Computers in the Schools

Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research

ISSN: 0738-0569 (Print) 1528-7033 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Promoting Student-Centered Learning Using iPads

in a Grade 1 Classroom: Using the Digital Didactic
Framework to Deconstruct Instruction

Vera Ella Woloshyn, Mira Bajovic & Melissa Maney Worden

To cite this article: Vera Ella Woloshyn, Mira Bajovic & Melissa Maney Worden (2017)
Promoting Student-Centered Learning Using iPads in a Grade 1 Classroom: Using the Digital
Didactic Framework to Deconstruct Instruction, Computers in the Schools, 34:3, 152-167, DOI:
10.1080/07380569.2017.1346456

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1346456

Published online: 17 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 341

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcis20
COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS
, VOL. , NO. , –
https://doi.org/./..

Promoting Student-Centered Learning Using iPads in a

Grade  Classroom: Using the Digital Didactic Framework
to Deconstruct Instruction
Vera Ella Woloshyna , Mira Bajovica , and Melissa Maney Wordenb
a
Faculty of Education, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada; b Elementary School Teacher,
Niagara Catholic District School Board, Welland, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this qualitative case study, we provide a series of vignettes Affective, cognitive, and
illustrating a Grade 1 teacher’s experiences integrating iPad technical scaffolding;
technology into her instruction over a school year. We use the didactical model; grade ;
iPads
digital didactic model to deconstruct these vignettes and draw
upon the teacher’s reflections to gain further insights about her
instructional experiences using iPads. We highlight the effective
use of cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding for encour-
aging students to take risks, explore multiple solution paths, and
become independent learners. We emphasize the criticality of
student-centered learning environments for collaboration and
knowledge sharing and discuss how iPads can be integrated into
the curriculum.

Technology has become increasingly prevalent in the lives of students, with the
majority of children 8 years of age and under having access to home-based mobile
touch-screen devices including iPads (Common Sense Media, 2013). Increased
access to these technologies has in part instigated interest among scholars to explore
the use of various technological tools in educational settings. When students engage
with technology in meaningful ways, they are provided with opportunities to learn
multiple concepts and skills at deep levels including how to navigate and use infor-
mation from across divergent sources as well as how to collaborate with others
(Kress, 2010). Recently, educational researchers have focused on exploring ways in
which educators can integrate iPad use in meaningful ways into classroom instruc-
tion, with the digital didactic model providing one such framework (Jahnke &
Kumar, 2014).
While many schools have put forth considerable resources to integrate technolo-
gies into classrooms, questions arise about educators’ preparedness to engage in this
type of instruction. Research suggests that, while most teachers believe that they
possess general knowledge about digital technologies including iPads, they also

CONTACT Vera Ella Woloshyn, Professor of Education, Ph.D. vwoloshyn@brocku.ca  Sir Isaac Brock Way,
Faculty of Education, Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario, LS A Canada.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 153

experience uncertainty about their capabilities for meaningfully integrating such

technologies into their instruction (Hutchinson & Reinking, 2011; Hutchison, &
Woodward, 2014; Polly, Mims, Shepard, & Inan, 2010). Educators’ concerns include
the lack of professional development opportunities related to integrating tech-
nology into instruction, access to appropriate resources, and understanding how
to evaluate students’ ability to use target technologies. As a result, new technolo-
gies including iPads often are offered as supplemental activities to the traditional
pen and paper curriculum or as entertainment (Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009;
Wohlwend, 2010).
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to describe and deconstruct how a
Grade 1 teacher integrated iPads into her classroom. We provide a series of vignettes
to illustrate the ways in which iPad technology was integrated into the classroom and
deconstruct this instruction in context of the digital didactic model. We also dis-
cuss how cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding was used to support learning
activities. Specific questions associated with this study include:
1. How does a Grade 1 teacher incorporate iPads into the classroom within the
context of the digital didactic model?
2. How are cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolds used to support iPad
instruction in the classroom?

Background
Emergent research using iPads in K-12 classrooms documents their capacity
to strengthen students’ learning motivation, collaboration, engagement, and
productivity (Hutchinson, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Milman,
Carlson-Bancroft, & Boogart, 2014). Specifically, iPads provide students with
opportunities to engage in dynamic, multimodal learning experiences inde-
pendently or with others (Henderson & Yeow, 2012). The portability of iPads
(lightweight and handheld) also provides students with extended opportunities to
participate in meaningful activities across time and place (Neumann & Neumann,
2014; O’Mara & Laidlaw, 2011). In these ways, iPads support learning as they are
“easy to use, have a positive impact on students’ engagement, increasing motivation,
enthusiasm, interest, independence and self-regulation, creativity and improved
productivity” (Clark & Luckin, 2013, p. 4). Unfortunately, students may not expe-
rience these learning benefits fully as iPad use often is limited to supplementing
or enhancing traditional instructional activities versus elevating and extending
learning possibilities in ways that promote multimodal learning and knowledge
demonstration (Helleve, 2013; Hutchinson & Reinking, 2011; Wohlwend, 2010).
The digital didactical model provides an effective framework for integrating iPads
into classroom instruction. The digital didactical model focuses on specific ele-
ments of the instructional process, differing from other models such as TPACK
that emphasize the integration of content, technical, and pedagogical knowledge
(Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013). Jahnke and Kumar (2014) defined didactical design
154 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

as a process that involves well-defined learning goals, well-articulated plans for

achieving those goals, multiple formats of formative feedback and assessment, and
social relationships between and among students and teachers. Digital didactical
design encompasses all of these elements with the additional integration of educa-
tional technology. When using the digital didactic model, teachers define intended
learning goals, structure student learning activities, identify assessment processes,
and consider social roles and relationships between and among students and them-
selves. Equally important, digital didactical instruction requires the integration of
interactive technologies (including iPads) into instructional and learning activi-
ties in order to create an enriched learning environment (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014).
Jahnke, Norqvist, and Olson (2014) qualified that students’ engagement and learning
are enhanced to the extent that there is constructive alignment among these five ele-
ments. Teachers who engage in digital didactical design promote “learning-centered
processes” where process is valued over product, and knowledge demonstration is
valued over knowledge reproduction (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014, p. 87).
Northrup and Killeen (2013) argued that effective integration of iPads into pri-
mary grade instruction should be a sequential and layered process, and should
involve teacher modeling and scaffolding of content and process. As part of their
work with young learners, Northrup and Killeen (2013) outlined an instructional
process in which teachers first used direct instruction and modeling to introduce
a critical concept and then repeated this process to introduce supporting technol-
ogy software or iPad applications. Teachers then guided students in their efforts to
engage in new learning activities, providing opportunities for formative feedback
(teacher, peer, self) and differentiated instruction. Throughout these interactions,
teachers provided students with cognitive scaffolding intended to enhance their
conceptual and procedural understandings of the tasks at hand, as well as affec-
tive scaffolding intended to provide them with positive encouragement and enhance
their efforts, capabilities, and commitment to the learning activities (McManis &
Gunnewig, 2012; Neumann & Neumann, 2014; Yelland & Masters, 2007). Teacher
guided instruction and scaffolding were slowly minimized and eventually with-
drawn as students’ independent and collaborative practice increased.
Students also benefit from iPad features (i.e., technical scaffolds) that provide
technological support and guidance along with cognitive and affective scaffolding
(Neumann & Neumann, 2014; Yelland & Masters, 2007). For example, built-in fea-
tures (e.g., automated camera and video focus features, accelerometer, autocorrect
spelling and grammar functions) assist students to use iPads successfully and pro-
duce high-quality productions (Murray & Olcese, 2011). Many games and apps
include visual and audio reinforcements (e.g., points, music, applause) that signify
achievement and mastery of skill sets (e.g., level advancement). Such technical scaf-
folds in part facilitate students’ independent use of iPads and reduce the need for
adult presence and guidance (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).
In this study, we provide a series of vignettes that illustrate the evolving ways in
which one Grade 1 teacher integrated iPad technology into her instruction across
a school year, using the digital didactic model to deconstruct key elements of this
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 155

instruction. We also highlight the importance of cognitive, affective, and technical

scaffolding, and social interaction. We draw upon the teacher’s reflections to gain
further insights about these experiences and provide general recommendations for
practice.

Method
The study evolved from a larger ethnographic naturalistic study exploring children’s
responses to iPads in early childhood education settings (Harwood, 2017). In this
study, we present five vignettes illustrating one Grade 1 teacher’s efforts to integrate
iPads into her instruction and her students’ responses to this instruction.

Research design and theoretical framework

Qualitative research offers a strong methodological framework for understanding

socially constructed experiences (Creswell, 2011). Case study provides opportunity
for in-depth description and exploration of experiences within authentic “real-life
contemporary context or setting” that are bounded by time and place (Creswell,
2011, p. 97). The use of case study is appropriate when there is a lack of understand-
ings of phenomena and a desire to analyze unexplored details in order to inform
practice (Yin, 2009.) Thus, we used qualitative case study design to deconstruct crit-
ical teaching instances across time in context of the digital didactic model.

Participants and classroom context

Seventeen Grade 1 students (9 boys and 8 girls) and their classroom teacher, Nancy,
participated in this study. Nancy was an experienced teacher, with over 20 years of
teaching in kindergarten and early childcare settings. This, however, was her first
year in a Grade 1 classroom. At the time of this study, Nancy’s school was a recent
recipient of a government grant that provided her classroom with a set of iPads and
other technologies (e.g., Apple TV).

Data collection and analysis

Naturalistic observations comprised the primary data for this study. Research obser-
vation requires nonjudgmental attitudes with sincere interests in learning more
about others, and enables researchers to learn about participants in their natural set-
tings through viewing and documenting (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). Two researchers
and three research assistants completed 15 classroom visits between October 2015
and May 2016, with two members of the research team attending each visit. Each
visit was approximately two hours, with researchers independently collecting field
notes and supplementary photos and videos. Researchers’ field notes were merged
for data analysis. Three semi-structured interviews (October and December 2015,
156 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

May 2016) also were completed with Nancy in which her perceptions and expe-
riences integrating iPads in her instruction were explored. The interviews ranged
between 45 to 60 minutes and were audio recorded and transcribed for subsequent
analysis.
Data analysis consisted of independently reading and rereading field notes
and interview transcripts, and viewing and reviewing photographs and video
recordings. We used deductive and inductive coding methods to seek out evidence
representative of the digital didactical model and cognitive, affective, and technical
scaffolds. We then met to share and make meaning of our observations and instruc-
tional interpretations (Creswell, 2011; Yin, 2009). Nancy confirmed the accuracy
of the vignettes and findings presented here (i.e., member check), enhancing study
trustworthiness and transferability (Creswell, 2011).

Instructional vignettes
The vignettes presented here exemplify the didactic digital instructional framework
as it unfolded across multiple extended learning units. The vignettes also provide
evidence of the evolving nature of iPad integration and the intensified use of techni-
cal scaffolding (in addition to cognitive and affective scaffolding) across the school
year.

Vignette 1
Mapping with iPads
Nancy invited the children to sit on the carpet and asked them how they could use
an address to find a place in the community. One child responded “a map” and the
class continued to discuss how to use maps and their symbols (e.g., lines, arrows,
colors). Nancy suggested that the children make a map of the school and asked them
to brainstorm about what they could include in their maps. Nancy projected a map
of an amusement park and explained that every map should have a title, a legend,
and definitions of symbols.
The children suggested that they could use the iPad camera to take pictures of the
school. Nancy divided the class into four groups, explaining that each group would
create a map to a specific location in the school and that they could use the iPad
cameras to assist with their mapping. The children discussed the importance of tak-
ing pictures of the classroom door as the starting point. They then took pictures of
the library, reception area, wall pictures, and door signs. After they returned to the
classroom, the children took turns drawing their maps and recording landmarks in
the legend. The following day, after reviewing an interactive picture book demon-
strating key mapping concepts, Nancy asked the children how they could determine
the accuracy of their maps. The children suggested that they “field test” each other’s
maps, providing constructive feedback about any difficulties (e.g., lack of direction
arrows). (Field notes, November 17 & 18, 2015)
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 157

Vignette 2
Creating school videos with iMovie: Day 
Nancy called the students to review a class video that they made earlier in the year
(using the iMovie app) in response to a board-wide contest to demonstrate inclusive
practices. After viewing the video, Nancy prompted the students to recall the vari-
ous themes contained in the video (e.g., caring, acceptance, respect) as well as some
of the challenges associated with video recording (e.g., voice, rapid movement) and
encouraged them to consider the purpose of creating the video (i.e., communica-
tion). Nancy guided the children in a discussion about the importance of having
an identified topic when creating a video as well as considering the intended audi-
ence. The students suggested various topics for videos and potential audiences, with
a small group of students announcing that they would create a video about “being
healthy.” Nancy used this example to question the students about planning consid-
erations for their videos and printed the words “Idea,” “Audience,” and “Characters”
on the whiteboard.
Nancy assigned the students to small groups (four to five students) with instruc-
tions to brainstorm a topic and develop an outline (paper) for their video. Students
were encouraged to developed any supporting materials (e.g., text scripts, pictures)
and rehearse their performances (e.g., dialogues, demonstrations, singing). Stu-
dents were informed that they needed to show Nancy their plan before they began
recording.
Students quickly engaged in the planning process and worked until recess. Three
boys and two girls began by brainstorming potential topics including “books,”
“safety,” “mermaids,” and “sharing.” They agreed that kindergarten children were an
ideal audience and selected the theme How to Act in School. The students gener-
ated ideas including “how to read and put books away,” “how to sit at carpet and put
up hand,” “how to cough properly and wash hands,” and “how to share.” They drew
quick sketches on paper and printed a few words to record their thoughts.
Nancy invited each group to share their decisions about topic and audience.
She asked them about additional planning needed for their videos, reinforcing
and encouraging the students to “stretch out” their initial ideas. Students returned
to their groups and resumed working on their videos. (Field notes, January 27,
2016)

Creating school videos with iMovie: Day 

Nancy called the students to the carpet and asked them to share their progress from
yesterday. She asked them about procedures needed to ensure a quality video. Sev-
eral students suggested that they needed to practice and Nancy concurred, indicat-
ing that it will be especially important to speak loudly and check the volume of their
recordings. She reviewed the initial work of two groups asking the students to pro-
vide constructive comments when questioned: “Is it clear?” “Is it loud?” “What was
done well?” A star sticker was placed on top of the camera lens on each iPad as a posi-
tional guide (i.e., star should be pointed at actors’ faces; actors to look at the star).
158 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

Students spread out throughout the classroom and hallways to film and check the
quality of their vignettes. They identified any missing elements (e.g., title pages, rule
statements, prompts). Students took turns filming each other. Interested students
worked with adult helpers to navigate the iMovie app to coordinate scenes, select
background music, and create transition slides. The students viewed each other’s
videos, providing feedback related to content and production quality. They returned
to their groups to complete final edits and invited the kindergarten children to view
the videos two days later. (Field notes, January 28, 2016)

Vignette 3

Using Keynote for measurement

Nancy called students to the front of the classroom and introduced them to Cathy,
a Grade 6 teacher from a nearby school. Cathy indicated that she was aware that the
students were intending to share their knowledge of measurement with the kinder-
garten children. She explained that her Grade 6 students found the Keynote app to
be helpful for making presentations and that she wanted to show the students how
to use this app. (Cathy and Nancy had uploaded an incomplete presentation onto
the iPads earlier.)
Nancy distributed iPads to the students, while Cathy explained that they were to
watch her use Keynote and then repeat her actions on their iPads. Cathy began by
directing the students to the Keynote icon. Students assisted one another in locating
the app. She showed them how to find the partially completed presentation enti-
tled “Measurement.” She directed them to the title page function and showed stu-
dents how to enter their name by tapping on the name box. Students followed by
typing their names. Cathy showed the students the next slide. It contained a pic-
ture of her lunch. Cathy explained that whenever students saw the lunch picture,
they needed to edit the slide. Cathy then modelled how to access photos and replace
the lunch image. She directed the students to replace her lunch photo with that of
a desk contained in the photo file. She circulated among the students and assisted
them as necessary. She then showed the students how to enlarge the photo so that
it fit within the slide parameters. She directed students to find an appropriate photo
to complete the “No Overlap” measurement rule, with students working indepen-
dently or in small groups to complete the task. Cathy showed the students color,
music, and transition options, challenging them to incorporate a different element
into every slide. The students experimented and assisted one another in using these
options.
Cathy repeated this process, demonstrating how to insert a photo, written text,
and video. She reminded students that they had used the same processes when using
iMovie. She invited students to share initial ideas for their videos, reminding them
about factors that contribute to the quality of the video (e.g., voice, focus). Students
worked collaboratively to complete their videos. The students viewed each other’s
presentations later in the day before sharing with the kindergarten students. (Field
notes, March 2, 2016)
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 159

Vignette 4
Exploring the senses with Book Creator: Day 
Nancy guided the students in a discussion about the five senses, using manipulatives
to initiate conversation about sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste. After reviewing
the five senses, Nancy introduced the Book Creator app. She explained that students
would work in partners to write a story about the five senses. She explained that
students should include text, audio narratives, videos, and photos in their books.
Bonnie (Grade 1 teacher) used the projector to guide the students through the
Book Creator tutorial. Bonnie guided the students in making a cover page. The
students discussed the elements of a cover page and discussed possible titles for
their books. They took turns entering their titles. Bonnie and Nancy then modelled
how to change color, erase, and save pages. The students were very excited about
the drawing features. They worked diligently on their pictures, taking turns and
helping one another while sharing ideas. Nancy circulated among the students and
responded to their questions. Bonnie continued introducing app features and func-
tions including how to add text, pages, photos, sounds, and audio recordings. The
students worked on their books, requiring minimal assistance. (Field notes, March
24, 2016)

Exploring the senses with Book Creator: Day 

Nancy and Bonnie led the students in a review of the five senses and Book Creator
functions that they used yesterday. The students watched a brief video reviewing
descriptive words about the five senses. Bonnie printed the names of the five senses
on the board and drew corresponding pictures. The students continued to work on
their books, with their teachers encouraging them to include descriptive words. In
one corner, two girls took pictures of each other’s hands, ears, and noses, and added
the photos to their book. They brainstormed about what to print and typed “I can
touch cats with my hands,” under the photo of their hands. One then suggested that
they should draw a cat. They worked to complete a cat drawing, exchanging the
iPad back and forth. They then typed “I can taste apples with my tongue” under
the photo of their tongues and “I can see things with my eyes,” under the picture
of their eyes. Bonnie and Nancy encouraged the students to seek out resources in
the classroom if they had spelling questions. They assisted those who experienced
difficulties with app functions and provided formative feedback to other students.
Students completed their books and shared them with each other over the next few
days. (Field notes, March 25, 2016)

Vignette 5
Sharing conservation ideas using iPad applications
Over two days, the students created a mural about energy and brainstormed and
recorded ways that they could conserve energy. Nancy led the students in a review of
three apps–Keynote, iMovie, and Book Creator–as well as their conservation ideas.
160 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

The Grade 6 students arrived and were paired with the Grade 1 students. Nancy
reminded all the students that they were to select one of the three apps and that
they should review their notes for presentation ideas. They also needed to make a
decision about their intended audience and primary message. She explained that
the Grade 6 students would provide technical and typing assistance as needed. The
students scattered throughout the classroom, hallways, and playground to work on
their presentations. They worked with their partners or with other dyads to take
pictures (e.g., water taps, sky, flowers), create videos (e.g., running water), and make
props (e.g., paper fans). The students shared their work with one another and the
Grade 6 guests. They continued to work throughout the morning, sharing their fin-
ished productions the next day with the kindergarten children. (Field notes, May
25, 2016)

Findings and discussion

In the following section, we deconstruct the vignettes provided here and discuss the
ways in which elements of the digital didactic model (teaching objectives, learning
activities, feedback and assessment, social relations, iPad integration) were enacted.
While we present these elements as discrete, we acknowledge their interconnected-
ness and fluidity in instructional practice. We also discuss the many ways in which
Nancy and her students engaged in cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding.

Teaching objectives

Student-centered, inquiry-based pedagogy provided the foundation for all learning

activities presented here. Nancy developed varied content-related teaching objec-
tives including developing mapping skills, practicing self-care and safety habits,
applying measurement rules, and learning about the five senses. Nancy also devel-
oped several teaching objectives related to iPad features (camera, video) and
selected apps (iMovie, Keynote, Book Creator). Overarching objectives included
student engagement in problem solving, planning, and communication skills. Nancy
described these skills as essential to students’ learning success:
Exploring, experimenting, and problem solving are very necessary. I see these as tools. They
need all those skills … because things are only going to get more complicated. They need
those basic skills of figuring things out, persevering, and working with other people.
… They need to know how to learn and how to teach themselves. … They need to start
taking ownership for their learning. (Initial Interview, October 22, 2015)

Nancy placed different emphases on content and technology-based learning

objectives, sometimes emphasizing content and knowledge demonstration (e.g.,
Vignette 1), sometimes emphasizing technology skills (e.g., Vignette 3), and other
times emphasizing both (e.g., Vignette 4). Teaching objectives were developed so
that students could carry forward and build upon previous knowledge and skills.
For instance, as students gained proficiency in the use of the iPad and its features
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 161

(camera, video), they transferred and extended the use of these functions across
new apps (i.e., Keynote, Book Creator). Nancy emphasized the importance of having
students engage with apps that were transferrable across multiple learning activities
“That’s why we introduced them to those [apps]. You can use them for any subject
area” (Exit Interview, May 21, 2016) consistent with effective practice related to app
selection and use (e.g., Israelson, 2015).
Establishing well-defined learning goals and well-articulated plans for achieving
these goals is integral to the digital didactical model (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014). Across
the vignettes, Nancy defined learning goals and articulated plans for reaching these
goals. In all instances, learning goals were meaningful and authentic. They were not
limited to one correct answer and supported critical thinking, creativity, collabora-
tion, and knowledge sharing.

Learning activities

Students engaged in varied and interconnected learning as part of whole-class,

small-group, and independent activities that extended across print and digital
media. For instance, working first in groups and then independently, students
used school and community photos taken on the iPad to serve as landmarks when
developing paper-and-pen directional maps. They also worked in small groups
to brainstorm potential topics and audience for an informational video, creating
paper drawings, phrases, and short sentences to elaborate their content ideas prior
to rehearsing and video recording. The learning activities were authentic, problem
focused, and inquiry based, providing students with opportunities to engage in
critical and creative thinking. Students were involved in meaningful planning
activities and worked collaboratively to find solutions to challenges about the topic
or the technology at hand. In many instances, the students took turns using iPads
and worked equitably to complete activities.
Nancy believed that having her young students engage in pen-and-paper writ-
ing was critical to their development as readers and writers, qualifying that print
removed potential obstacles associated with keyboarding and small screens, and she
encouraged them to engage in free writing activities. “They physically need to be
writing. If they can write it, they can read it. With the iPad, they can’t get that free
flow writing going. I feel that’s really important for this age group,” she explained
(Exit Interview, May 21, 2016). Nancy also acknowledged students’ varied prefer-
ences for working in either modality, “I think for some of the kids it [iPads] engaged
them more and then there were other kids who liked pen and paper,” and stressed
the importance of providing students with choices when completing activities. In
this way, Nancy encouraged students to move between print and digital modalities
and supported fluidity here (Stein, 2007; Walsh & Simpson, 2013).
Regardless of modality, Nancy structured learning activities in ways that invited
and promoted students’ independent inquiry and knowledge demonstration con-
sistent with the principles of didactical instruction. All observed learning activi-
ties focused more on the process of learning and guided practice than on the final
162 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

product, reinforcing the importance of knowledge demonstration over knowledge

reproduction (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014).

Feedback and assessment

Knowledge sharing and knowledge demonstration were integral across all learning
activities, with students receiving formative feedback from their teacher, class-
mates, adult helpers, and other grade peers. Nancy completed informal diagnostic
assessments to assess students’ prior knowledge, understanding, and possible mis-
conceptions at the beginning of each learning activity, basing the introduction of
new information on their existing knowledge and understandings. Process-based
assessment was evident throughout the vignettes (Russell, Elton, Swinglehurst, &
Greenhalgh, 2006), with Nancy providing frequent feedback about students’ learn-
ing processes as well as their productions. Typically Nancy segmented learning
activities into smaller, sequential tasks, with students receiving formative feedback
for each element. Students also received formative feedback from older peers and
adult helpers. Sometimes, this feedback was formal (e.g., draft submissions), but
more often it was informal. Nancy explained that she often had students complete
their drafts in print as it provided a permanent document of their work and cir-
cumvented assessment challenges associated with students’ tendency to delete work
that they found unsatisfactory from the iPads. She then encouraged students to
transfer their work to the iPads for continued development, fostering digital-print
interconnectivities (e.g., Stein, 2007).
They erase it [work] on the iPads and I have nothing left … [on paper] they cannot erase it
and I can see their thought processes … they muck around, erase, and redesign it on paper
and then put the good design on the iPads. (Mid-year Interview, December 15, 2015)

Students also served as a critical source of constructive feedback for one another.
For instance, Nancy worked with the whole class to guide students in providing
constructive feedback (i.e., strengths as well as areas for improvement) and in cele-
brating one another’s successes when viewing iMovie productions. In the same way,
kindergarten children and older students, teachers, and school staff were invited
to view students’ digital and print productions. Receiving and providing feedback
became an integral and ongoing part of the learning process that helped students in
refining their skills in context of the teaching objectives (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;
Shute, 2008).

Social relations
Students engaged in collaborative learning activities with partners and small groups
regularly. At times, Nancy determined group membership while at other times
students selected their partners. Nancy encouraged collaboration by providing
students with opportunities to share ideas, make decisions, and participate actively
in the learning process (Johnson & Delawsky, 2013). Students routinely sought out
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 163

and provided assistance to one another, Nancy, and adult helpers including older
peers. Assistance-seeking behaviors also included consulting print resources in the
classroom (e.g., word walls, number charts, bulletin boards, texts). In these ways,
expertise was shared between Nancy and her students, with students also serving
as experts for one another, Nancy, and others in the classroom. Student interactions
also extended to outside the classroom, with senior-grade students often providing
individual support to the Grade 1 students, presumably strengthening all students’
sense of belonging and school community (Osterman, 2010). Nancy also viewed the
presence of older students, adult helpers, and her colleagues as critical for students’
sustained work with the iPads, explaining that they were unlikely to remain on task
without such one-on-one assistance.
With the iPads … if I am not available to encourage them, or assist them, or ask them
questions … they will give up quickly and move on to something else. (Mid-year Interview,
December 15, 2015)
We have buddied with the Grade 1s and we have partners from other classes as well. We
have worked with the Grade 5s and Grade 6s. … They [students] would never be able to
do that by themselves. … They lose interest fast without someone keeping them going. If
they get stuck on something they are very quick to let it go, or start a game, or erase it.
They don’t have the perseverance to finish a task of that magnitude by themselves. (Exit
Interview, May 21, 2016)

Collectively, the vignettes provided here reflect collaborative processes involving

students and their teacher working effectively toward shared learning goals.

iPad integration

iPad use supported and extended students’ learning experiences across the learning
activities described here, with students oscillating between digital and print-based
modalities. In all but one instance (Vignette 1), iPad use provided students with
opportunities to engage in multimodal learning and knowledge demonstration in
ways that extended possibilities associated with print-based activities (i.e., maximal
integration; Jahnke & Kumar, 2014). For instance, students used iMovie to order
scenes, select background music, and create verbal narratives in ways that would
not have been possible through print or live presentation alone. In part, the extent
of iPad integration appeared connected to Nancy’s expressed knowledge and com-
fort using the technology. Specifically, Nancy expressed minimal comfort using the
iPad in the beginning of the school year: “I don’t feel like I have many strengths
to offer because I just got one [iPad] myself, so I really haven’t played with it on
my own” (Initial Interview, October 22, 2015). Her confidence grew throughout the
school year, “I’m definitely more comfortable, but I know that I have lots more to do”
(Mid-year Interview, December 15, 2015). By the end of the school year, she
expressed comfort with experimenting and problem solving independently:
There are things that are still coming up [unknown], but because I have done different
things now … I am a little more confident to fool around. Before, I felt that I would break
it or something … and just not know how to try and solve my problem. But now, the more
164 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

problems I run into, the more problems I can figure out how to solve. (Exit Interview, May
21, 2016)

Technology integration evolved in meaningful ways as Nancy’s self-reported

increased capabilities using the iPads and associated technologies over the course of
the school year demonstrate, emphasizing the importance of teachers’ self-efficacy
(Minshew & Anderson, 2015; Tweed, 2013).

Cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding

Within each of the vignettes, students experienced varied levels of cognitive, affec-
tive, and technical scaffolding. The most prevalent form of scaffolding involved
teacher modeling and guided instruction related to cognitive processes required
for the completion of learning activities. Nancy used varied scaffolding techniques
including question answering, brainstorming, and viewing materials (e.g., books,
videos, websites) to activate and provide students with relevant prior knowledge
for the tasks at hand, and to form connections between new information and their
existing knowledge/understandings. In addition, she provided them with positive
feedback when they were successful and praised them for their efforts while simulta-
neously encouraging them to solve problems independently when they experienced
challenges.
Over time, Nancy also came to provide students with cognitive scaffolding related
to iPad features and specific apps. For instance, prior to having students complete
their safety videos, Nancy had them review a video production that they had com-
pleted previously in order to identify production elements that either enhanced (e.g.,
speaking loudly, looking directly at the camera, adjusting background sound) or
detracted (e.g., speaking unclearly, filming quick movements, recording in a noisy
background) from the quality of the video. She then used students’ prior experiences
to guide them in a discussion about the importance of topic and audience.
The level of technical scaffolding intensified when students were introduced to a
new application and when Nancy had the opportunity to engage in co-instruction.
For instance, Cathy provided students with direct instruction (i.e., watch and repeat)
related to Keynote functions and features (e.g., text, photo and video insertions, slide
transitions) while Nancy circulated among students to provide individual support
as required. With continued practice, direct instruction gave way to guided practice
(e.g., when Nancy used the projector to prompt students about specific Book Creator
functions when writing about the senses). Other prompts were less structured (e.g.,
placing a sticker above the iPad camera lens to guide students’ positioning). In these
ways, Nancy provided students with direct and guided instruction for both content
and tablet use consistent with Northrup and Killeen’s (2013) recommendations.
According to Yelland and Masters (2007), cognitive and affective scaffolds are
important in encouraging students to take risks and to explore multiple solutions.
In the vignettes herein, students also provided cognitive and affective support
to one another. Nancy encouraged students to be independent learners and to
seek assistance and support from one another. To this end, she guided them
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 165

in providing praise, positive reinforcement, and constructive feedback. Older

students also served as important learning coaches, providing the Grade 1 students
with individualized attention and encouragement. In addition to cognitive and
affective scaffolding, the iPads and their apps also provided technical scaffolding
to students. For example, using Book Creator edit functions (e.g., eraser) enabled
students to refine and check their own and one another’s work readily. Technical
scaffolds appeared to encourage students to be independent learners and produce
high-quality productions (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012; Murray & Olcese, 2011).
Finally, Nancy indicated that she benefited professionally from opportunities to
engage with iPads as well as observe and seek assistance from colleagues and older
students:
When I was stuck she [colleague] was there to support me. If you’re by yourself and you
have twenty kids staring at you, you’re going to give up and go onto something else. … to
have her there to support and help and me get through the little things so that I could learn,
so that I could do it on my own. (Exit Interview, May 2, 2016)

These shared instructional opportunities served to reinforce the value of scaf-

folding both content knowledge and technology use, with Nancy expressing a com-
mitment to engage in this type of direct instruction early in the subsequent school
year:
They [students] really needed some explicit teaching about how to use it [Keynote]. And
when she [colleague] had done that and I saw how well it worked, it made me think it was
the way to go. Next year, I am going to do explicit teaching [of technology] and I will start
right away and not wait. (Exit Interview, May 21, 2016)

By effectively using cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding, Nancy was able
to encourage students to collaborate, problem solve, and share ideas freely. Similarly,
she gained from opportunities to work collaboratively with colleagues, enhancing
her confidence with using technology and supporting students’ efforts.

Conclusion
The case study presented here described how one Grade 1 teacher integrated iPads
into her instruction and demonstrated the potential of using Pads to promote
student-centered, problem-based learning. We framed iPad use within the digital
didactical model, noting that iPad integration was optimized as the teacher’s and
students’ confidence with technology increased. We illustrated cognitive, affective,
and technical scaffolding, emphasizing the importance of providing students with
direct instruction and scaffolding as related to technology use. The findings of this
study align with prior research (Jahnke & Kumar, 2014) and reaffirm that teachers
who engage in digital didactical design encourage student-centered learning and
place greater emphasis on knowledge demonstration than on knowledge reproduc-
tion.
Collectively, the teacher and students in this study worked to create an authen-
tic, inquiry-based learning environment that supported the development of
166 V. E. WOLOSHYN ET AL.

21st-century skills. While we acknowledge that this study is limited with respect
to its inclusion of only one Grade 1 teacher working within a classroom of 17
students, we believe that the findings of this case study provide some insights about
how iPads can be integrated into the primary curriculum in ways that promote
meaningful multimodal learning. And as we urge for continued research exploring
the experiences of other primary grade educators, we remain optimistic about
the potential of iPads to provide teachers and students with a powerful learning
tool.

References
Clark, W., & Luckin, R. (2013). What the research says: iPads in the classroom. London
Knowledge Lab Report. Retrieved from https://digitalteachingandlearning.files. wordpress.
com/2013/03/ipads-in-the-classroom-report-lkl.pdf
Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. Com-
mon sense. Retrieved from: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-
childrens-media-use-in-america-2013#
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dewalt, K. M., & Dewalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. New York,
NY: Altamira Press.
Harwood, D. (Ed.). (2017). Crayons and iPads: Learning and teaching of young children in the
digital world. London, UK: Sage.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. doi:10.1111/peps.12161
Helleve, I. (2013). The networked classroom - Socially unconnected. Education Inquiry, 4(2),
395–412. doi:10.3402/edui.v4i2.22080
Henderson, S., & Yeow, J. (2012). iPad in education: A case study of iPad adoption and use in a
primary school. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (pp.78–87). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronic Engineers (IEEE). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.390
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for
literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01090
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and com-
munication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States.
Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. doi:10.1002/RRQ.002
Hutchison, A. C., & Woodward, L. (2014). An examination of how a teacher’s use of digital tools
empowers and constrains language arts instruction. Computers in the Schools, 31(4), 316–338.
doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.967629
Israelson, M. H. (2015). The App map: A tool for systematic evaluation of apps for early literacy
learning. Reading Teacher, 69(3), 339–349. doi:10.1002/trtr.1414
Jahnke, I., & Kumar, S. (2014). Digital didactical designs: Teachers’ integration of iPads for
learning-centered processes. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 81–88.
doi:10.1080/21532974.2014.891876
Jahnke, I., Norqvist, L., & Olsson, A. (2014). Digital didactical designs of learning expeditions.
In C. Rensing, S. de Freitas, T. Ley, & P. J. Muñoz-Merino (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Open learning and teaching in
educational communities (pp. 165–178). Cham, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
11200-8
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 167

Johnson, C. S., & Delawsky, S. (2013). Project-based learning and student engagement. Academic
Research International, 4(4), 560–571.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
London, UK: Routledge.
McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with
early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14–24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01323.x
Milman, N. B., Carlson-Bancroft, A., & Boogart, A. V. (2014). Examining differentiation and uti-
lization of iPads across content areas in an independent, PreK-4th grade elementary school.
Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 119–133. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.931776
Minshew, L., & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy in 1:1 iPad integration in middle school
science and math classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
15(3), 334–367.
Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not? TechTrends,
55(6), 42–48. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0540-6
Neumann, S., & Neumann, D. (2014). Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood
Education, 42(4), 231–239. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0608-3
Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A framework for using iPads to build early literacy skills. The
Reading Teacher, 66(7), 531–537. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1155
O’Mara, J., & Laidlaw, L. (2011). Living in the iworld: Two literacy researchers reflect on the
changing texts and literacy practices of childhood. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
10(4), 149–159.
Osterman, K. F. (2010). Teacher practice and students’ sense of belonging. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey,
& N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student well-
being (pp. 239–260). Dordrecht, London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8675-4
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher
education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024
Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in
assessment for learning: A case-study of a web-based course in primary care. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 465–478. doi:10.1080/02602930600679209
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
Stein, P. (2007). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights and resources.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for strug-
gling writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284–295. doi:10.1598/RT.63.4.3
Tweed, S. R. (2013). Technology implementation: Teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and profes-
sional development as related to classroom technology integration (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). Johnson City, TN: East Tennessee State University.
Walsh, M., & Simpson, A. (2013). Touching, tapping … thinking? Examining the dynamic mate-
riality of touch pad devices for literacy learning. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy,
36(3), 148–157. doi:10.1111/lit.12009
Wohlwend, K. E. (2010). A is for avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and literacy 1.0
schools. Language Arts, 88(2), 144–152.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers &
Education, 48(3), 362–382. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.