
















































Microsoft Word - 3084-JOTLT FINAL.docx


Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. pp. 13 – 25.  
 

Student Perceptions of Classroom  
Engagement and Learning using iPads 

 
Timothy T. Diemer1, Eugenia Fernandez2, and Jefferson W. Streepey3 

 
Abstract: Many colleges and universities have launched iPad initiatives in an 
effort to enhance student learning. Despite their rapid adoption, the extent to 
which iPads increase student engagement and learning is not well understood. 
This paper reports on a multidisciplinary assessment of student perceptions of 
engagement and learning using iPads. Student reactions following single and 
multiple classroom activities using iPads were measured via a survey asking them 
to rate their learning and engagement using a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to 
the questions were grouped into thematic categories of Perceived Learning and 
Perceived Engagement. Students who reported a high level of engagement while 
using iPads reported a high level of learning as well. No effects due to age, 
gender, or language were found. Students who characterized themselves as 
comfortable with modes of e-learning reported significantly greater levels of 
perception of learning and engagement. Those who reported being comfortable 
were more likely to use iPads for learning and professional development in the 
future. Furthermore, a number of students who initially described themselves as 
somewhat uncomfortable with e-learning technology also reported interest in 
continuing to use iPads. 
 
Keywords: iPads, e-learning technology, learning and engagement, student 
perceptions 

I. Introduction. 

Within two days after their initial launch in April 2010, iPads were sold out or scarce at Apple 
stores worldwide. Before 60 days had passed, Apple had sold 2 million iPads (Kane, 2010). The 
Wall Street Journal (Sherr, 2011) reported in mid August 2011 that Apple had sold 28.7 million 
iPads since the April 2010 launch. Since then several colleges and universities, including 
Stanford, Notre Dame, and Pepperdine universities, Oberlin and Reed colleges (Fischman & 
Keller, 2011; Rice, 2011; Wieder, 2011) have launched iPad initiatives in an effort to enhance 
student learning. Despite the rapid adoption of iPads for educational and professional purposes, 
the extent to which this technology enhances student engagement and learning in the classroom 
is not well understood. However, when other instructional technology has been thoughtfully 
deployed in the classroom, studies (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Nelson Laird & Kuh, 2005) 
have found positive correlations between the use of educational technology and student 

                                                
1 Organizational Leadership & Supervision, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, 799 W. Michigan St., 
Indianapolis, IN, 46202, tdiemer@iupui.edu 
2 Computer & Information Technology, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, 799 W. Michigan St., Indianapolis, 
IN, 46202, efernand@iupui.edu 
3 Kinesiology, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, 901 W. New York St., Indianapolis, IN, 46202, 
jwstreep@iupui.edu 
 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

14 

engagement, notably in the form of active and collaborative learning and student-faculty 
interaction. 
 Assessments of student perceptions of learning and engagement have traditionally been 
used for gauging the success of new instructional technology (Alavi, 1994). Such assessments 
are especially practical when the breadth of the impact of novel technology spans multiple 
disciplines and no single tool can be used to directly measure learning outcomes. While it is 
generally believed that students would prefer classroom sessions that utilize iPads (Wieder, 
2011), no studies to date have explored factors that may contribute to student perceptions of 
learning or engagement. 
 The IUPUI Center for Teaching and Learning along with its University Information 
Technology Services convened a faculty learning community to explore the benefits and 
problems associated with the introduction of iPads into the classroom. This learning community, 
comprised of faculty from multiple disciplines, was given access to 40 iPads to deploy in their 
classrooms in single or multiple sessions over the length of a 16-week semester. We expected 
that iPad activities would promote active and collaborative learning, a defining component of 
student engagement (Kuh, 2005) associated with positive learning outcomes (Harper & Quaye, 
2009; Kinzie, 2010; Prince; 2004). 

II. Background. 

Prince (2004) defined active learning as activities introduced into classrooms and collaborative 
learning as students working together on an assigned task. Pike, Kuh, and McCormick (2008) 
described “active and collaborative learning” as activity that requires students "to work with 
other students to solve problems and master difficult material” (p. 7). The iPad features 
numerous physical characteristics (such as a large screen, motion sensors, and portability) and an 
expansive selection of inexpensive software that instructors can use to accommodate active and 
collaborative learning in the classroom. For example, by using the iPad’s motion sensors 
students can push, pull, and lift their iPads to gain a better understanding of the physics of 
movement; or by using collaborative software students can make concept maps that appear on 
multiple iPad screens so that each collaborator can contribute to the design of the map. The 
present study examines student response to the use of iPads as the catalyst for active and 
collaborative learning. 
 Prince (2004) summarized research on student engagement and described near consensus 
that student engagement is associated with positive learning outcomes. Prince further cited 
several meta-studies to show that collaborative-learning activities, compared to individual 
assignments, improved academic performance. Kinzie (2010) also explained that student 
engagement, as defined and measured by National Survey of Student Engagment, is associated 
with a wide array of desired outcomes. Kinzie further described the link between student 
engagement and academic success: 

A substantial body of research indicates that once students start college or 
university a key factor as to whether they will survive and thrive is the extent to 
which they take part in educationally purposeful activities…Quite simply, to 
ensure that all students graduate and make the most of their undergraduate 
education, universities must first ensure the learning environment provides rich 
and educationally meaningful opportunities and then focus squarely on increasing 
student engagement (p. 140). 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

15 

Carini, Kuh, and Klein (2006) described general agreement that student engagement is associated 
with improved learning. Harper and Quaye (2009) suggested a connection between student 
engagement and academic success, explaining that students who are actively engaged in 
educationally purposeful activities inside and outside the classroom show higher retention rates 
and higher graduation rates. Aston (as cited in Axelson & Flick, 2011) further suggested a direct 
connection between the amount of engagement and the amount of learning. Kuh (2005) 
described the benefits of collaborative learning: "... when students collaborate with others in 
solving problems or mastering difficult material, they acquire valuable skills that prepare them to 
deal with the messy, unscripted problems that they will encounter daily during and after college" 
(p. 193). 
 The purpose of this study is to explore student experiences with iPads to determine their 
perceptions of learning and engagement and to describe factors that may shape student attitudes 
towards the use of iPad in the classroom. For this study, a multidisciplinary assessment of 
student perceptions was conducted following single and multiple activities using iPad. 
Specifically, the authors examined how factors, such as age, gender, ownership, and overall 
acceptance of instructional technology among others, impacted student perceptions of learning 
and their engagement in active and collaborative learning during iPad-centered activities.  

III. Methodology. 

A. Subjects. 

IUPUI is an urban institution with an annual enrollment of approximately 30,000 undergraduate, 
graduate, and professional students seeking degrees from Indiana University and Purdue 
University programs. In total, 209 undergraduate students from several degree programs 
participated in the study by enrolling in a course for which iPads had been selected for 
deployment (see Table 1). Course selection was determined by the Center for Teaching and 
Learning and University Information Technology Services from proposals written by the course 
instructors detailing how iPads could help achieve course outcomes. All data collection and 
analysis procedures were performed in accordance with the university Institutional Review 
Board. 

B. iPad Activities. 

Prior to an iPad activity, class instructors requested specific apps to be installed on the iPads. 
These iPads were picked up by the instructor and brought to the classroom. At the beginning of 
each activity, each student was issued an iPad to use for the class period. If required, the students 
were given instruction for connecting the iPad to the Internet and setting up email. The class was 
then given an activity that was intended to promote engagement through active and collaborative 
learning. Activities included the use of collaborative concept mapping, brainstorming, graphing 
apps using the built-in accelerometer, ear training apps, and mobile access to library resources. 
Using the iPads, the students were free to move about the room and/or pass the iPads around to 
view each other’s work. Following the activity, the students submitted their work to the 
instructor through email or a file-sharing application such as Dropbox. The iPads were then 
collected by the instructor and returned to the administrator who reset the iPads to remove all 
student work and login information and prepared the iPads for use in the next class. Over the 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

16 

course of the semester, students used the iPads from 1- 7 times depending on the class in which 
they were enrolled (see Table 1). 

C. Assessment. 

At the end of the semester or, in the case of the Library class, at the end of a single session, the 
students were given a survey asking them to rate their perceptions of learning and engagement 
through ten questions using a 5-point Likert scale with possible responses ranging from strongly 
agree to strongly disagree (see Table 2).  
 
Table 1. Courses & iPad activities used in the study.  

Department Course(s) iPad Activities 
Number of 
Activities 

Per Course 
Tourism, 
Convention, and 
Event Management 
 

Global Tourism 
Seminar; Mechanics 
of Meeting Planning 

Evaluation of tourism applications; 
view virtual venue tours, select 
meeting sites, design meeting rooms, 
plan menus, and create staffing grids. 
 

3 

Organizational 
Leadership and 
Supervision 
 

Leadership for a 
Global Workforce 

Creating and accessing open source 
learning modules. 

1 

Music 
 

Musicianship 2; 
Musicianship 4 

Train musicians to measure intervals 
and hear the differences between two 
notes sounding together or in part. 
 

3 

Communication 
Studies 
 

Introduction to 
Communication 
Theory 

Demonstrate connections between 
communication theory and real-life 
scenarios with mapping applications; 
exploration of news apps and 
websites. 
 

7 

English 
 

Communication 
Skills for 
International 
Teaching Assistants; 
English for 
Academic Purposes 
 

Help international students improve 
English competency through active 
learning 

2 and 4, 
respectively 

Physical Education 
 

Biomechanics Measure human movement using the 
iPads’ native accelerometers and 
video analysis apps. 
 

7 

Library 
 

Computer Methods 
for Journalism 

Improve academic honesty by 
teaching when and how to cite 
another’s work. 

1 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

17 

 
 In addition, all students were asked to answer questions about their age and gender as 
well as questions about their level of comfort with technology (pre-comfort), their future use of 
mobile devices (post-use), their attitude toward e-learning (e-learning), and their current 
ownership of mobile technology (ownership, see Table 3). 
 
Table 2. Survey questions provided to the students. 

 
Questions about Students’ Perceptions of Learning 

The iPad activity helped me apply course content to solve problems.  
The iPad activity helped me learn the course content. 
The iPad activity helped me connect ideas in new ways. 
The iPad activity helped me participate in the course activity in ways that 
enhanced my learning. 
The iPad activity helped me develop confidence in the subject area. 
The iPad activity helped me develop skills that apply to my academic career and/or 
professional life.  

Questions about Students’ Perceptions of Engagement 
The iPad activities motivated me to learn the course material more than class 
activities that did not use the iPad. 
I participated more in class during the iPad activities than during activities that did 
not use the iPad.  
My attention to the task(s) was greater using the iPad. 
It was easier to work in a group using the iPad than in other group activities.  

D. Analysis. 

Survey responses were manually scored (strongly agree = 5, agree =4, neutral =3, disagree = 2, 
strongly disagree = 1) and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Responses to the questions were 
then grouped into thematic categories of perceived learning and perceived engagement (see 
Table 2) and were averaged to create perceived learning and perceived engagement variables. 
Any case with a missing value for any question was not included in the average calculation. A 
Pearson correlation coefficient was then calculated for the relationship between participants’ 
reported levels of engagement and reported levels of learning using iPads. 

Two of the courses included in the study were for students for whom English is not a first 
language. For analysis purposes, we created two groups: one with responses from these two 
courses and another with all other courses. This was done to allow comparisons between 
exclusively non-native English speakers and primarily native English speakers. A 2 x 2 x 2 (Age 
x Gender x Language) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was used to compare perceived 
learning and perceived engagement among the three factors. 
 To test whether using iPads in the classroom affected students’ likelihood of using iPads 
in the future for e-learning or professional development, a chi-square test of independence was 
conducted comparing pre-comfort to post-use likelihood. To meet the minimum expected cell 
count requirement, the pre-comfort ‘Not at all comfortable’ and ‘Not very comfortable’ 
responses were combined into ‘Not Comfortable’. On the post-use variable, the responses for 
‘Not Likely’, ‘Somewhat Likely’ and ‘Unsure’ were combined into ‘Not or Low Likely’.  



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

18 

 To test the relationship between students’ e-learning preference and their perceived 
learning and perceived engagement, Spearman rank correlations were used. For this test, subjects 
with missing or “No preference” responses were dropped from the analysis, leaving only subjects 
whose preference for e-learning technology ranged from “little or no use” to “moderate amount” 
to “extensive use.” A one-way ANOVA with Bonferoni post-hoc t-tests was used to examine 
whether those who had “no preference” for e-learning technology differed from the groups. 
 To test whether the frequency of iPad usage affected student reporting of learning and 
engagement, one-way ANOVAs were computed comparing perceived learning and perceived 
engagement to number of iPad activities used. 
 
Table 3. Survey of student attitudes toward mobile technology and e-learning. 
Question Possible Response 

Before using iPads in this class, what was 
your comfort level using handheld mobile 
computing devices? (pre-comfort) 

[ ] Not at all comfortable 
[ ] Not very comfortable 
[ ] Fairly comfortable 
[ ] Very comfortable 

After using iPads in this class, how likely are 
you to use a handheld mobile computing 
device for e-learning or professional 
development? (post-use) 

[ ] Not likely 
[ ] Somewhat likely 
[ ] Unsure 
[ ] Likely 
[ ] Extremely likely  

Considering face-to-face classes that use e-
learning technology [such as handheld 
devices, online research guides, Oncourse, or 
other course management systems] in the 
classroom which of the following best fits 
your preference? (e-learning) 

[ ] Classes that make little or no use of e-
learning technology. 

[ ] Classes that use a moderate amount of e-
learning technology. 

[ ] Classes that make extensive use of e-
learning technology. 

[ ] No preference. 
Do you own a handheld mobile computing 
device that is capable of accessing the 
Internet (whether or not you use that 
capability)? Examples include iPhone, 
BlackBerry, other Internet-capable cell 
phone, iPod touch, PDA, iPad, Kindle, etc. 
(ownership) 

[ ] No, and I don’t plan to purchase one in 
the next 12 months. 

[ ] No, and I plan to purchase one in the 
next 12 months. 

[ ] Yes. 
[ ] Don’t know 

 

IV. Results. 

Surveys were collected from 209 students in nine undergraduate courses. Table 4 shows the 
distribution by course. Of the 209 students, 91 were female (43.5%), 107 male (51.2%) with 11 
(5.3%) declining to answer. The vast majority (82.8%) of the students were aged 19-28 with 26 
(12.4%) aged 29-44 and 10 (4.8%) declining to answer. Most students (73.7%) owned a mobile 
device with Internet access; 9.6% planned to purchase one within 12 months; 9.1% did not own 
one and had no plans to purchase one; and 7.7% either did not know or did not answer. 
 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

19 

Table 4. Number of students by course. 

 
Course Frequency Percent 
Intro to Communication Theory 36 17.2 
English for Academic Purposes 55 26.3 
 Communication Skills for International Teaching Assistants 18 8.6 
Biomechanics 32 15.3 
Computer Methods of Journalism 23 11.0 
Musicianship 2 9 4.3 
Musicianship 4 11 5.3 
Leadership for a Global Workforce 10 4.8 
Global Tourism Seminar: Mechanics of Meeting Planning 15 7.2 

Total 209 100.0 
 

A large number of students (83.7%) reported high comfort levels with using handheld 
mobile computing devices prior to using iPads in the classroom. A large percentage (85.1%) of 
students also reported a preference for moderate or extensive use of e-learning technology in the 
classroom. Tables 5 and 6 provide further details. 

 
Table 5. Student comfort levels with handheld devices. 

Response Frequency Percent 
Cumulative 

Percent 
Very comfortable 103 49.3 49.3 
Fairly comfortable 72 34.4 83.7 
Not very comfortable 25 12.0 95.7 
Not at all comfortable 5 2.4 98.1 
Missing 4 1.9 100.0 
Total 209 100.0  

 

Table 6. Student preferences for e-learning technology. 

Response Frequency Percent 
Cumulative 

Percent 
Extensive use 63 30.1 30.1 
Moderate amount 115 55.0 85.1 
Little or no use 7 3.3 88.4 
No preference 18 8.6 97.0 
Missing 6 2.9 100.00 

Total 209 100.0  
 
Students, on average, reported high levels of perceived learning and moderate levels of 

perceived engagement (see Table 7).  
 
Table 7. Descriptive statistics for perceived learning and perceived 
engagement. 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

20 

Variable N Min Max Mean 
Std. 

Error 
Std. 

Deviation 
Perceived Learning 192 1.67 5.00 4.13 .049 .683 
Perceived Engagement 206 1.00 5.00 3.65 .063 .904 
 

A moderate positive correlation was found between reported levels of engagement and 
reported levels of learning using iPads (r(192) = .684, p < .001; Figure 2). Students who reported 
a high level of engagement while using iPads reported a high level of learning as well.  
 

 
Figure 2. Relationship between perceived learning and perceived engagement. 

 
A 2 (age range) x 2 (gender) x 2 (language) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was used 

to compare perceived learning and perceived engagement among the three factors. No main 
effects or interaction effects were significant (p > .05). None of age, gender, or use of English as 
a foreign language had a significant effect on self-reported learning or engagement. 

A chi-square test of independence found that post-use likelihood was dependent on pre-
comfort level (χ2(4) = 12.50, p < .05; Table 8). Note that approximately 2/3 of the students who 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

21 

reported Not Comfortable before using iPads reported post-comfort levels of Likely and 
Extremely Likely.  
 
Table 8. Cross tab of pre-comfort and post use levels. 
 

Post Use Level 

 Pre-Comfort Level 
Not or Low 

Likely Likely 
Extremely 

Likely Total 

 Not comfortable 9 13 8 30 
Fairly Comfortable 22 31 19 72 
Very Comfortable 14 40 48 102 

Total 45 84 75 204 
 

 Spearman rank correlations found a positive relationship between students’ e-learning 
preference and their perceived learning (ρ(170) = 0.30, p < 0.0001) and perceived engagement  
(ρ (180) = 0.32, p < 0.0001). Students who preferred extensive use of e-learning technology also 
reported more perceived learning and engagement. For those students with no e-learning 
preference, significant main effects for e-learning on perceived learning (F(3,182) = 6.87, p = 
0.0002) and perceived engagement (F(3,195) = 6.21, p = 0.0005) did not lead to discovery of 
significant differences between the “no preference” group and the groups who expressed the 
extent of their preference for e-learning.  

One-way ANOVAs comparing perceived learning and perceived engagement to number 
of iPad activities found significance differences for perceived learning (F(4,187) = 2.85, p < .05). 
Tukey’s HSD was used to determine the nature of the differences. Students who used iPads 7 
times reported higher levels of learning (m = 4.26, sd = .563) than those who used iPads just 
once (m = 3.86, sd = .776).  

V. Discussion. 

As the Apple iPad becomes increasingly common on college campuses (Fischman & Keller, 
2011; Rice, 2011; Wieder, 2011), exploration of its impact on instruction and learning is just 
being established. Writing about iPads for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Rice (2011) 
reported preliminary findings from several universities. 

The most noticeable difference was how students in the iPad classes moved around the 
classroom more and seemed to be more engaged in the material... iPads increase 
engagement and collaboration, acting as a facilitator for more easily sharing information. 
(para. 3-4). 

Wieder (2011) pointed to early analyses showing that iPads promote active learning, 
collaboration, and student engagement. Wieder quoted a Pepperdine University administrator 
who reported that 

Students using iPads for group assignments in a math class were more in sync than were 
students in a section not using iPads. The iPad-equipped students worked at the same 
pace as one another and shared their screens to help one another solve tough problems. 
(p. A22). 

 The present study provides a measure of student perceptions of learning and engagement 
and describes factors that may affect those perceptions. The study involved iPad-centered 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

22 

activities, conducted among multiple academic disciplines, during single or multiple classroom 
sessions, and a subsequent assessment of student perceptions of learning and engagement. Age, 
gender, and language did not affect students’ perceptions of learning and their engagement in the 
form of active and collaborative learning. However, students who characterized themselves as 
comfortable with modes of e-learning reported significantly greater levels of perception of 
learning and engagement. Those who reported being comfortable with mobile technology prior 
to the iPad activities were also more likely to use iPads for learning and professional 
development in the future. Furthermore, a number of students who initially described themselves 
as somewhat uncomfortable with e-learning technology also reported interest in continuing to 
use iPad in coming semesters. 
 Parker, Bianchi, and Cheah (2008) explained that a link between use of instructional 
technology and increased student engagement is strongly supported in the literature. Noting a 
lack of evidence that the increased student engagement resulted in higher grades or higher exam 
scores, the authors reasoned that the clearest benefit of instructional technology may be its ability 
to promote collaboration. As noted earlier, Kuh (2005) is among those who asserted that 
collaborative learning helps students to develop valuable skills that have long-term benefit. 
 Mobile devices such as the iPad hold the potential to promote student engagement in the 
form of active and collaborative learning. Positive learning outcomes are likely to accompany 
use of iPads within university classrooms if the device effectively increases the level of student 
engagement. Though the classroom use of the iPad in the present study varied across disciplines 
and by instructor, students reported not only a perception of increased engagement (active and 
collaborative learning), but also a positive effect on their learning. However, evidence of 
increased learning through exams or course grades is beyond the scope of the present study. 
 Age, gender, and the use of English as a first language had little influence on students’ 
perceptions of learning and engagement. This comes as no surprise. Research does not support a 
stereotype that older students are more resistant to instructional technology or that they are 
relatively novice in computer use compared to what Prensky (2001) called digital natives. Data 
from the Pew Internet Research Project (Jones & Fox, 2009) show no dramatic difference in 
Internet use between users in their 20s compared to older generations. Rizzuto and Mohammed 
(as cited in Githens, 2007) found that older employees in an industrial setting were in fact more 
willing to adapt to instructional technology for training programs than were younger employees. 

Like age, gender also had no impact on perceived outcomes. Research in this area has 
primarily focused on studying gender in online courses with mixed results. Yukselturk and Bulut 
(2009) reported no gender difference in learning in an online computer programming course. On 
the other hand, in Chyung’s (2007) study of graduate students in an instructional technology 
course, female students scored significantly higher on the final exam than did male students. In a 
study involving 12 online graduate education courses, Rovai and Baker (2005) found women 
reported learning more than their male peers. Parker, Bianchi, and Cheah (2008) showed that 
female students were more favorable toward instructional technology than were male students. 
Results were mixed in the one study we found that did look at mobile learning (Wang, Wu, & 
Wang, 2009). No gender difference was found for performance expectancy (finding mobile 
learning useful) but the effect of social influence on the intention to use mobile learning (post-
use) was significant for men, but insignificant for women. Obviously, more work is needed in 
this area. 
 Research on resistance to e-learning provides some insight into how university students 
might receive the iPad as another component of e-learning technology (Annansingh & Bright, 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

23 

2010; Thompson & Lynch, 2003). Students in the present study who were comfortable with e-
learning and mobile technologies reported more learning and a greater likelihood to use iPads as 
instructional technology in the future. Research had shown that students who, in contrast, 
perceived themselves as inadequate or who reported low self-efficacy were generally reluctant to 
embrace technology in the classroom (Annansingh & Bright, 2010; Thompson & Lynch, 2003). 
The current study showed that it was possible, however, to overcome this resistance through 
repeated exposure to the iPad. Students in the present study reported higher levels of learning 
when given iPad activities multiple times over the semester. Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) 
explained that a student's perception of self efficacy when faced with new instructional 
technology is a function of previous experience. The greater a student's experience with 
instructional technology, the more likely he or she is to accept new applications. Though the iPad 
is billed as an easy-to-use technology, students with poor attitude toward e-learning and 
instructional technology would likely benefit from multiple exposures to improve their self-
efficacy and heighten their perceptions of learning and engagement. 
 The present study is an initial attempt to describe factors influencing the positive impact 
of iPad activities on perceptions of student learning and engagement. Though we believe that the 
iPad is generally effective in promoting active and collaborative learning, we did not assess the 
learning styles of our students prior to this analysis. In future studies, learning styles should be 
measured and the students should be asked directed questions about whether the iPad satisfied 
their ability to learn using different sensory modalities (visual, aural, kinesthetic). Furthermore, 
while measures of student perceptions are generally indicative of positive student success, we did 
not directly measure discipline-specific student learning. Future quantification of objective, 
discipline-specific student learning outcomes could further justify the use of the iPad in the 
classroom.  

By design, the study was not narrowly focused on repetition of the same activity in 
multiple sections of the same academic course. Instead, the study focused widely among a range 
of academic disciplines, and each instructor used different iPad software. A controlled study with 
a single repeating iPad activity across several sections of the same course would provide a 
different perspective on the effect of iPad on engagement and learning. 

Acknowledgments 

The Center for Teaching and Learning at IUPU and University Information Technology Services 
at Indiana University provided funding and support for this study. 

References 

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS 
Quarterly, 18, 159-174. 

Annansingh, F., & Bright, A. (2010). Exploring barriers to effective E-learning: Case study of 
DNPA. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 7, 55-65.  
doi:10.1108/17415651011031653  

Axelson, R.D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of 
Higher Learning, 43, 38-43. 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

24 

Carini, R.M., Kuh, J.D., & Klein, S.P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing 
the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9 
 
Chen, P.S.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of 
Web-based technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-
1232.  

Chyung, S.Y. (2007). Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy and academic 
performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8 (3), 213-222. 
 
Fischman, J., & Keller, J. (2011). College tech goes mobile. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 
58, 50. 

Githens, R.P. (2007). Older adults and e-learning: Opportunities and barriers. Quarterly Review 
of Distance Education, 8(4), 329-338.  

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical 
Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York: Routledge. 

Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Pew Internet Research Project. 
Retreived from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/ 2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx 

Kane, Y. (2010, June 1). Apple s iPad sales pass two-million mark. Wall Street Journal - Eastern 
Edition, p. B7.  

Kinzie, J. (2010). Student engagement and learning: Experiences that matter. In Taking Stock: 
Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (139-153). J. Christensen Hughes & J. 
Mighty (Eds.), Kingston, Canada: School of Policy Studies, Queens University at Kingston.  

Kuh, G.K. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 

Nelson Laird, T.F., & Kuh, G.D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and 
their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 
211-233.  

Parker, R.E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors 
of influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 274-293. 

Pike. G.R., Kuh, G.D., & McCormick, A.C. (2008, November). Learning community 
participation and educational outcomes: Direct, indirect, and contingent relationships. Paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. 
Jacksonville, FL. 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Marcprensky.com. Retrieved from 
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital 
%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf 



Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J.W. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2012. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

25 

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering 
Education, 93(3), 223-231. 

Rice, A. (2011, October 18). Colleges take varied approaches to iPad experiments, with mixed 
results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ 
wiredcampus/colleges-take-varied-approaches-to-ipad-experiments-with-mixed-results/33749 

Rovai, A.P., & Baker, J.D. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, 
perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6, 
31-44. 

Sherr, I. (2011, August 12). Tablet war is an Apple route. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, 
p. B1-B2.  

Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M., & Liu, 
X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 
76, 93-135.  

Thompson, L.F., & Lynch, B.J. (2003). Web-based instruction: Who is inclined to resist it and 
why? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 375-385.  

Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., & Wang, H.Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and 
gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational 
Technology, 4(1), 92–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x 

Wieder, B. (2011). iPads could hinder teaching, professors say. Chronicle of Higher Education, 
57(28), A22-A23.  Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ iPads-for-College-Classrooms-
/126681/ 

Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning 
environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 12–22. 
 


