RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 1

iPads for Teaching and Learning:

Workflow and a Learning Management System

Sheila Schatzke

University of North Texas

RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 2

Abstract

ThispaperwillexaminethecaseofmiddleschoolclassroomsintheDeerParkIndependent

SchoolDistrict(DPISD)fromthe20152016schoolyear.Itisthefirstyearofa1:1initiative

usingtheiPadAirIIswithallofthe7thgradestudentsinthedistrict.DPISDdidnotemploy

theuseofoneLearningManagementSystem(LMS),butthedistrictdidpilotandsample,five

systemsandmustmakeadecisionastowhichonewillbepurchasedforthe20162017school

year.Asurveywasadministeredtoallteachersinthefourjuniorhighschoolstodetermine

needsandperceptionsofwhattheywillwantasanLMSforthefollowingschoolyear.Forthe

20162017schoolyearallstudentsingrades,6,7and8willhaveaniPad.Asaresultofthis

pilotstudyithasbeendeterminedthatmoreinvestigationisneededtodeterminetheLMSthatis

goingtobeeasyfortheteacherstouseandtohaveasystemthatthedistrictcangrowinto.

However,thegoalistodecideandpurchaseaLMSforthe20162017schoolyearandhaveitin

placebyAugust2016foralljuniorhighteachersandstudentsinDeerParkIndependentDistrict.

Keywords:iPad,LearningManagementSystem,LMS,1:1,digitallearning,digitaltools
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 3

iPadsforTeachingandLearning:

WorkflowandaLearningManagementSystem

Introduction

Teachingpracticesintodaysclassroomhaveseenashiftasnewtechnologyisintroducedto

serveasatoolforteachingandlearning.Theusesofmobiledevicessuchassmartphonesand

tabletshaveanewwaytoaccessinformationintheclassroom.(Tay,2016).Thelearnerisno

longerdependentontheinformationthattheteachergivesthestudent,buthasapowerfultoolin

thepalmsoftheirhandswheretheycanfindanswersaboutpractically,anything.Therehave

beenmanyclassroomsthathaveexperienceda1:1initiativewiththeuseoflaptops,PCtablets

andiPads.Workflowswithintheclassroom,ifnotaddressedinthebeginningoftheinitiative,

canexperienceroadblocksemergefromunforeseenblockages.Workflow is defined by Oxford

Dictionaries As the sequence of industrial, administrative, or other processes through which a

piece of work passes from initiation to completion.("workflow: definition of workflow in

Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)", 2016). Schools that have a 1:1 initiative can use

many different applications to manage learning. A tool commonly used to manage workflow is

called a Learning Management System (LMS) and is crucial tool for the success of a 1:1

program. Currently there are several tools on the market that are geared toward different devices

and grade levels. Many colleges and universities have used an LMS since the inception of online

courses. However, now that elementary and secondary schools are utilizing devices such as iPods

and iPads in the classroom there has been more of a demand for a LMS to manage workflow,

curriculum, grade books, online textbooks, subscriptions and more.

Problem
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 4

Atraditionalclassroomenvironmentusuallyconsistsofworkbeingcompletedwithpaperand

pencil;theteacherwouldcollectthestudentsworkandthenhaveastackof100paperstograde,

writefeedback,recordgrades,andhandbacktothestudents. The problem is that the district

does not use a LMS and after the few weeks of the 1:1 program it became apparent that the

classroom would benefit from the use of a LMS. The collection and grading of digital work was

not established in a systematic way, so as a result the teachers were discouraged from using the

iPads with the students. It was decided that in the beginning of the year that the 7th grade

classrooms would pilot and sample a variety of LMSs and then a decision would be made as to

which one would be purchased for the 2016-2017 school year.

ResearchQuestions

TheuseofaniPadusedinconjunctionwithaLMSsavestheteachertimeinthatassignments

canbegiventothestudentviatheLMS,studentscanproducetheirworkandhandinviathe

LMS.Feedbackandinstantaneousgradesuploadedtothegradebookcanbeeasilyachieved

withtheLMWthatalsocontainsmultimediatoolsandoptionsfordelivery.Thedeliverysystem

andworkflowsaredigitalinnature,thereforemeetingtheneedsofthe21stcenturyteacherand

student.Somefactorsincludeteacherbuyin,professionaldevelopment,continuingsupport

frompeersandspecialists,reliabilityoftheLMS,filesharinganduseofmultimediawithinthe

LMS.Oftenteachersarehesitanttousenewtechnologybecausetheycanfeelintimatedwhile

othersembracetechnologyasaninvaluableteachingtool.ThegoalistofindanLMSthatwill

satisfytheneedsofteachersandstudentstoassistinthetransitionforapaperandpencil

classroomtoonethathasthecapabilitiestobecomepaperlessandwheretheworkflowis

seamless.

TosolvetheproblemofwhichLMStoadoptcomeswithmanyquestions.Whenboththe
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 5

studentandtheteacherhaveapersonaldevicethatisavailabletothem24\7,aretheymoreaptto

utilizingthecapabilitiesthattheInternetandproductiontoolsthattheiPadormobiledevice

havetooffer?Areteacherswillingtoadoptor'buyin'theuseofanLMS?Whatarethe

perceivedbenefitsandobstaclesbyteachers?WhatLMSfeaturesaremostimportanttothe

teachers?WhichLMSdotheteachersthinkfulfilltheirneedsthebest?

Literature Review

In a ethnographic study of three teachers integration iPads in the classroom grades 3 and

5/6 was determined that the teachers had different ideas of how to integrate the iPad into the

classroom (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2014). The three teachers in this qualitative study conducted

interviews, classroom observations and reflection blogs. The researchers looked for emerging

themes that either are a barrier or positive aspects of using the iPad in class. Teaching beliefs

were compared to the T-Pack model to the teaching practices observed by researchers. It was

determined that the integration of technology into the classroom were influenced the teaching

practices in the classroom. One barrier that all three teachers believed was the need for

comprehensive personalized professional development. Each teacher had different comfort

levels of using the iPad with students. One issue that caused anxiety was the lack of an LMS, or

a way to handle workflow.

A recent study of college level students determined that the use of iPads in their language

acquisition courses had a prominently positive impact on the quality of learning (Mango, 2015).

The students were able to check out iPads from the department and the coursework developed

was created specifically to use the tools and apps available exclusively on an iPad. The students

indicated they thought the iPad assisted with peer collaboration and include student engagement.

They were able to utilize the college LMS for turning in work and to receive grades and
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 6

feedback from the instructor. Students and instructions thought the LMS was necessary to control

the workflow of assignments.

Anytime, anywhere learning is at the tips of fingers and used in a manner that enhances

the learning experience beneficial to everyone involved. (Ally, Grimus, & Ebner, 2014) It is

important that teachers prepare to engage students in digital environments. A clear understanding

of workflow amongst the instructors and students must be established at the beginning of the

course. Teacher preparation is the key to a successful technology program that uses mobile

technology (Ally et al., 2014).

A recent article by Rhonda Puckett from Liberty University discusses the effective of use

of educational technology. The author concluded that, (Puckett, 2013 p. 1) technology can be

highly effective with various forms of implementation in classrooms ranging from kindergarten

to twelfth grades. Her article discussed a wide range of topics related to assessment of

technology, teacher perceptions, student participation, use of a LMS, cognitive ability, teacher

usage, teacher training and more. There should be more studies done to determine the success of

technology in the classroom, but believes that technology if used correctly can be highly

beneficial for students and teachers alike.

The Journal of Business and Technical Communication published a study, iPads in the

Technical Communication Classroom: An Empirical Study of Technology Integration and Use

(Faris & Selber, 2013). This qualitative study consisted of interview, written refection,

observation, and device analyses. A pre-survey was used at the beginning of the study to

determine the past experiences with technology of the participants. The participants were

college students and professors that were issued an iPad for the duration of the course.
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 7

One major focus of the study was to examine how the teachers and students, (Faris & Selber,

2013), encountered the iPad and its sociotechnical dynamics and forces. To achieve this

researchers collected the iPads at the end of the semester and examined a number of settings and

organizational procedures of each iPad. They also noted how the students utilized apps provided

by the university and examined any other apps that were downloaded by the student and teacher

user. Based on the thematic results evolving form this study it was determined that the iPad

provided a rich and diverse sociotechnical interaction with the iPad. Each user had an

independent way of interacting with the iPad but was synonymous with completing tasks,

workflow, customizing the device, and using the multiple interfaces in a variety of ways. The

individual user with some guidelines devised the use of electronic material and workflow

procedures. For example, a LMS was used for the course to read assignments and hand in

assignments. Unfortunately, it did not work with the iPad so instructors had to create another

workflow system for sharing files with completed work. Some barriers that they experienced

were that Wi-Fi connections were not available in student housing. Some important features such

as file sharing did not work with the LMS. However, with the obstacles that occurred the

participants felt like the iPad improved the overall teaching and learning in the course. This study

did create more questions for further research. Some questions about Pedagogical Elements that

stood out are, (Faris & Selber, 2013); How might we encourage teachers to abandon efficient,

serviceable practices for new practices with uncertain outcomes? How do our instructional

approaches understand the relationship between technologies and pedagogies? Do they shape

each other? Is one more influential than the other?

Research Methods

AsurveywascreatedinEduphoria,anddistributedthroughthedistrictemailtothe
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 8

teachersatDeerParkISDsjuniorhighteachers.Thesurveycontaineditemsthatwere

commonlyusedinavarietyofLMSsonthemarketthatarefreeandsubscriptionbased.All7th

gradeteachershadtheoptionofpilotingapaidLMSandwereabletouseafreeversionof

SchoologyandHomeroombyAtlas.Thesurveywascreatedbyacollaborationeffortofthe

CampusTechnologyIntegrationSpecialists(CTIS)thatarelocatedateachofthefourjunior

highSchoolsinDPISD.TheCTISsmeetonaweeklybasistodiscussthesuccessesandfailures

ofusingiPadsintheclassroom,itwasalsodiscussedwhatfeaturesofanLMSwouldbe

importantfortheclassroomwiththeuseofiPads.

Outof160teachers,99respondedtothesurvey.Thesurveyconsistedofatwentyitem

LikertscaleregardingthefeaturesofanLMSthatrangedfrom0notsure,1notimportant,2

somewhatimportant,3important,4veryimportant.Thesurveyincludedanopenendeditemto

addanyadditionalcommentsorconcernsaboutthefutureLMSchoiceforDeerParkISD.

Out of the 99 participants the grade levels break down below in Figure 2

Figure1
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 9

Thenextchartdepictsthenumberofteachersandsubjectsfromeachcampusinfigure3.Each

schoolwascloselyrepresentedintermsofthenumberofteachersandthesubjecttaughtofeach

groupwasrepresentedasshowninfigure3

Figure2

The

results

are as

follows listed from the very important to not important. The twenty- items were ranked

according to very important to no important based on the survey results. An item analysis

determined the following items in the following ranking order:

RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 10

The items where the largest percent of each item as 4-Very important were ranked first down to

not important were ranked last. For example for the first item, create and grade assignments on

computer as well as iPad was rated as depicted in the following figure:

Thiscategoryhadthe

highestratingwith47

percentofthe
Figure3
teachersdeemthisas,

VeryImportant.Eachitemwasanalyzedandrankedfrom120,onebeingthemostdesiredby

theteachers.

AfteraseriesofinterviewswithseveralteachersandtheCTISitwasdiscoveredthattheword

analyticswasanunfamiliartermfortheconceptofusinganLMS.AnalyticsinaLMScanbe

usedinavarietyofways;itjustmeanstolookatuserdatatodrawqualitativeandquantitative

conclusionsabouttheusersoftheLMS.Oneexampleistomonitortheamountoftimeastudent

isspendingontheLMSorwhenthestudentloggedinlast.Additionally,italsoprovidesdata

suchasatimeanddatestampofwhenthestudentturnsinanassignment.Forafuturestudy,

thisquestionshouldbebrokendownintoseveralsubquestionssotheteachercanclearly

understandthefactorsofanalyticsandwhatdataitgathersandhowitisdisplayedintheLMS.

NewFactors

Oneitemthatwasnotcoveredinthesurveywasthatofasinglecartridgeofasinglesignon

(SSO)featurethatwouldaccessvariouspaidsubscriptionstowebsources.Anexampleofthisis

toBrainpop,whichisanonlineWebSitewherestudentsandteacherscanloginviewthevideos,

paygamesandcompletequizzesandhasinteractivegames.AnotherexampleisDiscovery
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 11

Educationandithasamassivelibraryofsciencevideosthatareavailablefordownloadtoview

andtoedit.AnotherfeaturethatwearecurrentlyinvestigatingisthatofaLearningOnline

Repository(LOR).ALORcanbepackagedwithinanLMSforstoringdatasuchasanonline

libraryforcurriculum,documents,specificcontentsuchasquizzes,tests,assessments,

presentations,images,videosandalltypesoffiles.NotonlywilltheLORstorethisdata,ituses

ataggingsystemthatiscalledMetadata.BytaggingitemsintheLORitmakesitsearchableby

keywords.Forexample,theTexasEssentialKnowledgeandSkills(TEKS)canbeincludedin

theLORandteacherscancreatelessonsandtagitwiththeTEKtodocumentthatthespecific

TEKwascoveredinalesson.ForDPISD,collaborationwiththeCTIS,teachersandthe

DepartmentofInstruction(DOI)havebeguntodetermineifanLMScanfulfillallthe

requirements.TheDOIwasbroughtintheconversationtodetermineifthecurriculumwrittenby

thedepartmentshouldbeincludedintheLMSsoteacherscanwritelessonplansandaccessthe

metataggedofficialcurriculumcreatedbyDPISD.

FutureandConclusion

Arubricwillbecreatedbaseonrankingsfromthesurvey,conversationsfromthefocusgroup

thatwillconsistofCTIS,ChiefTechnologyOfficer,DOIandteacherswillhaveseveral

meetingstoexaminethedatafromtherubricsbasedonthefeaturesofthedifferentLMSsthe

districtisgoingtopurchase.Ameetingwiththefivecompaniesrepresentativesisscheduledfor

May2016.Thecollaborationteamwilltraveltotwolocalschooldistrictstowitnesstwoofthe

LMSsthatareinplaceinthosedistricts.InMay2016anLMSwillbepurchased.InJune2016,

trainingwiththeCTISsandchosenLMSwilltakeplace.August2016thestudentandteacher

data,itemsfortheLORandotherdatawillbeloadedintosystemwithassistanceofthevendor
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 12

andtheITdepartment.Trainingprovidedbythevendoras,trainthetrainerforCTISand

selectedteacherstoprepareindividualcampusteachersfortheuseoftheLMS.September

2016toMay2017,ongoingsupportbyCTISandvendorforteacherstoproperlyuseallthe

functionalityprovidedbytheLMS.January2017,assesstheLMS;isitfittingtheneedsofthe

teachers,functionality,workflowandobstacles?Overall,thepurchaseofanLMSforaschool

districtcomeswithmorequestionsthanoriginallyanticipated.Thedistrictcannotdependon

onlyteacherfeedbackbecausemanyoftheteachershavenothadexperiencewithaLMS.Since

the1:1initiativeisnewtothedistrict,itconveysanewwayofteachingandlearning.The

teachersandstudentswillneedtomakenecessarychangesintheclassroominordertoutilize

21stcenturytools.Ultimately,theLMSshouldbeonethatis,userfriendlyandmakesthejobof

theteacherandstudentorganizedandmoreefficientforworkflowtoimproveteachingand

learning.
RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 13

Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the Use of Cell Phones and Other

Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Evidence From a Survey of Faculty and Students.

Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 275289.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.622814

Faris, M. J., & Selber, S. a. (2013). iPads in the Technical Communication Classroom: An

Empirical Study of Technology Integration and Use. Journal of Business and Technical

Communication, 27(4), 359408. http://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913490942

Gibson, L. A., & Sodeman, W. A. (2014). Millennials and Technology: Addressing the

Communication Gap in Education and Practice. Organization Development Journal.

Gorder, L. (2008). A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Technology Integration in the

Classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 6376. Retrieved from

http://www.dpe.org/core/home.htm

Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the Digital Natives: Understanding the acceptance

of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 392402.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 55(3), 223252. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Hocanin, F. T., & Iscioglu, E. (2014). Use of Mobile Tablets in the Learning

Environment:PERSPECTIVE OF THE COMPUTER TEACHER CANDIDATES. Journal

Fo Educational and Instrucional Studies in the World, 4(May), 1317.

Horzum, M. B., ztrk, E., Bekta, M., Gngren, . C., & akir, . (2014). Secondary School

Students Tablet Computer Acceptance and Readiness: A Structural Equation Modelling.

RUNNING HEAD:IPADS FOR TEACHING 14

TeEi iti im VBi ili im, 39(176), 8194. http://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3500

Hsu, P. S., & Sharma, P. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Educational

Technology and Society, 9(4), 173184. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10347-007-0123-3

Incantalupo, L., Treagust, D. F., & Koul, R. (2014). Measuring Student Attitude and Knowledge

in Technology-Rich Biology Classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology,

23(1), 98107. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9453-9

Mango, O. (2015). iPad Use and Student Enggagement in The Classroom. Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 5357.

Puckett, R. (2013). EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND ITS EFFECTIVE USE B. I-

Managers Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 612.

http://doi.org/10.1039/C2JM35479A

Saudelli, M. G., & Ciampa, K. (2014). Exploring the role of TPACK and teacher self-efficacy: an

ethnographic case study of three iPad language arts classes. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education, 5139(July 2015), 121. http://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.979865

Tay, H. Y. (2016). Longitudinal study on impact of iPad use on teaching and learning. Cogent

Education, 3(1), 1127308. http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1127308

Timothy, V. (2003). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Some Thoughts from the Generation

Gap. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://depd.wisc.edu/html/TSarticles/Digital

Natives.htm

U.S. Department of Education, O. of E. T. (2010). Transforming American education: learning

powered by technology: National Education Technology Plan 2010. Learning (Vol. 000).

Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf