Abstract
The number of one-to-one mobile programs in elementary schools as a resource to substitute the textbook has become popular worldwide. However, findings of studies that seek to enable understanding of how the daily use of these mobile devices affects student’s engagement in the classroom are heterogeneous. The authors utilized and adapted a self-system model of motivational development in order to better understand the mechanisms behind the promotion of academic engagement in one-to-one iPad programs. For this, an analysis using structural equations was conducted on data collected from a network of 20 elementary schools and 1,011 5th and 6th grade students in Spain, who used iPads daily in their Language and Mathematics courses. The results showed that certain activities –according to the course- with the iPad influenced the students’ engagement, while promoting authentic learning and satisfying their needs. The study contributes with a comprehensive approach and knowledge about the reasons behind the success or failure of these types of programs on learner engagement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning for science and mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Computers & Education, 121, 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006.
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Knowledge and communities, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-7293-1.50010-x.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship, situated cognition and social interaction. Bolt Beranek and Newman.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Psychology Press.
Cabielles-Hernandez, D., Perez-Perez, J.-R., Paule-Ruiz, M., & Fernandez-Fernandez, S. (2017). Specialized intervention using tablet devices for communication deficits in children with autism Spectrum disorders. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2016.2559482.
Carr, J. (2012). Does math achievement h’APP’en when iPads and game-based learning are incorporated into fifth-grade mathematics instruction? Journal of information Technology Education: Research, 11, 269–286. https://doi.org/10.28945/1725.
Cheng, P.-H., Yang, Y.-T. C., Chang, S.-H. G., & Kuo, F.-R. R. (2016). 5E Mobile inquiry learning approach for enhancing learning motivation and scientific inquiry ability of university students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(2), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2015.2467352.
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7, 2012.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. The self in transition: Infancy to childhood, 8, 61–97.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43-78).
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16.
Ditzler, C., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2016). How tablets are utilized in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1172444.
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.42.4.d.
Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their experiences with technology: Integrating technology engages students in their learning. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2012.11461824.
Falloon, G. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Computers & Education, 68, 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.006.
Falloon, G. (2015). What's the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.010.
Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.004.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009.
Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning., 1(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.2.
Gu, X., Xu, X., Wang, H., & Crook, C. (2016). Design possibilities for the e-schoolbag: Addressing the 1:1 challenge within China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12434.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Uppersaddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.006.
Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12048.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 401–412). Springer, New York.
Hershkovitz, A., & Karni, O. (2018). Borders of change: A holistic exploration of teaching in one-to-one computing programs. Computers & Education, 125, 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.026.
Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students' engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001.
Ihaka, J. (2013). Schools put tablets on stationery list. The New Zealand Herald. Section, A4.
Irish, S. J. (2017). A teacher retrospective of a decade of one-to-one devices. Walden University: Doctoral dissertation.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.
Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116.
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning, ZIFF papiere 119. Fern-Universität Hagen.
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of Children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Education & Psychology, 101(1), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013153.
Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., Tan, N. C., Lin, C. P., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile-device-supported problem-based computational estimation instruction for elementary school students. Educational Technology and Society, 13(3), 55–69.
Lin, C., Wong, L., & Shao, Y. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:M CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x.
Lippmann, S. (2013). Facilitating class sessions for ego-piercing engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 135, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20063.
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, 1, 1–12.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.46.1.a.
Lumpkin, A., Achen, R., & Dodd, R. (2015). Focusing teaching on students: Examining student perceptions of learning strategies. Quest, 67(4), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2015.1082143.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109–41259.
Mikami, A. Y., Boucher, M. A., & Humphreys, K. (2005). Prevention of peer rejection through a classroom-level intervention in middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-004-0988-7.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463.
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273.
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.
Spires, H. A., Oliver, K., & Corn, J. (2011). The new learning ecology of one-to-one computing environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784682.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Yang, J.-M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001.
Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Kidd, J. K., Sturtevant, E. G., Richey Nuland, L., & Beck, J. (2014). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of a social studies literacy intervention on Reading comprehension, Reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140.
Tirado Morueta, R., Maraver López, P., Hernando Gómez, Á., & Harris, V. W. (2016). Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.004.
Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008.
Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D. S. (2011). Presence over time in synchronous communities of inquiry. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2011.590062.
Watson, R., & Coulter, J. (2008). The debate over cognitivism. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407086788.
Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1: 1 laptop initiatives and educational change. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6).
Funding
This study was funded by the Coordinated I + D + I Project called “Citizens’ Media Competences in emerging digital media (smartphones and tablets): innovative practices and educommunication strategies in multiple contexts” (EDU2015–64015-C3–1-R) (MINECO/FEDER), and of the “Media Education Network” of the State Program for the Promotion of Excellence in Scientific-Technical Research, the State Subprogram for Knowledge Generation (EDU2016–81772-REDT), financed by FEDER (European Regional Development Fund) and Spain’s Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Language course | Mathematics course | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S-S | S-O | I-S | I-O | S-S | S-O | I-S | I-O | |
Team games | .74 | .82 | ||||||
Presentations in class | .67 | .86 | ||||||
Team projects | .79 | .88 | ||||||
Team working | .77 | .85 | ||||||
The teacher proposes ideas to the group | .65 | .64 | ||||||
The teacher guides me | .70 | .79 | ||||||
The teacher corrects me while I am learning something | .74 | .68 | ||||||
The teacher solves the group’s questions | .75 | .78 | ||||||
The teacher solves my questions | .74 | .78 | ||||||
The teacher guides the group | .78 | .78 | ||||||
Demostrations and examples | .63 | .67 | ||||||
Research of information | .63 | .75 | ||||||
The teacher’s explanations | .69 | .64 | ||||||
Problem’s solutions | .61 | .75 | ||||||
Practical exercises | .66 | .80 | ||||||
Individual readings b | .70 | .77 | ||||||
Individual games b | .73 | .74 | ||||||
Individual work b | .53 | .72 | ||||||
AVE | .55 | .52 | .41 | .43 | .66 | .55 | .54 | .56 |
Composite reliability | .83 | .87 | .78 | .69 | .90 | .88 | .82 | .79 |
Alfa of Cronbach | .73 | .82 | .63 | .36 | .87 | .83 | .70 | .49 |
Appendix 2
Example | Applications used | |
|---|---|---|
Course: Language | ||
Social-Structured. The students work as a team, do projects, games in teams and class presentations. (1) | “Short group work sessions are proposed daily for a final project. For example, the review of a text to improve it with peer collaboration; expressive reading activities, including reading play fragments, and after viewing it, students act it out”. | Safari Kahoot Keynote iMovie |
Social-Open. The teacher proposes ideas, guides (individually/group), resolves doubts (individually/group), corrects and revolves doubts (individually/group). (1) | “Guidelines are presented daily on how to work, doubts are resolved, and the work is corrected afterwards. For example, during a session to practice oral expression…I proposed an activity in which they had to look for information on the Internet, to study the different characteristics of the expression according to the context (academic, leisure, etc.) and to use the audio-visual support to present their findings” | Safari Keynote iDoceo Blinklearning |
Individual-Structured. The teacher explains, and the students watch demonstrations and examples, search for information, solve problems and do exercises. | “In each session, a proposal is presented to research grammar aspects, and to present them with Keynote. For example, when the division of words into syllables is explained. For literature subjects, short videos are shown”. | iMovie Keynote |
Individual-Open. The students work individually, read and play. | “Individual readings and exercises are conducted daily. For example, readings proposed in the book, selected, that are close to their interests, to promote written expression: reading. Or creating short texts, poems…” | Polygon Education Safari |
Course: Mathematics | ||
Social-Structured. The students work as a team, do projects, games in teams and class presentations. And the teacher proposes ideas. | “Each unit is presented as group work. For example, making a mural that explains the decimals or the geometric shapes.” | Keynote iMovie |
Social-Open. The teacher proposes ideas, guides (individually/group), resolves doubts (individually/group), corrects and revolves doubts (2) (individually/group). | “The questions from the previous class are answered daily (i.e. decimals), from individual as well as group exercises.” | Blinklearning Safari iDoceo |
Individual-Structured. The students work individually, watch demonstrations and examples, search for information, solve problems and do exercises. | “We do individual exercises daily, for example, individual calculation strategies; the equivalence between the elements of the Decimal Number System or fractions…” | Safari iMovie King of Math |
Individual-Open. The students search for information, read and play. (2) | “Readings are used as the motivating activity to see the use of mathematics in real life, in games.” | Blinklearning Safari |
Appendix 3
Study A: Laguage | Study B: Mathematics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Load | AVE | Alfa | FC | Load | AVE | Alfa | FC | |
Behavioral Engagement (BE) | ||||||||
I don’t get distracted while I’m doing homework. | .68 | .51 | .69 | .81 | .70 | 67 | .69 | .80 |
I answer the questions | .59 | |||||||
I put effort on learning | .75 | .73 | ||||||
I continue trying if a task is complicated | .70 | |||||||
I ask in class | .64 | |||||||
I perform the activities that my teacher gives me on time | ||||||||
I try to learn more about what we do in class | .72 | .66 | ||||||
Affective Engagement (AE) | ||||||||
I like this subject | .80 | .65 | .72 | .85 | .78 | .61 | .68 | .82 |
I enjoy learning new things in this subject. | .86 | .83 | ||||||
I want to understand what we learn in this subject | .75 | .73 | ||||||
Cognitive Engagement (CE) | ||||||||
I check the class homework to ensure it is correct | .69 | .48 | .64 | .79 | .78 | .53 | .71 | .82 |
I think about different ways of solving a task | .77 | .73 | ||||||
I try to connect what I learn with what I already know | .68 | .70 | ||||||
I try to learn from my mistakes when I do it wrong | .63 | .70 | ||||||
Social Engagement (SE) | ||||||||
I consider my classmates’ ideas | .73 | .46 | .60 | .77 | .72 | .47 | .61 | .77 |
I try to understand my classmates’ ideas | .67 | .73 | ||||||
I try to work with classmates who can help me | .60 | .59 | ||||||
I try to help others who have difficulties. | .69 | .68 | ||||||
Authentic Learning – Task (TA) | ||||||||
The topics done in class are connected with real life | .86 | .74 | .65 | .85 | .87 | .75 | .67 | .86 |
The tasks are similar to the ones I would have in real life | .86 | .87 | ||||||
Authentic Learning - Teaching (TE) | ||||||||
I see examples that help me understand better. | .62 | .42 | .73 | .81 | .61 | .42 | .74 | .81 |
The topics are shown from multiple points of view | .62 | .55 | ||||||
We do the tasks in groups. Debating on their resolution | .52 | .51 | ||||||
The teacher makes me think about the topics studied | .74 | .74 | ||||||
.. encourages me to express myself | .73 | .74 | ||||||
.. explains and guides us when necessary | .65 | .68 | ||||||
.. makes us evaluate our tasks | .49 | .56 | ||||||
Autonomy (AUT) | ||||||||
We make decisions about how to develop the class | .79 | .58 | .65 | .81 | .78 | .50 | .52 | .75 |
We decide how to perform group tasks | .74 | .68 | ||||||
We have interesting discussions in class | ||||||||
We participate in class voluntarily | .77 | .67 | ||||||
The teacher considers our opinions | ||||||||
Relationship (REL) | ||||||||
How many classmates respect and listen to you? | .72 | .56 | .61 | .79 | .69 | .55 | .59 | .78 |
How many classmates annoy you and make fun of you? | .79 | .81 | ||||||
With how many classmates do you get on well? | .74 | .71 | ||||||
Competence (COM) | ||||||||
I can do all the tasks that are proposed in class | .78 | .60 | .66 | .82 | .74 | .62 | .70 | .83 |
I am sure I will master all the contents of this year | .76 | .80 | ||||||
Even if the tasks are difficult, I am sure I will complete them correctly | .78 | .81 | ||||||
Appendix 4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tirado-Morueta, R., Berlanga-Fernández, I., Vales-Villamarín, H. et al. Study of a sequence to stimulate the engagement in one-to-one iPad programs at elementary schools. Educ Inf Technol 25, 509–532 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09974-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09974-4