International foundation student experiences and

academic outcomes in a 1:1 iPad environment: A

longitudinal study
By Dr. Jennifer Mitchell and Mr. Glen Jennings
Abstract
The success of the 1:1 mobile learning program at Trinity College lies in the nexus of
staff development, student engagement, and improved infrastructure. The choice of
iPads as the designated mobile learning tool has thus far proven sound. Student
achievement within a set of institutionally defined outcomes has improved in
statistically significant ways. More independent learning skills and increased teacher
confidence with technology have been achieved, although unevenly. Embedded
evaluation and feedback from students on their learning experiences has supported
continuous teacher reflection and redesigning of curriculum delivery and
assessments. Overall, a constructive, critical, and reflective approach to learning and
teaching at has opened opportunities for students to become more empowered to
take control of their own learning, and to reflect on how to take advantage of a
powerful connected device for their own success. This in turn has led the way for
leaders within the academic faculty to be consistently open to ways of working and
collaborating to enhance student outcomes, while being attuned to changing
expectations of students, and of life and work in the twenty-first century. As mobile
devices in learning become ubiquitous, opportunities for innovation become more
challenging and exciting.

Introduction
Trinity College Foundation Studies (TCFS) at the University of Melbourne is a program that
prepares international students for entry to undergraduate courses. TCFS was among the
first educational institutions in the world to conduct a trial using iPads in a 1:1 face-to-face
teaching setting. Commencing in August 2010, the project has since involved over four years
of experimentation, planning, hardware and infrastructure improvement, in addition to
extensive staff training. This article presents a longitudinal analysis of academic outcomes,
as well as student experiences and attitudes.
This first iPad trial involved forty-four students from the (then) August Extended Program (a
short, contained preparatory course preceding the longer Main Program), and twenty
teachers and administrative staff. The results of this trial were released in a report in January
2011 which was made publicly available online (Jennings et.al 2011). It received substantial
media attention at the time, being perhaps the earliest public evaluation of iPads as tools in
education in Australia. (Gedda, 2010; LeMay, 2010) A second trial was undertaken in 2011,
before Foundation Studies embarked on its program of fully transforming itself into a 1:1
iPad College, with all incoming students in all programs receiving an iPad on

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 1

commencement from 2012. The defined goals of this first project were primarily to enhance
students' independent learning skills, and improve staff comfort and competency with using
education technology for teaching.
Over the course of 2011, all 80 plus teaching staff were engaged in an intensive training
program to enhance their comfort and competency with working in a teaching context
where all teachers and students are equipped with an iPad. What has emerged from this
process after the three years of this study is very encouraging. Student results improved,
enrolments in the original trial August Extended Program tripled, other programs have
consolidated in their enrolments, teachers are more positive and engaged with using
technology, and a strong community of practice has become established which supports
students and teachers to create, innovate, and enjoy the learning and teaching process
(Mitchell, 2014). Students have also reported positively that their education has been
enhanced by the use of technology. (See below)
This paper presents and analyses the results of three years (2011-2013) of investigation into
the impact of the transformation of the College from a low technology use, and largely
teacher-centred learning model, to a relatively high-technology use, and more learnercentred learning model. The results are drawn from research derived from three primary
sources a longitudinal analysis of student achievements, student surveys and evaluations,
and focus group interviews.

Research Context
Trinity College Foundation Studies
Trinity College Foundation Studies (TCFS) offers a variety of foundational study programs
to international students seeking to study at university. TCFS has ten intakes each year.
Depending on their previous secondary school experience and English level, some students
undertake a 17-month program. Most undertake an 11-month program, and fewer undertake
an 8-month program. Of the ten intakes, six feed into other TCFS intakes. Four intakes
(February Main, August Main, July Fast Track and October Fast Track) lead directly into
undergraduate courses at university, subject to successful completion and satisfactory Best 4
scores. These four intakes have provided the primary data for the longitudinal analysis of
student achievements, and the Best 4 average scores are the defined measure where
academic improvement is assessed.

Mobile Learning with International Students

The 2010 Step Forward Pilot Project was the first time that TCFS academic staff had the
opportunity to use mobile devices with Internet access directly from the classroom. This
project was timely - increasingly scholars of teaching and learning were warning that
educational institutions were not keeping up with developments in digital technology
(Laurillard, in Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). Another challenge specific to TCFS was the
demand of working with young people from a broad range of cultures and learning styles.
Any project involving learning technologies also needed to consider the requirement to
enhance international students abilities to engage and communicate equally within an
(initially, perhaps) alien learning environment (Ryan & Viete, 2009, 304). The ambition at
TCFS was to open up the range of teaching and learning experiences in a constructive way,
not to shut down practices which are familiar and comfortable for our students or teachers.
Much of the learning that takes place in education occurs informally outside the classroom,
however the potential of mobile devices within the classroom is substantial. Within the faceto-face setting the value of mobile technologies is to offer digitally-facilitated site-specific
support for the learner (Laurillard, in Vavoula et al, 2011, x).

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 2

However, the College was mindful of the need to respond to the current and future learning
needs of our students, rather than to take up a technology for no other reason than its
popularity. Brand, Kinash, Matthew and Kordyban (2011) warn that commentary around
emerging technologies can be deceptive. 'Discourse on mobile learning and indeed, uses of
emerging technologies in education more generally, readily presents assumptions about
learning gains often based on observations of learner, teacher or administrator attitudes
without testing the actual learning outcomes related to the technology use' (Brand et al, 2011,
168). Price and Kirkwood (2013) observe that obtaining evidence persuasive enough to change
practice is a complicated process. Evidence based on quantitative analysis may not be as
effective in education contexts as qualitative evidence, they argue, concluding that
conceptions of evidence and its subsequent collection are linked with fundamental
beliefs about learning and teaching and about the nature of evidence itself. So while
the notion of using evidence to support practice may be appealing, it is confounded
by often uncritically considered conceptions, claims, rhetoric and practices (Simons,
2003, in Price & Kirkwood, 2013, 2).
Rationale for choosing iPads as mobile devices
A global move in both secondary and higher education towards learner-centred teaching
over the past two decades, has necessitated in many instances a change of culture which
mobile devices can help facilitate. In face-to-face teaching, the learning goals and learning
context are likely to be influenced by the teacher, but the very flexibility of the technology
can inspire the teacher to relax this and allow the learner to negotiate their own (Laurillard,
in Vavoula et al, 2011). iPads were chosen as the test models at TCFS primarily because of
educational flexibility and value, cost, weight, size, battery life, their low-maintenance, and
the fact that the touch-screen technology appeared to enable all the common learning styles
visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. The features of embedded dictionaries, and the ability to
change the iPad language easily were additional positive features.
The original pilot also tested a small number of other similar devices including netbooks,
laptops, e-book readers and an Android-based Samsung Galaxy tablet. The then August
Extended Program was chosen to be the pilot group because of the relatively small size of
the cohort, the broad subject range, and the timing of the program. Subjects involved in the
trial were Chemistry, Drama, Economics, English for Academic Purposes, Environment &
Development, History of Ideas, Literature, Maths and Physics. The August Extended
Program dates allowed enough time for the purchase and deployment of the newly released
iPads, and sufficient scope to assess the progress of the pilot by early 2011 when a decision
would need to be made about future directions for technology in TCFS classrooms. Once the
program for expansion to all ten TCFS intakes was approved in mid-2011, the subject range
grew to include Accounting, Biology, Maths 2, Media & Communications, and Psychology.

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 3

Table 1. Features rated good or very good by %. Students (n41) and staff (n21) (2010)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Students
Staff

Whatever the perceived benefits of mobile devices or other ICT tools are for teaching staff, it
is important to remember that how learners perceive the possibilities of the tools and their
ideal use(s) in the context of their learning may be markedly different to the ideas and
intentions of the educators and educational technologists who design them (McLoughlin &
Lee, 2008,11). One key research focus of this paper is thus on the responses of students to
using iPads, and the question of whether the move to transform the college into a 1:1 iPad
institution was a successful one in terms of the defined goals of the project. The other key
focus is a longitudinal comparison of student results from three different intakes over seven
years (from 2005 to 2013), which demonstrate improved outcomes for students across a range
of measures.
Of course, the students responses and academic achievements are intrinsically connected to
the work done and the time devoted by teaching staff to developing quality learning
experiences which are enhanced by the capabilities of the iPad. This is no small matter, and
the research associated with this aspect of the project has been covered in an earlier paper
(Mitchell, 2014). This research will be referenced where appropriate.

Research Questions
Primary Research Question
Was the move to transform the college into a 1:1 mobile institution successful in terms of the
defined goals of the project, including the ambitions of the institution (upskilling staff)
covered in the earlier paper by Mitchell (2014) and the outcomes for students (more
independent learning skills)?
Secondary Research Question
Has the introduction of the 1:1 mobile learning led to improved student outcomes and
results? (Defined within the context of an already successful program across cohort
improvements.)

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 4

Literature review context and desired outcomes

There were many influences guiding the college towards change, and guiding the research
questions answered here. The following discussions introduce the scholarship influencing
the present research at the time of its instigation, and the project it investigates. In 2010 the
TCFS program was already very successful. However, success is not a justification for not
developing and changing (Davidson and Goldberg, 2009). Simply introducing a technology
as a tool for updating methods of delivering existing programs was never going to be viable
at TCFS. Nor was assuming that simply because students were familiar with the tools of
mobile technology and the Internet, they would be successful learners in a new learning
environment (Rourke & Coleman, 2010). Change would need to be institution wide,
encompassing both student orientation, and academic and professional staff training.
Changing cultures around teaching practice in institutions is widely seen as essential to the
success of integrating technology into teaching programs (Beetham & Sharpe, 2013; Cluett,
Skene & Pegrum, 2012; Mishra & Koehler, 2006.).
The primary desired outcomes from the project which were as stated, firstly, to improve
student's independent learning skills, and secondly, to determine if there were statistically
significant improvements in students' Best 4 average scores, are based on the unique position
of the institution delivering post-secondary education in Foundation Programs with
international students. The College is neither a secondary school, nor a fully fledged tertiary
institution. The goal of students in the program is to enter a university, most likely, the
University of Melbourne. Thus the context, and the desired outcomes, are specific to our
institution.
International Student Experience (independent learning skills)
One of the key factors that made the option of mobile tablet technology ideally suited to the
Foundation Studies Program is the solely international make up of our cohorts. Students
learning in a second language demand flexible strategies. Signorini, Wiesemes & Murphy
(2009, p. 258) point out that research which has shaped ideas about how students from
different cultures learn and interact the most influential being Geert Hofstedes work
relies on data collected in non-educational settings. They also observe that this work does
not take account of the fast pace of globalisation and the dynamic nature of contemporary
intercultural exchanges. Tsolidis (2001, 104) argues that old paradigms of cultural conflict
the East / West Confucian / Socratic culture clash for example, are out of date. She
advocates an approach to pedagogy that recognises the principle of the third space without
identifying it as such: students have as much to offer teachers as the other way around. Ryan
& Viete (2009) identify a similar kind of shared third space as being desirable for creating
respectful places of learning for international students. Relations of power permeate staffstudent interactions, particularly in spaces enacted in the dominant discourses of the
English-speaking Western academy. Thus, our sharing of this thirdspace can only be
generative and equitable if we engage in critical scrutiny of our own values and practices in
academic conversation (Ryan & Viete, p. 305). At TCFS we hoped our technology program
would enable a greater flow of information, responses, and interventions in the form of
questions and feedback from our students to the teachers. Rather than viewing their
teachers as owners of and authorities of knowledge, our ambition was for our students to be
enabled to see themselves as partners in learning, and to take a greater role in it.
Although the term third-space doesnt appear to have caught on in the literature since then,
much of the innovation predicted by organisations such as the New Media Consortium and
its Horizon Report for 2014, identify the technology trends such as maker-spaces, that
embody third space principles of creation which embrace cultural diversity, and
conceptualise students as producers (Johnson et al, 2014, p 14-15; Neary, 2006). Back in 2010,
the New Media Consortium was flagging mobile learning as an up and coming innovation

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 5

area to watch, while influential researchers on changing pedagogies for the digital age, had
been championing the need for curriculum change, and alternative approaches to
assessment (Kimber & Wyatt-smith, 2010; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008; Manunguerra & Petocz,
2011; Traxler, 2009; Watson & Pecchioni, 2011).
Other trends and policy changes also influenced the development of our mobile learning
trial. After the 2008 Bradley Review of Higher Education in Australia, the now defunct
Australian Learning and Teaching Council commissioned a research project on Teaching
Quality Indicators. Two of the four key factors that emerged in the documents produced by
the University of WA, included learner-centred teaching strategies, and a focus on creativity
and innovation. That research project has since evolved into the UWA Teaching Criteria
Framework. For the past few decades pedagogical emphasis has been on strategies that
enable learners to generate, not just absorb knowledge, and to exercise greater control over
their own learning experience, rather than be constrained by centralised, instructor
controlled learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, 17). In the U.K. there were similar learnercentred policy developments around the same time that were part of a broader
personalisation agenda which suggests that services will be improved by putting users at the
centre of any given service and understanding and acting on their needs (Little & Williams,
2010, 115-116). McLoughlin & Lee (2008), among other voices including Neary (2006), argue
for change in education that enables students to become producers of new knowledge, and
artefacts that reflect applied learning. Part of the change needed is to recognize the potential
of Web 2.0 to enable the transformation of pedagogy design of learning tasks, and promotion
of learner autonomy and creativity (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, 11).
Learner-centred teaching, and learning with mobile devices
In the first year of its evolution as a teaching and learning tool, critics of the iPad highlighted
the proficiency with which the device could facilitate the delivery of electronic course
materials, leading many to label it a consumption, rather than a creativity, device.
Application developers quickly responded to the feedback from teachers wanting their
students to be creative in the classroom with mobile devices. Applications that developed
included those for drawing and art, presentations - visual and audio enhanced annotation,
video editing, animation, and comic strip makers among hundreds of others. A clear
example of the response is the additional time and effort Apple has put into working with
schools, with their suites of Apps for Education and bulk purchasing discounts, and its
awards for Apple Distinguished Educators, Schools, and Programs.
Another aspect to the development of more learner-centred curriculum and assessment in
the mobile learning area was the integration of Web 2.0 interfaces in many applications,
including integrated sharing with social media and uploading to various web platforms.
Having a mobile device in the classroom has changed the locations, the breadth and depth of
learning. However, the term mobile learning has itself been critiqued by Brand et al., (2011,
270) who note Laurillards (2009) observation that, mobile learning research has been
centred around the feature of mobility as opposed to constructs of critical thinking and
development of understanding. Indeed, critical thinking about the tools and processes of
education should be an opportunity for students to develop a deeper appreciation of their
potential as independent active learners. Edwards (2008) warns that ICTs (and we include
iPads in this mix) need to be engaged with a critical eye any democratizing impulse could
remain unrealized if learners are not stimulated to think critically about the impact on their
learning of different technologies and the mediating processes that come with them
learners need to be inscribers lest they only become the inscribed (2008, 65).

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 6

Can mobile devices enhance independent learning?

If a mobile device is used simply as another information delivery tool then it is unlikely to
enhance learning independent or any other kind in any substantive way. In 2010 research
into mobile learning was largely around mobile phones and interactive tablets, and the
conclusions about efficacy were mixed. Traxler, 2010, draws attention to the fact of mobiles
as being 'student devices' which are 'in the world' keeping people connected to networks
between formal work and study times. Traxler views mobile devices as intrinsically
disruptive within the education sphere, but in a positive if challenging sense:
Student devices change and challenge the role of the education professions and
educational institutions, progressively demystifying their roles as gatekeepers,
custodians, and arbiters of technology and knowledge. This is not to ignore their role
as guides or intermediaries, nor is it to ignore their work in nurturing intrinsic
motivation and providing extrinsic motivation, but serves merely to place them all in
a more complex context. (Traxler, 2010, 10)
In contrast Brand et al., (2011) in mapping the field of mobile learning in the early days of
iPads, note the lack of knowledge about how mobile learning might actually improve
student outcomes, but found that there were modest positive indicators in their study
suggesting the area was rich for research (176). They demonstrated the early logic that
improvement in student performance (which would entail independent motivation) would
be bound up with pedagogy and course design that embeds the affordances of a mobile
device into the learning activities, and offers students a blended model of face to face and
online learning.
Over the time of this study the numbers and reliability of tools, web resources, applications
and access to other research in the area of mobile learning have dramatically improved. For
example, the work of Traphagan, Kucsera & Kishi (2010) on the potential for lecture
webcasting to engage students with content outside of class has been surpassed on many
levels. The latest iterations of global lecture capture systems such as Echo 360s Active
Learning Platform, have been developed expressly to leverage the presence of mobile
devices inside (and outside) university and college lecture theatres. In some ways the length
of time taken to bring this present research to publication has enabled the place, and
therefore the success of our program, to become embedded in the everyday practices of
continuous development and evaluation of teaching and learning.
The above review of literature indicates the field at the time of commencing this study, while
also drawing attention to lessons for successful implementation since learned. Critical
success factors such as those identified by Cochrane (2014) reflect some of the key
experiences documented in the first publication of this research project (Mitchell, 2014),
particularly Cochrane's finding regarding lecturers and education technologists working
collaboratively, and the establishment of communities of practice.

Method
A variety of approaches to data collection have been used as suggested by Cohen et al (2011,
23). Quantitative and qualitative survey data was collected on students' expectations and
experiences. Two student focus group discussions were documented. Longitudinal
quantitative data on student results and achievements across a defined set of measures from
2005 to 2013 have been used to support a deeper and more detailed investigation, along with
data from student evaluations. The longitudinal aspect of the data collection helps confirm
the validity of key findings.

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 7

Quantitative data collection methods

Final results for TCFS students are calculated on the basis of the Best 4 averages (including
prerequisites) to determine university entrance. The University of Melbourne which
academically supervises TCFS sets the guaranteed scores into their suite of undergraduate
programs. In 2013, for example, the guaranteed scores for Foundation Studies students were
80% Environments; 80% Science; 82% Arts; 86% Commerce, and 89% Biomedicine. For these
reasons, Best 4 scores are a meaningful measure for TCFS students, and scores of 80% and
above are an indicator of successful achievement.
Student Evaluations
One of the questions on the exit survey for students at the end of their course concerns a
rating of how much the students believe their learning was enhanced by the use of
technology. This measure not limited simply to the deployment of iPads reveals that
students greatly value the technology rich environment at TCFS. Data from the following
intakes/year offer further statistical evidence of the success of the transformation of the
college from a low technology use teaching and learning environment, to a high technology
use environment, with a high satisfaction rating.
Table 2.
Question: My learning was enhanced by the use of technology. Rated 1 - 5, with 1 being the lowest.
February Main 2013

Subjects: 14

Teachers: 77

Average: 4.47 (Lowest: 3.78 Highest: 4.83)

July Fast Track 2013/14

Subjects: 14

Teachers: 30

Average: 4.34 (Lowest: 3.52 Highest: 5.00)

Average over 107 teachers: 4.43

Qualitative data collection methods
Surveys
Survey 1. Pilot 2 students (n 76), conducted Jan 2012. 100% response rate (total group
76).
Survey 2. Students (n 110) after first full year of iPad rollout. Conducted Dec 2012. 33%
response rate (total group 340 students).
Focus group discussion 1 2012 n9 students
Analysis drawn from direct transcript of discussion, the key source of data.
Focus group discussion 2 distraction (2014) n 8 students; 5 teachers
Outline of discussion/key themes and notes taken during the forum

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 8

Methodology
Grounded theory (qualitative)
Gathering qualitative data to evaluate the success of the ambitions outlined in the first
evaluation report necessitated a mixed methods approach. The data collected from student
surveys and from the focus groups was summarized and coded according to grounded
theory principles, where the themes are identified as the data is analysed and grouped under
useful identifiers (Charmaz, 2011; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The four main identifiers of
student experience examined in the qualitative analysis are: in-class work and activities;
personal learning and study habits; engagement with content, and assessment tasks.
Limitations
There was an uneven use of the iPad in classrooms across all subjects, leading to the result
that it is impossible to claim the iPad as the sole contributor to the improvements in student
achievements across the board. Thus the Best 4 measure of achievement for TCFS students
makes more sense, as it means a general average substitutes for specifics. Some teachers
made ample use of the iPad to engage students in interactive learning activities, such as
quizzing, forums, and polling. However, some other teachers continued to use familiar
methods with which they had confidence. These inter-personal limitations to
implementations of technology programs are well documented in other studies (Mitchell &
Reuschle, 2013; Tsai & Chai, 2012).

Quantitative Analysis. Statistical findings of

longitudinal study improved student outcomes
Context
The Fast Track intakes have an IELTS minimum of 6.5, while the February Main and August
Main have an IELTS of 6. This is the major difference between the students in the main and
the fast-track intakes.
Statistics complied 20 February 2014
6 completed intakes fully iPad-enabled.

February Main 2012 & 2013 (see Table 3)

July Fast Track 2012 & 2013 (see Table 4)
July Main 2012/13 (see Table 5)
October Fast Track 2012/13 (see Table 6).

(NB statistics of < 0.50 rounded down and > 0.50 rounded up to the next full number.)

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 9

Table 3. February Main

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

438

459

447

531

442

451

406

396

469

Pass %

95

97

95

97

95

97

96

98

98

%
achieving
Best 4 of
80% +

77

75

74

79

77

77

77

82

84

%
achieving
Best 4 of
90% +

29

28

27

31

27

27

33

36

39

Fails

10

12

12

Final
Enrolments

The pass rate is higher in the iPad groups (2012 & 2013). The % achieving high grades (above
80% and above 90%) is significantly higher for the iPad groups.
Table 4. July Fast Track
2007/8

2008/9

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

76

72

69

84

59

91

72

100

100

100

100

100

100

99

% achieving
Best 4 of 80%
+

93

90

93

90

90

92

94

% achieving
Best 4 of 90%
+

32

49

39

36

42

49

54

Final
Enrolments
Pass %

Fails

The pass rate is lower in the most recent iPad group, 2013/14 (affected by only one failing
student. He chose to not sit some exams and to return home). The % achieving high grades
(above 80% and especially above 90%) is significantly higher for the iPad groups. The
difference in achieving above 90% from 2011/12 (42%) to the most recent iPad year 2013/14
(54%) a 12% rise over two years.
Table 5. July Main
2006/7

2007/8

2008/9

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

107

123

152

154

141

117

146

Pass %

93

96

96

97

97

95

98

% achieving
Best 4 of 80%
+

78

74

76

75

79

71

82

% achieving
Best 4 of 90%
+

32

21

20

25

18

28

34

Final
Enrolments

Fails

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 10

The pass rate is higher in the iPad group. The % achieving high grades (above 80% and
above 90%) is significantly higher for the iPad group.
Table 6. October Fast Track
2006/7

2007/8

2008/9

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

87

75

56

78

47

42

69

100

100

100

100

100

98

100

% achieving
Best 4 of 80%
+

94

92

96

91

96

86

94

% achieving
Best 4 of 90%
+

32

47

46

36

49

38

61

Final
Enrolments
Pass %

Fails

The pass rate is nearly always 100%.

The % achieving a Best 4 average of 80% + is slightly higher in 2 non-iPad years (2008/9 and
2010/11: 96% compared to 94%). However, the rise from the previous non-iPad year to the
iPad cohort in 2012/13 is noticeable (up from 86% to 94%).
Moreover, the percentage of students achieving truly outstanding grades is significantly
higher in the iPad year than in the previous years (61% for the iPad cohort compared to a
high of 49% in 2010/11).

Discussion
Tentative conclusions across the 6 intakes: The general trend is for pass rates to be better.
The general trend is for more students to achieve Best 4 grades above 80%. All intakes using
iPads achieved more grades in the highest range (90% and above).
Given that in 2013, 80% was the cut off score for the Bachelor of Science and the Bachelor of
Environments, 82% for Arts, 86% for Commerce and 89% for Biomedicine, the results
achieved by the iPad-enabled students allowed more TCFS students to attain their firstpreference course at the University of Melbourne.
Demonstrating how the iPad made a positive impact on student outcomes is difficult to
determine with this broad data, and without a control group. Imposing controls on groups of
students in this study was not considered acceptable, thus the effective control groups are
the years before the introduction of the iPad. Where and how positive impacts were made on
outcomes across the institution is also difficult, given the diversity of intakes, teaching staff,
disciplines and approaches. However, findings from Mitchell (2014) indicated that the
development of a community of practice among the academic staff, helped create an
environment of innovation and a renewed energy that had some positive influence on
student outcomes.

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 11

Qualitative Analysis: Key themes arising from the data

collected through student surveys and focus group
discussion
Here, discussion and quotes from the surveys and focus groups discussions (including the
2014 focus group on distraction in the classroom) are presented. These themes emerged from
an analysis of the qualitative data, where responses from the focus groups aligned with
findings from the surveys to suggest a common theme. These areas have become focus areas
for continuing development in the technology program.
In-class work and activities
In both the 2011 (1) and the 2012 (2) surveys, students were asked about in-class activities
where they were expressly using their iPads. In survey 1 (n-76) the most common activities
were writing tasks (72%), then accessing and reading course materials (70%). This was
followed by using the dictionary, and researching for class activities (65%). The face to face
setting of the classroom aimed to facilitate a creation rather than a consumption
environment for students. Nearly 60% of the students using a dictionary on their iPads were
using one in their own language rather than an English dictionary. A question about
activities not currently facilitated in the classroom (in 2011) indicated particular interest from
students about working collaboratively on projects requiring online communication.
The 2012 students n-110 (20% of whom were from the 2011 August Extended group n-18) also
identified writing as their main activity most days (58%) to every day (23%), closely followed
by assessing and reading course materials (51% both most days and everyday). Making
presentations overtook using dictionaries, but researching topics online remained a popular
task with just below 40% identifying this as an everyday task, and the same percentage did
this most days. In Survey 2, subjects where students most used their iPads for class activities
and writing were their Humanities classes, particularly their English for Academic Purposes,
Literature, and Environments classes. This finding is also supported in research on early
learners by Bebell & Pedulla (2015). In general, the sciences did not feature as subjects where
enhanced engagement with ICT found much fertile ground, with the exception of
Chemistry. In Mathematics the most frequent use of the iPad involved accessing course
materials, with only some students having the opportunity to solve problems and submit to
their teachers via their iPads. Overall, the majority of students particularly enjoyed not
carrying books, and having easy online access to their course materials across the range of
subjects.
Personal learning and study habits
In both the 2011 and 2012 surveys, direct questions were asked about the usefulness of the
iPad to personal out of class time and for studying. This area of investigation goes to the
heart of the idea of 'mobile' learning and how effectively students were taking
responsibility for their studies the area of independent learning skills. In survey 1, students
were mostly using their iPads out of class time to complete homework tasks, and research on
the Internet, closely followed by social media and games. This was the similar pattern in
survey 2, with the added dimension that students were asked about their preferred way of
doing these activities, if not using their iPads. A preference for personal computers over
iPads for doing research out of class was significant (88%) as was a preference for using
paper for completing homework tasks (72%). Paper and books were also the preferred means
of reading course materials (90% of respondents), which was not an expected finding. Given
that the College was committed to moving away from providing paper-based course
materials there was a hope which has since proven well-founded that students would
identify processes of working which suited them and if they wanted to print out materials to
work with then they should have that option. Again, disciplinary constraints in ways of
working and learning made a significant impact, with Mathematics and science courses
being the areas students found least amenable to using iPads, as much mathematical

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 12

thinking and writing is still required to be done by hand. Purchasing a stylus for every
student has not yet become practical.
The survey data, while fairly consistent from Survey 1 to Survey 2, is less interesting than the
findings on this area from the focus groups. In particular, in the first focus group discussion
in 2011 some participants saw the challenge of using iPads and computers in learning as one
of self discipline. Each line represents a different speaker. Quotes in italics are the
researcher's questions.
You must have come to Trinity with expectations about what you would be doing in classes
with the iPad, and I'm interested if you found that your experiences near the end of the
program matched up with your expectations.
Hmmm. Hmmm. I think it is good to use the iPad, but I think it depends on what
kind of person you are. Some prefer to use handwriting and not type on iPad.
I expected to be able to communicate with teachers easily on email. Was good to do
research in the class on iPad. It's easier.
At the beginning, I did a lot of my work and assignments on the iPad, and the iPad
correct our spelling as we go. But before I do most work on paper and must correct
my spelling myself. If the iPad does the spelling work for us we can't learn as much
the spelling in English. So is a bad thing about using iPad too much. Our habit has
changed. It is not comfortable to write on paper anymore. I did all my writing on
iPad, and when I need to write my exam at the end, it's strange.
Do you others agree with this observation?
Yes, I agree. Lots more technologyYes. I agree with this. Because in the exams we
must used our hands to finish the work.
And with our thinking. If we have a problem we just go to the dictionary to the
Internet to find all the information, but if we have a test we have to think for ourself.
These students all agreed that learning English was something they had got used to doing on
paper, and using their iPads had worsened their English hand writing skills. Rather than
interpret this as an indictment of the iPad program, it demonstrates these students' abilities
to critique their own use of technology, and to differentiate the skills which they need to
develop as learners of English and how they then need to utilise their own learning
strategies in productive ways. English language learning is not one of the research areas, but
this finding is instructive insofar as it defines the iPad as a tool among many, and not a
replacement for any other valuable and proven means of learning.
Engagement with content and enhanced understanding
The TCFS program is largely custom-designed by the academic staff with only a small
proportion of the subjects using text books. This enables academics to create course
materials using iPad applications and web services which all students can engage with via
their iPads. The 1:1 environment assists support staff to streamline training for academics
and prepare all incoming students to connect to networks, download an orientation guide,
and get the required apps necessary to participate actively in coursework. By preparing
students adequately they were equipped to quickly engage with content and interactive
activities.
Academics developed a number of resources to leverage the iPad in the classroom and
lecture theatre. From 2011 iBooks became a common tool for distributing customised
learning materials with native dictionaries, inbuilt quizzes and search features. The Keynote
application enabled creation and editing of lecture materials with embedded video straight
on the device, a great support when away from the office. Also commonly used were
synchronous quizzes using eClicker; surveys and forms developed with Google Docs, and
numerous apps relevant to specific disciplines. The simple presence of an internet enabled

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 13

device in the classroom led to increasing opportunities to set research tasks, and show audiovisual materials to support understanding.
Table 3.
Question: Survey 2. In the boxes below, name a subject in which you felt that the use of the iPad in
tutorials really made a difference to your understanding of the subject matter.
Frequency: Subject 1. The first subject
that came to students minds is recorded
here, n 110.
All students were enrolled in EAP (29),
Literature (8) and History of Ideas (12),
while most undertook Maths 1 (22). The
other subjects are electives and have
fewer students enrolled overall. EAP also
has two sessions per week. This skews
the results, but gives a good indication of
where students felt their understanding
was most enhanced.
Activities that are most identified in
order of frequency of mentions include:
downloading course materials and handouts, watching videos in class, using clicker apps,
researching information, and making presentations.
Students in Focus Group 2, in March 2014, were asked about the benefits and negatives of
using iPads at TCFS. Tutorials were identified as the most useful times for using iPads as
collaborative work was possible. Out of class reading of large textbooks on iPads was not
favoured, but short chapters were. Recorded lectures were valued as they enabled diligent
students to follow up. An agreed negative was distraction caused by other students in
lectures not engaging, watching videos, or playing games. A long discussion was had about
whether this was a staff or student responsibility to change. There was agreement that the
students themselves needed to take responsibility for paying attention in lectures, and that it
should ideally be an agreed behavioural contract. Long lectures with a lot of listening
required added to the tendency to distraction. A quote from survey 2 on this matter sums it
up:
I feel that using an iPad in Trinity is beneficial yet risky at the same time. If students
did manage to curb their appetite at playing games or social networking during
lectures or tutorials, then there would be no doubt to the iPad's usefulness. However,
it can also differentiate between the people who want to do well in this course and
also the people who don't.
Analysis of findings from the surveys and focus groups suggests that engaging students
much more with learning that requires them to use their iPads for collaborative work,
writing, quizzing, polling, and creativity is a sensible conclusion. Yet changing teaching
practices without also changing assessments to reflect new and nuanced skills leaves a
question mark over any substantive claims to innovation leading from the explicit use of
mobile learning tools. Thus the final area of research that leads into the last discussion of
further areas for development is assessment.
Assessment tasks
In his list of the critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with Web 2.0, Cochranes
first identified goal is The pedagogical integration of the technology into the course and
assessment (2013, 73). However, this factor is also one of the most difficult to achieve. It is
even more complex in a context where the entire cohort of learners comes from diverse
cultural backgrounds, and the dominant way of assessing student achievement is through
writing in English. MacKinnon & Manathunga (2003, 132) observe that (b)reaking down the

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 14

assumption of a link between the dominant cultural literacy and cognitive deficit is also a
target area for ensuring successful, culturally responsive assessment. One of the
opportunities provided by having a standard mobile device is to adjust assessment
expectations and achievement to accommodate cultural difference and contributions, while
still maintaining the desired learning outcomes.
However, students in this study seemed to be aware of the need to take responsibility for
their learning, and to be critical users of technology. Students in focus group 1 identified the
need to be conscious of skills required to complete hand-written exams.
Focus Group 1.
Question: So, there is a disconnection between the ways you are learning on iPads in the
classroom, and the assessments you do at the end of the term, when you can't use your
iPads?
Yes, I think even though we use the iPad a lot, but we still need to train ourselves
with our hands (writing), because if the final exam depends on the iPad, no problem,
clear.
What would you prefer if you had your choice? Would you prefer to do an exam on a
computer?
Not use iPad, by hand.
No, not on computer, by hand. Is no good for us in the future.
Yes, (it's no good for us to not use hands).
Whether or not hand written exams will continue to dominate in higher education
assessments remains to be seen. What can be acknowledged is that the range of skills
students will need to gain to succeed at university and in careers will involve critically
negotiating the tools, environments and relationships of the digital world.
Survey 1 asked students about preferred methods of doing alternative assessments choosing
from making videos, making e-books, and peer teaching, with the greatest interest, 50%, in
making videos. Students in survey 2 were also most interested in producing videos, with
nearly 70% either very interested or a bit interested in this method of assessment.

Discussion, and themes for further research

As indicated, there was an uneven distribution of academic staff across the subjects who had
taken active steps to gain skills, to change practices, and to innovate between 2010 and the
end of 2012. This awareness provided a clear basis to work from to design ongoing
professional development into the future and to foster communities of practice, a direction
undertaken as a direct result of findings that is extensively documented in the first paper
from this study on the staff-training program (Mitchell, 2014). Further areas for development
and research will focus on alternative assessment methods, as well as development of skills
which are harder to measure using traditional assessment tasks, such as personal
organisation and study skills, group work, and reflective practice or meta-cognitive skills.

Conclusion
Continuous (quantitative and qualitative) evaluation in college-wide and disciplinary
contexts has been embedded in the 1:1 mobile learning program since its inception. Focus for
training and evaluation has lately fallen much more on supporting teachers to reflect on
curriculum and assessment design to support student learning, specifically how to create
engaging learning experiences which are enhanced by the 1:1 mobile environment. As is
appropriate, the combination of human and fast-evolving technological factors which
comprise the contemporary learning experience, makes clear-cut conclusions about student
achievement difficult. Nevertheless, this paper accurately reflects the documented
experience of the College thus far, and has provided ample data to identify strengths and
weaknesses which are now shaping the evolution of the TCFS program into the immediate

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 15

future. The evaluation phase must indeed go on indefinitely, along with agile support for
teachers by education technology specialists to deliver innovation.

References
Bebell, D., & Pedulla, J. (2015). A Quantitative Investigation into the Impacts of 1:1 iPads on Early
Learners ELA and Math Achievement. Journal of Information Technology: Innovations in
Practice, 14, 133. Retrieved from
http://www.informingscience.org/Journals/JITEIIP/Articles?Volume=14-2015&Search=
Brand, J., Kinash, S., Matthew, T., & Kordyban, R. (2011). iWant does not equal iWill. Correlates of
mobile learning with iPads, e-textbooks, BlackBoard Mobile Learn and a blended learning
experience. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands,
Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011 (pp. 168178). Hobart, Tasmania.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01384.x
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Designing for 21st Century
Learning (Second., p. 324). New York, London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructing Grounded Theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London, California, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE Publications.
Cluett, L., Skene, J., & Pegrum, M. (2012). Infecting professional staff with the emerging technology
virus: how the leadership game has changed. In CCA Educause Australasia Conference (pp. 1
8). Retrieved from https://ocs.arcs.org.au/index.php/educause/ccae2011/paper/view/155
Cochrane, Thomas Donald. 2013. Critical Success Factors for Transforming Pedagogy with Mobile Web
2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology 45 (1) (January 17): 6582.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01384.x
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory. (pp. 87-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Gedda, R. (2010). Melbourne Uni Begins 50 student iPad Pilot. CIO.com.au
http://www.cio.com.au/article/358389/melbourne_uni_begins_50_student_ipad_pilot/
Giles, A., Martin, S. C., Bryce, D., & Hendry, G. D. (2004). Students as partners in evaluation: student
and teacher perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 681685. doi:
10.1080/0260293042000227227
Jennings, G., Anderson, T., Dorset, M., & Mitchell, J. (2011). Step Forward iPad Pilot Project (pp. 1
20). Melbourne. http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/Media/docs/iPadPilotReport2011-1b1e1a5279af-4c76-b5b6-e45f92f2c9e9-0.pdf
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, Texas. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601371003700683
Jones, M. L. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally Questionable? University of Wollongong. (Faculty of
Commerce, Papers (pp. 2426). http://www.gcbe.us/2007_OBEC/data/confcd.htm
Kimber, K., & Wyatt-smith, C. (2010). Secondary students online use and creation of knowledge:
Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(5), 607625.
Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through research:
Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(4), 639655. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/kinash.html
Laurillard, D. (2011). Researching Mobile Learning. Frameworks, Tools and Research Designs. (G.
Vavoula, N. Pachler, & A. Kukulska-Hulme, Eds.) (p. 367). Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles,
Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang.
LeMay, R. (2010). Trinity setting the iPad pace in education. Delimiter Blog.
http://delimiter.com.au/2010/11/04/trinity-setting-the-ipad-pace-in-education/
Little, B., & Williams, R. (2010). Students Roles in Maintaining Quality and in Enhancing Learning: Is
There a Tension? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 115127.
doi:10.1080/13538322.2010.485740
Manathunga, C., & MacKinnon, D. (2003). Going Global with Assessment: What to do when the
dominant cultures literacy drives assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2),
131144. doi:10.1080/0729436032000083599

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 16

Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting Student Engagement by Integrating New Technology
into Tertiary Education: The Role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 6165. doi:
10.1080/13538322.2010.485740
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The Three Ps of Pedagogy for the Networked Society:
Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 20(1), 1027.
Mitchell, J. (2014). Academics Learning a New Language: Developing Communites of Practice in
Faculty Professional Development. The International Journal of Adult, Community, and
Professional Learning, 21(1), p 1-13. http://ijlacp.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.255/prod.42
Mitchell, M., & Reushle, S. (2013). Mobile learning and professional development: Future building
academic work in higher education. In H. Carter, M. Gosper, & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams.
Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney (pp. 588597). Macquarie University.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Mitchell.php
Neary, M. (2006). Student as Producer: A Pedagogy for the Avant-Garde; or, how do revolutionary
teachers teach? Society.
Pegrum, M., Oakley, G., & Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of
mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(1), 6681.
http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/64/25
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2013). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: a
critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education Research &
Development, 116. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.841643
Rourke, A., & Coleman, K. (2010). Knowledge building in 21st century: Learners, learning and
educational practice. In C. Steel, M. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum,
technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 821
828). Sydney: ASCILITE. Retrieved from
http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Rourke-concise.pdf
Ryan, J., & Viete, R. (2009). Respectful Interactions: learning with international students in the English
speaking academy. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 303314.
doi:10.1080/13562510902898866
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring
intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstedes cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher
Education, 14(3), 253264. doi:10.1080/13562510902898825
Simons, H. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Panacea or over promise? Research Papers in Education,
18(4), 303311. In Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2013). Using technology for teaching and learning in
higher education: a critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education
Research & Development, 116.
Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The third -order barrier for technology-integration instruction:
Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(Special
Issue 6), 10571060. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/tsai-cc.html
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a Mobile Age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,
1(March), 112. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/171500/Learning_in_a_Mobile_Age
Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V., & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and
learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 1937. doi:10.1007/s11423009-9128-7
University Of Western Australia, Teaching Criteria Framework.
http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/new_pages/teaching/criteria#framework
Vavoula, G., Pachler, N., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2011). Researching Mobile Learning. Frameworks,
Tools and Research Designs. (G. Vavoula, N. Pachler, & A. Kukulska-Hulme, Eds.) (p. 367).
Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang.
Watson, J., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2011). Digital natives and digital media in the college classroom:
assignment design and impacts on student learning. Educational Media International, 48(4), 307
320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.632278

International foundation student experiences and outcomes, May 2016

Page 17