iPads as instructional tools to enhance learning opportunities for students with developmental disabilities: An action research project

Abstract

This study details an action research project completed by an Information and Communications Technology Integration Coordinator and a team of five teachers, supported by the university partners as consultants. The project focused on the process and outcomes of the introduction of iPad technology to support students with developmental disabilities at a private high school in Sydney. The data were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. This paper describes the experience, including teacher and student perceptions of iPad implementation. Recommendations for implementation and further study are also discussed.

Keywords

Special education action research mobile technology iPads developmental disabilities

Introduction

Four decades of research has provided an adequate research base to support the use of computer technology in teaching and learning for students with intellectual disabilities and autism (Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). Much of this research centers around assistive technology, which is defined as: “Any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). Multimedia, and assistive technologies have a strong track record in the literature for producing positive learning outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities and autism (Ayres & Langone, 2008; Banda, Dogoe, & Matuszny, 2011; Braddock, Rizzolo, Thompson, & Bell, 2004). For decades, various types of technology have been used in schools successfully with students with disabilities for communication, mobility, recreation, and teaching (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Smith, Davies, & Stock, 2008).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011a) promotes access and inclusion through the development of flexible learning environments comprised of multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. Mobile technology lies well within this theory, as it has the capability to provide all of those with one device. Many studies over the past few decades have been conducted under the auspices of UDL as a theoretical framework. These studies have shown that several kinds of technology can be used successfully to support the learning of students with disabilities. For example, Ayres and Langone (2008) illustrated several ways that video has improved the learning opportunities of this population of students. They found that using video in instruction not only supported students in learning and generalizing academic skills but also was very motivating for them. They found that video was particularly successful in teaching students: (a) sign language, (b) functional living skills, (c) reading, (d) community-based instruction, and (e) social skills. Banda et al. (2011) reviewed 18 studies on video modeling and prompting that were conducted with students with autism and developmental disabilities and found it to be a successful strategy for improving domestic, vocational, and independent living skills. It was also more successful than traditional teaching methods in facilitating the maintenance and generalization of skills. The challenges they discovered all involved a lack of portability, as the videos were mostly shown on desktop computers and televisions.

Among the challenges of UDL and education technology traditionally has been that although technology has greater benefits for students with disabilities than for their peers without disabilities, they are half as likely to own computers, and one-quarter as likely to access the Internet (Burgstahler, 2003). There are also issues involving physical access to the devices. UDL dictates that technology should be designed to be suitable to all users, but that is not always the case (Braddock et al., 2004). Braddock et al. list other challenges: devices that are stigmatizing for students, affordability, portability, and sustainability (must work across multiple environments). These combine with the traditional challenge of making learning materials accessible to students with intellectual disabilities. To be accessible to someone with intellectual disabilities, information must: (a) decrease dependency on memory to recall info, (b) use as many formats as possible, (c) reduce the need for complex organizational skills for comprehension, and (d) have a reading level at or close to that of the reader (Braddock et al., 2004). Technologies such as personal digital assistants and tablet computers, along with corresponding applications (apps) have the potential to overcome many of those challenges.

Recently, there has been an increase in the use of mobile technology for teaching and learning, particularly in the area of special education (Rothschild, 2011; Sutherland, 2011). This increase is most likely due to the cost, portability, long battery life, and popularity of portable devices such as mobile phones, iPods, and tablet devices such as iPads. Early studies have provided preliminary evidence that these technologies have the potential to improve behavior and communication for students with disabilities, especially autism spectrum disorders (Cihak, Fahrenkrog, Ayres, & Smith, 2010; Kagohara et al., 2010).

Tablet devices, such as the iPad, are increasing in popularity and many schools in Australia and globally (Kauffman, 2012; Keene, 2012; Richmond, 2011; Stevenson, 2012) are adopting them as educational technology. This new technology and its corresponding apps have also been touted as the next assistive technology breakthrough for students with disabilities (Abrahms, 2011; Fox, 2010), but there is little empirical evidence to support the widespread adoption of the devices in either general or special education. Despite this lack of evidence, a number of parents and teachers are purchasing and using the devices and apps to supplement the instruction of children with disabilities. The special education teachers in this case study became interested in the phenomenon, and made the decision to trial iPads with their students as part of an action research project, which was also designed to increase their own knowledge as part of their professional development.

Background

This action research project was funded through the Association of Independent Schools as part of the Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme. The research team used the best evidence synthesis (BES) model (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007) to frame and design the project. The goal of the model is for teachers to advance their own professional development through collaboration and learning, resulting in positive learning outcomes for their students. Teachers are encouraged to look at valued student outcomes as a part of the teacher inquiry and knowledge building cycle (Timperley et al., 2007). In other words, the teachers begin by looking at the learning needs of their students and their own learning needs and use those answers to design tasks and experiences. The first inquiry asks teachers to explore what knowledge and skills they need, and then directs them to do two things: deepen their knowledge and skills, and engage students in new learning experiences. The second inquiry involves evaluating the impact of these actions. The cycle ends (and begins anew) with the third inquiry, which asks teachers to look at the impact of the tasks and experiences that they designed and implemented. This allows teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of their actions and make adjustments if necessary (Timperley et al., 2007). This model was chosen for this project because it effectively illustrates the synthesis between teacher professional development and student outcomes, which were the two areas that the team had committed to working on in the first place.

The BES model is well aligned with the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, because it details the types of knowledge required by teachers for successful educational technology implementation (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). The TPACK framework captures teacher qualities and knowledge necessary for effective technology integration in the classroom, and is designed to assist teachers in integrating technology into their pedagogy. The framework consists of seven specific knowledge areas: (a) content knowledge, (b) pedagogical knowledge, (c) technology knowledge, (d) pedagogical content knowledge, (e) technological content knowledge, (f) technological pedagogical knowledge, and (g) TPACK. Koehler and Mishra (2008) posit that it is crucial for teachers to possess knowledge in these areas in order to effectively integrate technology into their teaching. Teachers considering implementing educational technology in their classrooms can use the TPACK framework to organize both their teaching and their professional development, using the latter as an opportunity to upskill in any areas they feel they are lacking. This is especially pertinent to the implementation of mobile technology because it relates well to taking a commonly used technology and repurposing it for educational use.

Design and aims

The action research approach was an obvious choice in this study as it traditionally focuses on “issues of immediate concern to particular social groups or communities” and is conducted “by and with members of the actual community” (Burns, 1999, p. 24). The issue of immediate interest in this study was the use mobile learning as an instructional tool for students with developmental disabilities based on what the education support team (EST) had read in the popular press. The team met and decided that they would focus on this shared interest and use it to drive their own professional development. Using the Timperley et al. (2007) model of teachers employing reflective practice as an opportunity for professional development, the action research team decided that the overarching aim of the project would be for teachers to learn to use and implement iPads and their corresponding apps to improve the participation and learning of students with disabilities.

The core questions that teachers were addressing through this action research were:

How can mobile devices such as iPads assist and enhance learning opportunities for students?

What are the perceptions of students with developmental disabilities and their teachers in regard to using the iPad as an instructional tool?

This aim and questions are well-aligned with the UDL model, which involves planning the classroom environment and instruction so that it is accessible for all students from the start, without the necessity of adaptations or modifications (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011a). Using UDL’s guiding principles (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011b) of providing multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression, the teachers identified the areas of greatest student need and outlined how and where they would implement the iPads for students. They first had to consider the fact that iPads are only as effective as the apps that are installed on them. Similar to desktop computers, which require software, iPads require apps to be functional. When deciding how they would use the iPads and apps, the teachers focused on: (a) providing students with content area material in a variety of ways; (b) increasing academic engagement in the content area courses; (c) giving students with literacy and communication difficulties effective communication tools and new ways to express themselves; and (d) assisting the students to be more independent and to take responsibility for their own learning. It was hoped that the iPad implementation would provide students and teachers with a more flexible approach to learning and enrich the learning process for students.

Participants

Setting

The high school in which the presented study took place is a part of a private Jewish college in Sydney’s eastern suburbs that serves over 1800 students in years Kindergarten-12. The special education department operates under the title of EST, and consists of one psychologist, five teachers, and two teacher aides. The EST supports the students academically and socially through the use of Individual Education Plans (IEPs), modified curricula, specialized teaching, counseling, and life skills training. Although the school has since implemented a one-on-one student laptop program and extended its iPad program to music classes, at the time of this study, students had access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) only through the use of classroom desktops and computer labs. The lack of portability of this technology limited the opportunities that students had to employ it in their studies.

Teachers

The research team consisted of the EST (five special education teachers), the ICT Integration Coordinator, and two university consultants (the first and second authors of this paper). The teachers all had at least 7 years classroom experience; two of them had 20+ years. All of the teachers had Bachelor’s degrees, two had additional Post-Graduate Certificate, and two had Master’s of Education degrees. Before the project commenced, teachers were asked to self-report on their level of expertise with technology. One of the teachers reported only basic expertise with technology, two had considerable expertise, and two reported having extensive knowledge and experience with educational technology. All of the teachers participated in extensive professional development in the area of educational, mobile, and assistive technology provided by organizations such as Apple and Spectronics, as well as continuing internal professional development in the areas of iPad apps and Macbook programs. The teachers in this study were teaching in the following content areas: (a) cooking, (b) history/geography, (c) Jewish living, (d) literacy, and (e) personal development.

Students

This study focused on the four students with developmental disabilities who were receiving support from the EST. Student M1 is a 13-year-old female, in year 6. She has been diagnosed with epilepsy and autism and also has a moderate intellectual disability. Student M2 is also female and 13 years old in year 6. M2 has a moderate intellectual disability. Student M3 is in year 7. She is 14, and has a moderate intellectual disability. Student M4 is a 16-year-old male with autism and a global developmental delay. He is in year 9. All four of these students have IEPs and were receiving services from the EST before the project began. All students were attending classes in inclusive settings, as well as receiving special education services in class and through pull-out sessions when appropriate.

Method

It was determined that before the teachers could implement the iPads in their instruction, that they needed some planning time and professional development to learn how to use the devices themselves and incorporate them into their instruction. A project timetable was developed and split into terms. The university consultants were involved in this project from Term 2.

Term 1

At the beginning of the term, the team attended a team planning session, where they negotiated roles and responsibilities and the time frame itself. They learned about the action research process during an initial project professional development meeting (see Table 1). This training was conducted by Association of Independent Schools, and supported by the ICT Coordinator, who had both knowledge and prior experience in conducting action research. Parents were informed through a letter sent home about the project and all four parents signed consent forms for their child’s participation, including permission to photograph, video record, and post these on the project’s blog. During this term, 6 weeks’ of anecdotal baseline data was collected on the students’ academic abilities, achievement, and levels of engagement in academic activities through IEP goals review, observations, pictures, and videos taken by teachers prior to the implementation of iPads. The team participated in a series of professional development sessions pertaining to both action research and using the iPad (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Terms and research activities.

Term	Action research activity	Methods/Content
Term 1	Team planning session	• Introduction to Project requirement • What is Quality Teaching • Best evidence synthesis diagram • Action research requirements
Informing parents Online web log created http://ipad4moriah.posterous.com/	Letter home, consent forms • Page created for each teacher plus a common page • Teachers posted articles and videos that they thought would be helpful
Collecting data about students’ academic abilities	Collecting student’s written work in each class
Collecting data about students’ levels of engagement in academic activities, both traditional and on the iPad.	Photos and videos were taken of students working on both paper-based and iPad-based activities, and later posted on the blog
Professional development (PD) on action research and iPads	• Action research PD by AIS • Introduction to iPads by Apple • K-12 Technology seminar • Spectronics 2012 Educational Technology Seminar • Introduction to iMovie by Apple • Apple Learning Tour • iPad in Education – CompNow
Biweekly team meetings	• Contribute to blog • Teacher professional conversation on use of iPads • Planning work to incorporate iPads/review apps
Individual teacher’s search for suitable applications	• Searched blogs, websites, articles • Teachers created an application bibliography, an application index, and compiled application descriptions from the website www.a4cwsn.com
Term 2	Team meetings – sharing experiences with different apps	• Targeting app to specific Key Learning Areas (KLAs) • Sharing apps and creating a database with effective apps relevant to the KLAs and students needs (blog and file sharing).
New units of work created, incorporating iPads	Units of study with iPad use incorporated into them
Introducing iPads to lessons	See units of study
Biweekly team meetings	Team meetings were used to share applications and ideas, as well as for problem solving
Term 3	Data collection	Student work samples, pictures, and videos
Biweekly team meetings	• Collaborating and planning interim report, app review, feedback from teachers/students on iPads • Collaboratively work to design creative, engaging, and academic programs with the input of previous feedback (blog) • Meet with university partners about the possibility of publishing the study
Collecting peer feedback (staff)	This was done informally during the biweekly meetings
Collecting students’ feedback	Collected informally by talking to students, and formally through video-taped interviews of students at the end of the project
Term 4	Biweekly team meetings	• Teacher reflections • Students reflection • Creating video casts • Develop collaboratively a structured report which includes the outcomes, successes, impacts, sustainability, support, obstacles, and resources
Students’ interviews	Video-taped interviews
Teachers’ interviews	Video-taped interviews
Focus group meeting	Video-taped
Plan for iPad integration into the rest of the school	Providing PD to mainstream staff on the use and inclusion of iPads in their teaching programs (e.g. workshops during staff development days demonstrating how to include iPads/iPhones as a teaching tool)

The teachers were released from duties for half days to attend biweekly team meetings to share and collaborate as part of this professional development. Teachers used these meetings to discuss challenges they encountered and problem solve, as well as sharing their successes with iPad integration in their classrooms. Each teacher undertook the responsibility of researching apps that would be useful in their subject area with their specific students. An online web log (blog) was created to give the team a place to store and share their research and reflections.

Term 2

During this term, the team focused on targeting apps to specific IEP goals and Key Learning Areas. They met formally biweekly to share different apps, resulting in the creation of an application database. The teachers chose the apps based on the students’ IEP goals and the course content, then created new units of work that incorporated the iPads. Lastly, they introduced the iPads to the students in their lessons. The students did not require any training on the device itself, as they all had experience using iPads in their homes. Each teacher worked one-on-one with students to teach them to use each new app. The decision of which apps to use was based on individual student needs and abilities as well as the content and skills being taught. Table 2 provides a description of apps, what courses they were used in, what they were used for, and which students used them. All of the students were able to use the iPad independently. Teachers reflected on the iPad enhanced lessons and shared their reflections on the blog and during their biweekly meetings.

Table 2.

Teacher use of iPad applications by course.

Course	Application *Students who used it	Description of use
Cooking	Keynote *M1, M2	Students used this application with iPads built-in camera to make presentations of step-by-step recipes they cooked in class
	Pancake Maker *M1, M2	Students practiced making and topping pancakes before making them in class
	Cupcakes *M1, M2	Students practiced mixing, baking, frosting, and decorating cupcakes before making them in class
	Fruits and Vegetables *M1, M2	Used to assist students in identifying fruits and vegetables
	My Recipe Book *M1, M2	Used to find and organize recipes, make shopping lists
History and geography	Google Maps *M4	Used in geography to provide pictorials of both local and global geography
	A Life Cycle Application *M3, M4	Pictorial representation of life cycle, richer visual than paper
	YouTube *M1, M2, M3, M4	Videos for both history and geography
	Google *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students use Google to research topics
	iBooks *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students read materials on the iPad instead of traditional textbook
Jewish living	Keynote *M1, M2, M3, M4	Used to teach Hebrew symbols
	The Ten Commandments of God *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students used this interactive application to assist them in learning about the ten commandments
Literacy
	Spelling Cat/Spelling Magic *M1, M2	Students used the games to improve their spelling
	Boggle/Scrabble/Word Bingo *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students used these game applications to practice making and spelling words
	Grammar Dragon *M2, M3, M4	Helped students learn to correctly identify parts of speech
	Audiobooks *M1, M2, M4	Students who normally would not read used this application to access novels, reduced time it took them to read, increased understanding of material
	Cliffnotes study guides *M4	Used to study novels being read in class
	YouTube *M1, M2, M3, M4	Watched brief movies of novels read in class
	Language Builder/Story Builder *M2, M3	Students improved their expressive communication by describing pictures and telling stories; the applications allowed them to hear their own recorded speech
Personal development	Facial Express *M1, M4	Allowed students with autism to practice recognizing different emotions on people’s faces
	Cameras *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students used cameras and recordings of their own voiceovers to produce projects with stop motion animation
All areas	Quizlet *M1, M2, M3, M4	Students used this to make their own study materials to use for all courses
	Proloquo2Go *M1	Student used this Alternative Augmentative Communication application to communicate with others

At the end of this phase, the team contacted and then met with the university partners to gain further insight on the research process. The university partners became part of the team, and together they decided that the focus of the new collaboration would be strengthening the research focus of the project, data analysis, and dissemination of the project’s results.

Term 3

In term three, the teachers concentrated on cycling through the action learning phases and fine tuning upon data for the decision-making phase, so the teachers continued to collect data in the forms of student work samples, and pictures, and videos of students working with and without the iPad.

Each of the biweekly meetings focused on application reviews, sharing successes, and problem solving any challenges that were identified. They reviewed their lessons using peer and student feedback, which was collected informally throughout the term. Through strategies such as observation, IEPs, and communication with students and teachers they were able to identify the specific academic and social goals for students in class.

The university partners met twice with the team during this term and observed the students using the iPads during instructional time. They created teacher and student interview questions and questions to ask the teachers during a focus group.

Term 4

This final term of the project involved the university partners and the Technology Integration Coordinator collating and analyzing the data to answer the research questions and evaluate the attainment of the projected outcomes. In addition to the data routinely collected throughout the study, the students were interviewed to determine their perceptions and feelings about using the iPad technology at school. Each teacher was also interviewed individually, and the whole team met with the university partners for a two-hour focus group meeting. The teacher and student interviews and the focus group were recorded and transcribed for later analysis. The team reflected on the project, on the action research/professional development learning process, and discussed ways to sustain the initiatives they had created.

The team met to discuss a plan to share their experiences with small-scale iPad integration with the rest of the school. The principal of the school requested this specifically, as he planned to roll out tablet computers for the inclusive classes the following year. Although this study was conducted on a very small scale with students with developmental disabilities, he felt that the team could assist by sharing the challenges and successes they experienced when implementing the tablets. They created a sample plan that demonstrated how the iPad could possibly be incorporated into Key Learning Area subjects for students in both inclusive and special education settings, with a focus on how the device could be used to support UDL. Although the students in the study had different support needs than their typical peers, UDL allows for the successful educational participation of all students, and iPads can help teachers provide multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression at each student’s learning level, because they are fully customizable through their settings and the individual apps that can be installed on each device. They developed and conducted a professional development session to share their experience with the rest of the school and the community. Lastly, together they developed a report, which included the outcomes, successes, impacts, challenges, and resources from the project.

Data analysis

The university consultants, along with the ICT Integration Coordinator analyzed all of the data using an inductive content analysis approach (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008), and were charged with disseminating it. The dissemination of the study’s results to professional journals in the fields of educational technology and special education was deemed to be of particular importance, as there has been widespread adoption of iPad technology to support the education of students with special needs, but very little has been published to support this practice.

Inductive content analysis, which was the approach used to analyze the data in this study, is a systematic research method, which provides objective means to describe phenomena by analyzing content via creating content-related categories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Inductive content analysis is used when there is a lack of knowledge about researched phenomenon, or when knowledge about researched phenomenon is rather fragmented (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008).

The authors read the data several times to become immersed in these. The first author conducted the open coding of the teacher interviews and the focus group, while the second author conducted the open coding of the student interviews and the teacher blog. Open coding is a process of organizing data, during which researchers make notes and headings in the text (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In accordance with Graneheim and Lundman (2004), a coding unit consisted of words, sentences, or paragraphs “containing aspects related to each other through their content and context” (p. 106). The authors decided to use only the manifest content of the data, and not the latent content (e.g. gestures and laughter; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The next step in inductive content analysis is creation of exhaustive categories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004), which was completed by the first two authors. Finally, by linking the underlying meanings in categories, the authors derived the key themes. They met several times to discuss the identified themes, in order to assure the objectivity of the coding process (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Throughout the data analysis process, the authors were involved in the process of abstraction, within which they grouped data “under higher order headings” and thus created codes, categories, and themes (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004, p. 106). The third author became involved in the abstraction of the themes’ part of the analysis.

The evidence that teachers collected served as data in this research study and consisted of the following: (a) a blog describing the project, with a page for each teacher to document his/her experience, (b) teacher and student video interviews, and (c) a teacher focus group meeting at the conclusion of the project. All interviews, the teacher focus group as well as the blog were aligned with the research methodology as they allowed for interpretation of possible multiple meanings (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

Teacher blog

The teacher blog was used before and during the implementation of the iPads. In Term 1, the teachers used the blog to share research and news articles about iPad and technology use in classrooms, as well as to share apps that they found that they felt would be beneficial for teaching and learning integration. In Terms 2–4, they used the blog to share their experiences, and post pictures of students using the iPad in their classes.

Posting on the blog was voluntary; therefore there were different rates of posts from each teacher. Teacher MD posted 10 times and MC posted 9 times, but the other teachers only posted once or twice. When asked about this during the focus group, the teachers explained that once the iPads were implemented, they found it to be “just one more thing to do,” and unnecessary, since they were sharing information with each other informally in the teachers’ lounge and formally during their biweekly team meetings. They thought it would be helpful for potential readers of the blog (possibly teachers collaborating at a distance) though.

Overall, the blog was a space for teachers to share their experiences with implementing iPads and using the devices as an instructional tool. Thus the blog presents another source of data, which was used in triangulation with interviews and focus group. All sources of data were analyzed following the inductive content analysis approach.

Student video interviews

The teachers interviewed three of the students (M1, M3, and M4) about using the iPads for learning and filmed the interviews. Student M4 ended the school year early due to an illness. The questions were constructed in order to allow researchers to answer both research questions as follows:

What do you like best about using the iPad?

What has the iPad helped you learn?

Is there anything you do not like about using the iPad?

Show me how you use the iPad.

The interview questions were structured in the way to provide the team with both positive and negative experiences with iPad, thus providing a balance and objective perspectives.

Teacher video interviews and focus group meeting

The interview questions for teachers were constructed in order to allow researchers to answer both research questions as follows:

Discuss how you employed the iPad as a teaching device with the student(s).

What were the most positive things about the experience?

Talk about any challenges you encountered, if any.

What would you (will you) do differently?

Do you plan on continuing to use the iPad in your classroom instruction? How? Be specific.

Another source of data was the focus group meeting of the teachers and university consultants. The interview questions (see above), aligned with the research questions, were used as a springboard for discussion during the focus group.

All interviews as well as the focus group were video-recorded and transcribed. The participating teachers were offered the opportunity to access the transcribed interviews and focus group, however this opportunity was not utilized by them. This does not demonstrate their lack of interest, as all teachers had indicated interest in the results of the data analysis. The authors suspect that teachers’ lack of time might have been the reason for not requiring access to transcribed interviews. The data analysis resulted in the following categories: (1) learning, (2) iPad implementation, and (3) teacher perceptions.

Findings

The “Learning” theme consisted of several categories (“access to curriculum,” “real-world learning,” “outcomes,” “engagement,” and “independence”). All teachers described how the iPad has made it easier to differentiate instruction for each student. They also discussed how the iPad affords students more capability to access the general education curriculum. Most of the teachers also noticed improvement in student work. MD summed it up:

I am able to see improvement in the levels, as they are achieving more goals and meeting many outcomes from their life skills syllabus and individualized education plans.

Teachers also discussed the fact that the iPad provided their students with real-world learning.

Our iPad program offers our students relevant learning experiences because it pulls them into the 21st century and encourages the use of digital technology in all areas of their learning program. (ME)

All of the teachers were enthusiastic about students’ increased engagement with academic assignments. MC saw that as a huge benefit, saying she noticed,

…positive engagement for longer periods of time, the students are excited and happy to use the iPads during class time.

Using the iPads helped students to become “more independent learners.” (MD). MC echoed this sentiment, stating, “students are able to work independently on a majority of the applications without a teacher’s assistance.” The teachers mentioned a plethora of ways they were using the iPad, along with apps they were using. These are summarized in Table 2, and ME summed this up by saying, “The iPads were employed to enhance literacy and numeracy, but also to encourage creativity, new ideas, skill consolidation, to research, to create shopping lists, social stories, to plan schedules, even to get directions while on community excursions, take photos, create presentations, play games, read books, listen to music and a myriad of other things.”

Students themselves acknowledged the impact of iPads on their learning. As described by M3, “I can write sentences better, I put full stops and question marks. The iPad showed me how to do it and helped me to do it. When I have the headphones on, the iPad makes it easier for me to concentrate. I have learned quite a lot in spelling also.” The summary of what student M4 likes best about iPads demonstrates the extent that the use of iPads contributes to making learning an exciting and “fun” process: “Play sports, play tennis, do work, fun things, like spelling and reading, passwords, apps.”

The “iPad implementation” was (not surprisingly) another overarching theme, with several categories (“communication,” “challenges,” “uses of iPads,” and “program set up next time”). The teachers felt that using the iPad assisted the students in communicating with both teachers and other students. Teacher MD stated, “The iPad has been particularly useful in assisting me in understanding one of my students who has speech difficulties. Through the use of various speaking and dictation apps, the student has been able to be more clearly understood by both students and staff in the classroom.” Teacher MA added, “We have been able to use applications like… to ease communication and lessen frustration for both students and staff.” Another example of students using the iPad to communicate was that the students used the camera to express themselves. “Taking pictures allows students to share their experiences and lives where they may not have done that before.” (MB).

Teachers also summarized some of the challenges they faced in conducting the research and implementing the iPads. The teachers could not always find apps that they wanted for certain lessons, such as something on the food pyramid or the Vikings. Another challenge they faced was finding high interest, low level, age appropriate apps, as many of the apps are geared to young children. Syncing the apps to each iPad was a challenge voiced by the teachers. As MC stated, “Another issue was syncing the iPads; we didn’t have a syncing trolley, and we have to synch each individually one by one, which is very time consuming on us teachers.”

Lack of teacher iPads was a difficulty that the teachers faced, as they did not receive iPads for their use until the end of the project. This made learning to use the iPads and sharing apps with each other during the school day difficult, as the students were using the devices at those times.

Lastly, the teachers were frustrated over their general education counterparts’ reluctance to use them in their teaching. This is important, because when students are attending general education classes, it would be beneficial for them to be able to use the same tools to succeed that they are afforded in their education support classes. The general education teachers cited lack of time to learn how to use the devices and availability of devices for all students in the class. It is hoped that both of these issues will be resolved in the future, as the school is planning a school-wide iPad implementation.

The last theme was “Teacher perceptions,” consisting of several categories (“teacher practice,” “changes in attitude,” and “barriers”). Many teachers reflected that implementing the iPads was changing their practice. As MD commented, “I have been able to be a lot more creative in the delivery of the curriculum, making teaching and learning more exciting and enjoyable for all.” The positive changes in teacher practice led to their increased self-esteem and willingness to share their experiences with others. ME also spoke about this change in practice in terms of how it transformed the team professionally: “We have run sessions for other teachers at our school, using the iPads. Education support staff members contribute to a blog, sharing our experiences. We now lead learning sessions to help teachers develop the knowledge of effective use of iPads and use these skills to make changes to their classroom practices to improve student engagement as we have in the learning center.”

Some teachers also reflected on their changed attitude toward using iPad as an instructional tool. MA for example stated: “I anticipated the time involved would be a big challenge, but it went quite quickly. I was initially hesitant and scared. It was a lot easier than I anticipated.” The most commonly perceived barrier was the resistance of teachers in inclusive settings in the school to utilize iPads in their classes. R1 commented: “The teachers were sad that there are resources at their school that no one is using when they had to fight so hard for theirs….”

Discussion

This action research project sought to discover how integrating the iPad into teaching and learning could benefit students with disabilities in a private Jewish high school. Specifically, the core questions that teachers were addressing through this action research were:

How can mobile devices such as iPads assist and enhance learning opportunities for students?

What are perceptions of students with developmental disabilities and their teachers in regard to using the iPad as an instructional tool?

Enhanced learning opportunities

In regard to the first research question, as obvious from data analysis, both teachers and students agreed that iPads have enhanced learning opportunities for students. The iPad benefitted students in the general areas of communication, access, engagement, learning, and independence. In addition, teachers carefully chose apps for each child that would benefit him/her in the content areas. Students preferred reading text on the iPad because not only did the book reading app give them instant access to the pronunciation and definitions of unfamiliar words, it also could be paired with a screen reader, allowing the students to hear the words as they read them. The size, font, and the color of the text could be easily altered, allowing for modification for individual student needs. Using the reading application in this manner is a good example of the representation leg of the UDL framework (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011b), as students can access the text in a manner that is most appropriate for each of their individual learning styles and abilities.

The second component of UDL, engagement, was also an area where students experienced success. Once the teachers selected and downloaded apps for the students, they were able to learn and practice what they were learning independently, which was something that they could not always do without the iPads. For example, they used electronic flashcards and content area-themed games to practice memorizing facts in reading, math, spelling, cooking, and Hebrew. Students also used the built-in camera to engage with learning. They took digital photographs to help them remember processes, such as the steps of a recipe in cooking class.

The iPad cameras, along with presentation apps were also used by students to demonstrate what they had learned. This represents the third component of UDL, expression. Rather than using traditional methods (such as exams or handwritten reports) of demonstrating what they learned, students were able to work in modes that were best aligned with their individual abilities. One student who had difficulty with expressive language was able to give an oral presentation for the first time by creating the presentation with photos from the camera and the Internet and information that she had researched. She then used a text to speech application to orally present the material she had learned to the entire school. Students created “about me” presentations for their personal development class in much the same manner. Some of the reading and math apps took student data, so teachers were able to go into the apps and check student progress.

Being able to communicate is likely the most important component of expression. Student M2 used an application, Proloquo2Go, to assist her in communicating with teachers and peers, and to practice her speech. Teacher MA discussed how using the application eased communication, lessened frustration, and allowed the student to practice for presentations by listening to how words are pronounced before she pronounced them herself. This is consistent with the findings of Campigotto et al. (2013) and Logan (2012), who found that when students with autism used communication apps, they made gains in both communication and social skills. Students also found the technology engaging. Conversations with others became easier than when using traditional paper-based systems such as the Picture Exchange System because all pictures were on the same page and easily accessible.

Using the iPads as an instructional tool

The authors also wanted to find out teacher and student opinions and perceptions about using the iPad as an instructional tool. Within the UDL framework, instructional tools are materials that facilitate the acquisition and expression of knowledge (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011b). For teachers, this is where the TPACK framework is also very relevant, as they must have knowledge in all seven areas to choose apps that align with the curriculum while meeting students learning needs and effectively implement them as instructional tools. The emerging literature on the use of mobile technologies as teaching and learning tools has found that both students and teachers enjoy using the technology. The iPads, through the use of a variety of apps, proved to be effective in engaging students and allowing them to work independently in all of their subject areas. The following are examples of how the teachers used their TPACK to choose uses of the iPad as well as apps to align the devices with the UDL framework’s multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression.

The history and geography teachers and their students found that the iPad’s digital screen provided more rich and vivid pictorial representations of different topics such as the life cycle than traditional paper books. The iPad allows students portable individual access to experiences that they normally would not be able to have due to geographical, practical, or financial restraints, such as museums, global historical sites, and events. Reading the textbook on the iPad provided students with both auditory feedback (with use of a screen reader) and the ability to immediately retrieve the definitions for unfamiliar words. They used the devices to access the Internet and research topic for papers and projects.

The iPads were used for reading text in English classes also. Games were used to support students in learning their spelling words and parts of speech. One of the most successful uses of the iPad in this content area was that it reduced the time students took to read novels in half. This was attributed to the option of being able to hear the text spoken aloud while reading it, and the ability to alter the font and size of the print. Students also used the iPads to view movies of the novels they had read in class.

The iPads proved to be useful for elective classes. In their cooking class, students used iPad apps to read recipes, learn how to make, and virtually practice making several dishes before making them in the kitchen. They also used the iPad’s built-in camera to take pictures and make step-by-step presentations of how different recipes were prepared in class. Students used their iPads to find and organize recipes and make shopping lists. When the cooking class planted a garden, the teacher downloaded an application that assisted students in identifying different fruits and vegetables. The iPad proved useful in the students’ religious studies also. They used an app for drill and practice to support memorizing Hebrew symbols. Another application helped to teach about the Ten Commandments.

These results were consistent with a study conducted by Campigotto et al. (2013) with high school students in special education. They explored the iPad application My Voice to support reading and vocabulary development. This participatory study found the tablet technology to be effective for reading instruction, vocabulary development, and communication. Students also found working on the iPads to be fun and motivating.

In the present study, both students and teachers found the iPads to be motivating and effective as tools for learning. ME summarized this experience:

The iPads are employed to enhance literacy and numeracy, but also to encourage creativity, new ideas, skill consolidation, to research, to create shopping lists, social stories, to plan schedules, even to get directions while on community excursions, take photos, create presentations, play games, read books, listen to music and a myriad of other things.

R1 provided a concrete example of using iPads as instrumental tool in literacy

… it helps with accuracy rates and comprehension. Kids that wouldn’t normally read a book, use the iPad and audiobooks to listen to it, read cliffnotes, etc. Read a book in 7 hours instead of 70. Actually got the story’s vital points instead of missing them through word misfiring. Another student used an app to memorize all of the bones in the skeleton. A Midsummer Night’s Dream was made easier by electronic cliff notes with visuals and character mapping.

One of the teachers commented on the blog:

Just thought I would comment on the progress and benefits so far since the introduction of the iPads into our classroom. Before we had the iPads, I found it increasingly difficult to keep the students on tasks. They would often become distracted by the slightest movement or sound both in and out of the classroom. I would waste so much time trying to redirect the students attention back to their work.

The teacher who was working with the students in cooking class (MC) posted the following: “Through the application, students were able to grasp the technique of flipping pancakes and after a couple of attempts at the real thing, became experts! Students enjoyed that they were able to play the interactive game before attempting to make their own pancakes in our cooking lesson.”

All four of the students stated that if given the choice between completing assignments traditionally and using the iPad that they would use the iPad. When asked why, M3 replied: “Probably the iPad because it is much betterer, because you learn more. It is different and fun, even though it has the same stuff as the book [sic].”

The other two students both replied, “Because I like it, it is fun.”

Professional development

Besides answering the two research questions, the team discovered one other important benefit of this project; that conducting action research prompted each one of them to look at their response to disability and the curriculum, as well as their teaching in general. As such, this project served as a type of professional development that they would have been unable to obtain sitting through seminars. By taking control of their professional development, they were able to plan the seminars and learning opportunities that they felt they required to effectively conduct action research. This fostered a complementary relationship between formal professional development and the collaborative professional learning that took place as part of the action research process.

The teachers used Timperley’s model to self-drive their own professional development. In doing this, they were able to learn about and conduct collaborative action research. Teacher comments indicated that the collaboration was very important. For example, MA offered the following summation of how the team worked together on a daily basis; “We are also a big support system for each other, showing each other things and sharing.” Researcher 2 noted after the focus group: “The teachers help each other all the time and share experiences.”

In addition to learning how to conduct action research, participating in the project positively altered the teachers’ classroom practice. Teacher MD concluded:

Using the iPad with the wide range of educational apps available has enabled me to differentiate work for all students in my class more easily.

As the teachers’ knowledge in the different areas of TPACK increased, so did their confidence and level of enjoyment they derived from their teaching. The ICT Integration Coordinator summed up the effect that the devices had on the teachers’ TPACK, and therefore their teaching: “The iPads allowed LSC staff to develop a range of effective teaching strategies and apply a range of literacy strategies in meeting the needs of students with disabilities (e.g., the app Autism Express is used as a teaching tool to develop social skills).”

Conducting action research was valuable to the teachers because it allowed them to collaborate with each other beyond their daily context on a project designed to better meet the learning needs of their students. In addition, the opportunity to collaborate with university partners provided opportunities to learn about and experience firsthand a research to practice dynamic.

The project also expanded the role that the members of the EST had at their own high school. As part of their own professional development, they contributed to the education of other teachers at the school, by running professional development sessions using the iPads. The teachers felt that they would now be helping to further the professional development of their peers by sharing their experiences.

One of the teachers’ challenges was finding appropriate apps for high school students with special needs. They noted that many of the apps seemed to be aimed at young children. Many of the application developers are parents or ICT professionals, not trained educators. If teachers are going to provide quality education to students, then the apps they are using in their classrooms need to reflect this quality. Developers should work with researchers and teachers to produce effective high-quality educational products (Shuler, Levine, & Ree, 2012).

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations that must be noted. The sample of students and teachers was relatively small and specialized, which is consistent with its action research nature. Action research is “contextual, small-scale and localized” (Burns, 1999, p. 30), which allows researchers to study a concrete phenomenon within its specific context. Future research should include diverse contexts, diverse populations (including general population of students), and different research methodological approaches. Implementing tablet devices for a larger population of students would most likely require more time and expertise.

The university partners were invited to join the project in progress after the research questions and design had already been determined; this limited the type of data that could be collected and analyzed. The data collected in this study were qualitative and dealt mostly with teacher and student perceptions and descriptions of how the iPad was integrated. To fully test the effectiveness of the iPads, the addition of more stringent qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis on student achievement is warranted (e.g. using single-subject design to study specific apps related to certain subject area and large-scale quantitative studies with a control group that measure students performance before and after application of mobile technology and/or specific apps). A study is currently underway that builds on these results and reflects on these methodological issues.

Lastly, this study was undertaken at a school with a high socio-economic population. Most of the students had similar devices at home. This might not be the case in lower socio-economic public community schools. Research on tablet integration should be conducted across other settings and types of schools.

Despite the limitations of the study, the teachers and students felt that the iPad trial was a great success, and plan on continuing to use the devices. The ICT Integration Coordinator envisions integrating iPads throughout the high school. In fact, the five education support teachers involved in this project plan to use their expertise to lead the other teachers in the school-wide implementation of tablet technology.

Conclusion

The results of this action research have the potential to assist other groups of teachers in setting up a similar program. Based on this project, it is recommended that teachers are given time and iPads before the tablets are introduced to the students. This will allow them to become proficient in using the devices, and give them an opportunity to explore apps for specific students and their learning needs. Purchasing a syncing cart and site licenses for the most frequently used apps will greatly reduce the amount of time that teachers have to spend syncing the iPads. It is important that teachers keep data on each student’s use of the iPad and apps, in the form of pre- and post-tests and text-based and visual diaries in order to determine whether the students are achieving expected outcomes. Opportunities for professional collaboration, to discuss apps, share successes, and problem solve any challenges that arrive are crucial to the success of iPad use.

Professional development is important in supporting the development of teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge and value of providing opportunities for collaborative work and reflection. It is also important to recognize that “keeping up with the technology” and available apps is a continuous process, as the technology is constantly evolving and hundreds of new apps become available daily. Teachers must constantly be on the lookout for apps that will suit the teaching and learning needs of their particular classrooms and students. There are several websites and blogs (such as the one created by the teachers in this study) that review apps and act as a clearinghouse. Accessing these would be an efficient way for teachers to get an overview of available apps and an idea of which ones to trial.

The importance of supporting students with developmental disabilities both in and outside of inclusive settings cannot be overlooked. Future studies should include all of the teachers who work with students with disabilities, not just their special education teachers. Since the general education teachers in this study seemed to feel that it would be unfair to allow some students to use the technology while it was not made available to others, implementation of inclusive settings should be studied, looking more closely at how mobile technology can support the learning of all students within the UDL framework. Only then can inclusive education ideals can be achieved.

The response to tablet technology has been very positive globally in schools, especially for use by students with disabilities. These students are increasingly expressing the desire to own novel technologies such as the iPad, as they are customizable, engaging, and popular with their same-age peers (Hammond, Whatley, Ayres, & Gast, 2010). More research in this area is crucial to discover how schools, teachers, and students are using this technology and to substantiate the effectiveness of those practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dusty Embury for leading the review process of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Therese M Cumming is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include: educational technology, emotional and behavioural disorders, positive behavioural interventions, transition processes, intellectual disabilities, and inclusive practices. Recent research projects include: using iPads to support students with language-based disabilities, using iPads to support adults with intellectual disabilities in being researchers, teachers' perspectives on student misbehaviour, and using technology to enhance social skills instruction for students with emotional and behavioural disabilities.

Iva Strnadová is a Senior Lecturer in Special Education at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. She is also an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, Faculty of Education and Social Work, Australia. Her research aims to contribute to better understanding and the improvement of life experiences of people with disabilities. Iva's ongoing research interests include ageing with intellectual disabilities, women with intellectual disabilities, well-being of people with developmental disabilities (intellectual disabilities and autism) and their families over the life span, transitions in lives of people with disabilities and mobile learning for people with developmental disabilities.

Sylvia Singh is the Coordinator of Studies Computing and ICT Integration at Moriah College in Bondi Junction, Sydney, Australia. She has earned her Bachelor Of Education (BED) from The University of Auckland, NZ and her Graduate Diploma of Computing from University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Her role at Moriah College includes providing the leadership of and the overseeing the ICT integration in all curriculum areas from Year 6–12. She has also been ICT/eLearning facilitator with University Of Auckland providing professional development and training to teachers in secondary schools in Auckland, to in-cooperate digital learning technologies into their classroom programs. She has presented workshops and seminars at a variety of ICT conferences. Her research interests includes using a range of technologies to change teacher pedagogy to provide a more engaging and challenging programs in the classroom and also designing better Learning Environments. Prior to this she has worked in a variety of Primary, Middle and Secondary schools in both NZ and Australia as a classroom teacher.

References

Abrahms, M. (2011). iPad apps for people with disabilities. Disabilities @ Suite 101. Retrieved from: http://www.suite101.com/content/ipad-apps-for-people-with-disabilities-a331710.

Ayres

K. M.

Langone

(2008) Video supports for teaching students with developmental disabilities and autism: Twenty-five years of research and development. Journal of Special Education Technology 23(3): 1–8.

Banda

D. R.

Dogoe

M. S.

Matuszny

R. M.

(2011) Review of video prompting studies with persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 46(4): 514–527.

Braddock

Rizzolo

Thompson

Bell

(2004) Emerging technologies and cognitive disability. Journal of Special Education Technology 19(4): 49–56.

Burgstahler, C. (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7–20.

Burns

(1999) Collaborative action research for English language teachers, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Campigotto, R., McEwen, R., & Denmans Epp, C. (2013). Especially social: Exploring the use of an iOS application in special needs classrooms. Computers & Education, 60.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011a). About UDL. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html.

Center for Applied Special Technology (2011b) Universal design for learning guidelines – version 2.0, Wakefield, MA: AuthorRetrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/downloads.

10.

Cihak

Fahrenkrog

Ayres

Smith

(2010) The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behavior for students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12(2): 103–115.

11.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1): 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.

12.

Fox, Z. (2010). 4 ways iPads are changing the lives of people with disabilities. Mashable. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/ipads-disabilities/.

13.

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24: 105–112.

14.

Hammond

Whatley

Ayres

Gast

(2010) Effectiveness of video modeling to teach iPod use to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 45(4): 525–538.

15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401(1) (2004). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html.

16.

Kagohara, D.M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O'Reilly, M.F., Lancioni, G.E., Davis, T.N., … Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156.

17.

Kauffman, M. (2012, March 2). Largest deployment of iPads in schools. Anticipating the Future [Web log]. Retrieved from http://www.ipadinschools.com/category/anticipating-the-future/.

18.

Keene, N. (2012, January 27). iPads lead school revolution. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from www.dailytelegraph.com.au.

19.

Koehler

M. J.

Mishra

(2008) Introducing TPCK. In: Colbert

J. A.

Boyd

K. E.

Clark

K. A.

Guan

Harris

J. B.

Kelly

M. A.

Thompson

A. D.

(eds) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–29.

20.

Logan, K. (2012, April 4). Developing communication skills in children with autism spectrum disorder using Proloquo2go on the iPad: An aided language approach. Lecture presented at the ASPECT Research Forum, State Library of NSW, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/.

21.

Richmond, S. (2011, August 29). Apple iPad moves into the classroom. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk.

22.

Rothschild, B. (2011). Special tool for special needs. Courier Post-Cherry Hill N.J. Retrieved from http://beta.courierpostonline.com.

23.

Shuler

Levine

Ree

(2012) iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store, New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

24.

Stevenson, A. (2012, February 28). Jury is still out, but iPads may put the pen to the sword. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au.

25.

Sutherland, E. (2011). Schools expect iPads to outnumber textbooks in next five years. Cult of Mac. Retrieved from http://www.cultofmac.com/127065/schools-expect-ipads-to-outnumber-computers-in-next-five-years-report/.

26.

Tamim

Bernard

Borokhovski

Abrami

Schmid

(2011) What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research 81(1): 4–28.

27.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz/goto/BES.

28.

Wehmeyer

Palmer

Smith

Davies

Stock

(2008) The efficacy of technology use by people with intellectual disability: A single-subject design meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education Technology 23(3): 21–30.