures. Student 24 read an unrelated text and visited various sites while completing the assigned task and typing the lecture notes. Student 32 played a game and visited various sites while completing the given assignment. This student was sitting about a yard away from the teacher’s desk.