SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS' VIEWS ON THE USE OF TABLET ...

SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS ON THE USE OF TABLET COMPUTERS IN LEARNING AND TEACHING–A

SOUTH AFRICAN CASE STUDY AT A UNIVERSITY

SIMON CHRISTOPHER FERNANDEZ

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

for

THE DEGREE

of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (EDUCATION)

in the

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

at the

UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE

SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR K. J. MAMMEN

2019

i

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

I, Simon Christopher Fernandez, student number 201716824, hereby declare that I

am fully aware of the University of Fort Hare’s policy on plagiarism and I have taken

every measure to comply with the policy.

Signature Date: 04-01-2019

ii

ETHICAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

I, Simon Christopher Fernandez, student number 201716824, hereby declare that I

am fully aware of the University of Fort Hare’s policy on research ethics and I have

taken every precaution to comply with the regulations. I have obtained an ethical

clearance certificate from the University of Fort Hare’s Research Ethics Committee

and my reference number is MAM111SFER01

Signature Date: 04-01-2019

iii

ABSTRACT

The popularity of mobile technologies has greatly influenced the people of all ages,

especially adolescents. Tablet computers as part of mobile technologies, were

launched in colleges and universities in many countries to supplement and

complement learning and teaching. However, research reports based on the

effectiveness of the use of tablet computers in higher education institutions in South

Africa’s Eastern Cape Province are scarce. In order to address the deficiency, this

study examined the views of stakeholders such as students, lecturers and managers

on the use of tablet computers for learning and teaching in one of the Eastern Cape

universities. The research adopted the Post-Positivist paradigm and mixed method

approach. The theoretical frameworks were Constructivism and Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The sample consisted of (a) 155 students from a

population of 254 extended-stream National Diploma students in Information and

Communication Technology and National Diploma Electrical Engineering cohorts; (b)

14 lecturers from a relevant population of 25; and, (c) 16 managers from a

population of 20. Three separate questionnaires as well as interview protocols for

each of the stakeholder cohorts provided the core data. All members in the sample

were surveyed. The researcher opted to be an outsider and received assistance

from a few qualified trained academics to administer the questionnaire to students in

different cohorts in order to minimise data bias. Only 18 students, five lecturers and

nine managers were interviewed. Quantitative data were captured manually into

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 24) and they were analysed using

descriptive and inferential analysis: Analysis of Variance and Independent Samples

t-test. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to

generate major themes and sub themes for the sub-research questions. Main

strengths of using tablets from the findings of the study were (a) tablets motivated

students in learning and lecturers in teaching (b) students understood the different

styles of learning (c) enhanced students’ engagement and collaboration in learning.

Main weakness of using tablets were students’ use of tablets for personal work and

social networking during class hours was causing distractions to lecturers and other

students. Generally, the evidence shows that strengths were greater than the

weaknesses. It should also be noted that all stakeholders were positive and not

statistically significantly different from each other in their views towards the use of

iv

tablets for learning and teaching in university classroom. However, students had

views different from lecturers on the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets.

The variance could be due to new students or new lecturers’ ignorance in the

effective use of tablets and this might change as their familiarity in the use of the

device improves. The research report makes a few recommendations which include

training to all students and lecturers on the effective use of tablet computers for

learning and teaching and installation of relevant applications before the

commencement of each academic year. Moreover, the Information and

communication technology technical staff must prevent students from visiting

unwanted and restricted sites by keeping a network based tracker and blocker

software application.

Keywords: use of tablet computers, mobile technology, stakeholders’ views, teaching

and learning

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank the almighty God immensely for all the favour,

grace and blessings showered upon me to complete the PhD degree successfully.

My deep gratitude goes to my supervisor Prof. K. J. Mammen, who

scrupulously went through my research and offered valuable and constructive

criticisms at various stages of my study. His valuable advices, suggestions and

encouragements contributed incalculably to the success of this project.

A great appreciation and thanks goes to all students, lecturers and managers

who have participated in my research. I am indebted to Ms. Nombasa Madlingozi,

the library staff of University of Fort Hare for her selfless service in assisting me to

retrieve numerous research articles from the internet. I also thank Dr. John

Sungwacha Nasile who assisted me with the statistical analyses, Dr. Syden Mishi

who helped me patiently in clarifying my statistical doubts and Mrs. Roshni Thomas

for the language editing.

I am grateful to the Dean and Head of the department where the study was

conducted who gave me all the assistance and support. Many thanks to all my

friends and colleagues for their encouragement. Special mention goes to my

colleague, friend, well-wisher and the altruistic cool man Mr. Vinod Kumar who have

shown me the “gateway” of research and introduced me to my supervisor. I thank

him for giving me all the advices whenever I was in need. I am also grateful to my

unseen friend Ms. Malu Shaika for her inspiration.

Last but not least, I am humbled to express my gratitude for the support that I

have received from my dad Mr. John Christopher Fernandez and my mom Mrs. Raji

C. Fernandez during my toughest times. My brother Mr. John Percival Fernandez

and his wife Mrs. Sanith John and their cute little baby Sandra John Fernandez were

always on my side as cheerleaders throughout this endeavour. Their prayers and

support was immeasurable all through my way for the successful completion of this

research. May god bless you all.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 2.1: TPACK FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 54

Fig 3.1: Flow diagram of ES and MS ........................................................................ 77

Fig 3.2: Flow diagram of ICT Branches .................................................................. 104

Fig 5.1: A Proposed Framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and

teaching .................................................................................................................. 180

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1: Comparison of Traditional teaching methods and moderately evolved

teaching methods ..................................................................................................... 20

TABLE 2.2: Criteria for Selecting Appropriate Educational apps .............................. 34

TABLE 2.3: Comparison of learning through a lecturer and learning through a

facilitator ................................................................................................................... 51

TABLE 2.4: Some of the studies done since 2013 using TPACK as framework

focussing on pre-service teachers in subject specific studies .................................. 59


regarding the use of technology by the lecturers around the world .......................... 62

TABLE 3.1: Advantages and disadvantages of case studies ................................... 75

TABLE 3.2: Cronbach Alpha value for each questionnaire ...................................... 93

TABLE 4.1: Students’ gender ................................................................................. 112

TABLE 4.2: Students’ age group ............................................................................ 113

TABLE 4.3: Students’ national diploma .................................................................. 113

TABLE 4.4: Students’ level of study ....................................................................... 113

TABLE 4.5: Demographic characteristics of each student participated in the interview

............................................................................................................................... 114

TABLE 4.6: Lecturers’ gender ................................................................................ 115

TABLE 4.7: Lecturers’ age group ........................................................................... 115

TABLE 4.8: Lecturers’ highest qualification ............................................................ 116

TABLE 4.9: Lecturers’ department ......................................................................... 116

TABLE 4.10: Lecturers’ lecturing experience ......................................................... 116

TABLE 4.11: Lecturers’ lecturing experience using tablet ...................................... 117

TABLE 4.12: Demographic characteristics of each lecturer participated in the

interview ................................................................................................................. 117

TABLE 4.13: Managers’ gender ............................................................................. 118

TABLE 4.14: Managers’ age group ........................................................................ 118

TABLE 4.15: Managers’ highest qualification ......................................................... 119

TABLE 4.16: Managers’ designation ...................................................................... 119

TABLE 4.17: Managers’ managing experience ...................................................... 120

TABLE 4.18: Demographic characteristics of each manager participated in the

interview ................................................................................................................. 120

viii

TABLE 4.19: Likert Responses of Students for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.1 ... 123

TABLE 4.20: Likert Responses of Managers on students’ tablet use for Sub-

Research Question 1.3.2.1 ..................................................................................... 124

TABLE 4.21: Likert Responses of Students and Lecturers for Sub-Research

Question 1.3.2.1 ..................................................................................................... 125

TABLE 4.22: Group Statistics of Learning score .................................................... 127

TABLE 4.23: Independent Samples t-test for Learning .......................................... 128

TABLE 4.24: Themes and sub-themes regarding the students’ responses of tablet

use for learning ...................................................................................................... 129

TABLE 4.25: Themes and sub-themes regarding the lecturers’ responses of the use

of tablets for learning .............................................................................................. 131

TABLE 4.26: Themes and sub-themes regarding the managers’ responses of the

use of tablets for learning ....................................................................................... 133

TABLE 4.27: Triangulation: Engagement and Collaboration .................................. 136

TABLE 4.28: Triangulation: Curriculum change for tablets..................................... 136

TABLE 4.29: Triangulation: Enhancement of skills ................................................ 137

TABLE 4.30: Likert Responses of Lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.2 .. 137

TABLE 4.31: Likert Responses of Lecturers and Managers for Sub-Research

Question 1.3.2.2 ..................................................................................................... 139

TABLE 4.32: Group Statistics of Teaching score ................................................... 140

TABLE 4.33: Independent Samples Test for Teaching .......................................... 141

TABLE 4.34: Themes and sub-themes regarding the lecturers’ responses to the use

of tablets for teaching ............................................................................................. 142

TABLE 4.35: Themes and sub-themes regarding the managers’ responses to the

use of tablets for teaching ...................................................................................... 144

TABLE 4.36: Triangulation: Tablet Training ........................................................... 146


Question 1.3.2.3 ..................................................................................................... 147

TABLE 4.38: Likert Responses of Students for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.3 ... 149

TABLE 4.39: Likert Responses of Students, Lecturers and Managers for Sub-

Research Question 1.3.2.3 ..................................................................................... 150

TABLE 4.40: Group Statistics of advantages and disadvantages score (Students and

Lecturers) ............................................................................................................... 152

ix

TABLE 4.41: Independent Samples Test of tablet's advantages and disadvantages

for learning and teaching (Students and Lecturers) ............................................... 152

TABLE 4.42: Group Statistics of advantages and disadvantages score (Students and

Managers) .............................................................................................................. 153

TABLE 4.43: Independent Samples Test of tablet's advantages and disadvantages

for learning and teaching (Students and Managers) .............................................. 154

TABLE 4.44: Descriptive statistics: Comparison of tablet and PC score ................ 155

TABLE 4.45: Test of Homogeneity of Variances .................................................... 156

TABLE 4.46: ANOVA ............................................................................................. 156

TABLE 4.47: Welch test ......................................................................................... 156

TABLE 4.48: Post-Hoc test .................................................................................... 157

TABLE 4.50: Theme and sub-themes concerning the lecturers’ responses on the

advantages and disadvantages of using tablets in classroom ................................ 160

TABLE 4.51: Theme and sub-themes concerning the managers’ responses on the

advantages and disadvantages of using tablets in classroom ................................ 162

TABLE 4.52: Triangulation: Students’ non learning activities in class .................... 164

TABLE 4.53: Triangulation: Benefits as a learning tool .......................................... 165

TABLE 4.54: Triangulation: Drawbacks as a learning tool ..................................... 165

TABLE 4.55: Triangulation: Benefits as a teaching tool ......................................... 166

TABLE 4.56: Triangulation: Drawbacks as a teaching tool ..................................... 166

x

LIST OF ACRONYMS

PC: Personal Computer

ES: Extended Stream

MS: Main Stream

ICT: Information and Communication Technology

EE: Electrical Engineering

HOD: Head of the Department

Ex PCO: Extended Programme Coordinator

BA: Business Application

CN: Communication Networks

SD: Software Development

HC: Heavy Current

CLTD: Centre for Learning and Teaching Department

TPACK: Technological pedagogical content knowledge

TK: Technological knowledge

PK: Pedagogical knowledge

CK: Content knowledge

TCK: Technology Content knowledge

PCK: Pedagogical content knowledge

TPK: Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION ................................................................................... i

ETHICAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ............ 1

Description Pages

1.1 Introduction and background to the study ........................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ................................................................................. 7

1.3 Research questions ......................................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Main research question ........................................................................... 8

1.3.2 Sub-research questions .......................................................................... 9

1.4 Purpose of the study ........................................................................................ 9

1.5 Objectives of the study ..................................................................................... 9

1.6 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 9

1.7 Significance of the study ................................................................................ 10

1.8 Research Methodology .................................................................................. 11

1.8.1 Research Paradigm .............................................................................. 11

1.8.2 Research Approach .............................................................................. 11

1.8.3 Research Design ................................................................................... 11

1.8.4 Study site .............................................................................................. 11

1.8.5 Population, Sample selection and Sample size ..................................... 11

1.8.6 Instruments ........................................................................................... 12

1.8.7 Data analyses ....................................................................................... 12

1.9 Definitions of operational terms ...................................................................... 12

1.10 Chapter Demarcation ................................................................................... 16

1.11 Summary ...................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK .... 18

xii

Description Pages

2.1 Education system ........................................................................................... 18

2.2 Traditional methods of learning and teaching ................................................ 18

2.3 Evolution of technologies ............................................................................... 20

2.4 Modern methods of learning and teaching ..................................................... 21

2.5 Mobile technologies ....................................................................................... 23

2.6 Mobile learning ............................................................................................... 24

2.7 Technology Integration ................................................................................... 25

2.8 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education ................... 27

2.9 Introduction of iPad tablet technology ............................................................ 28

2.10 Introducing tablets into Higher education ..................................................... 29

2.11 Theories of Professional Development ........................................................ 31

2.12 Professional training for Lecturers ................................................................ 32

2.13 Mobile Application apps used in tablets for learning and teaching ............... 33

2.14 Benefits of tablets and other mobile technologies ........................................ 36

2.15 Drawbacks of using tablets in learning and teaching environment ............... 38

2.15.1 Off-task use of technology in classrooms ............................................ 38

2.15.2 Challenges of adopting technology for technology’s sake ................... 39

2.15.3 Upgrade of internet infrastructure ........................................................ 39

2.15.4 Drawbacks of using tablets when compared with PC and Laptops ..... 40

2.16 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet use

for learning in university classrooms .................................................................... 40

2.17 Views of lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet use for

teaching in university classrooms ........................................................................ 44

2.18 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the advantages and

disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching .................................... 46

2.19 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................ 48

2.19.1 Constructivism ..................................................................................... 49

2.19.1.1 History of Constructivism ....................................................... 49

2.19.1.2 Significance of Constructivism ............................................... 50

2.19.1.3 Constructivism in IT courses .................................................. 50

xiii

2.19.1.4 Implications of Constructivism to education ........................... 50

2.19.1.5 ICT Utilization in a Constructivist Learning Approach ............ 51

2.19.2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework 52

2.19.2.1 Technological knowledge (TK) ............................................... 55

2.19.2.2 Pedagogical knowledge (PK) ................................................. 56

2.19.2.3 Content knowledge (CK) ........................................................ 56

2.19.2.4 Technology Content knowledge (TCK) .................................. 57

2.19.2.5 Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) .................................. 57

2.19.2.6 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) ....................... 57

2.19.2.7 Significance of TPACK study ................................................. 58

2.19.2.8 TPACK studies in terms of respondents and subject specific

studies ...................................................................................... 58

2.19.2.9 TPACK in Universities ............................................................ 62

2.19.2.10 TPACK in ICT....................................................................... 64

2.19.2.11 TPACK in South Africa ......................................................... 65

2.20 Summary ...................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................... 68

Description Pages

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 68

3.2 Research Paradigm ....................................................................................... 68

3.3 Research Approach ....................................................................................... 69

3.3.1 Quantitative Research ......................................................................... 70

3.3.2 Qualitative Research ........................................................................... 71

3.3.3 Mixed Method Research ..................................................................... 72

3.4 Research Design............................................................................................ 74

3.5 Study site ....................................................................................................... 76

3.6 Description of the Population and Sample ..................................................... 78

3.6.1 The Population ...................................................................................... 78

3.6.1.1 Students’ population ................................................................. 79

xiv

3.6.1.2 Lecturers’ population ................................................................ 80

3.6.1.3 Managers’ population ............................................................... 80

3.6.2 Sample .................................................................................................. 80

3.6.2.1 Students’ sample...................................................................... 80

3.6.2.2 Lecturers’ sample ..................................................................... 81

3.6.2.3 Managers’ sample .................................................................... 81

3.7 Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................... 81

3.7.1 Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 81

3.7.1.1 Advantages of using questionnaire in this study ...................... 82

3.7.1.2 Disadvantages of using questionnaire in this study.................. 83

3.7.1.3 Students’ questionnaire ............................................................ 84

3.7.1.4 Lecturers’ questionnaire ........................................................... 84

3.7.1.5 Managers’ questionnaire .......................................................... 84

3.7.2 Interview ................................................................................................ 85

3.7.2.1 Advantages of an Interview ...................................................... 86

3.7.2.2 Disadvantages of an Interview ................................................. 86

3.7.2.3 Advantages of the Face-to-face interview ................................ 87

3.7.2.4 Disadvantages of the Face-to-face interview ........................... 87

3.7.2.5 Advantages of Semi-structured interview ................................. 88

3.7.2.6 Disadvantages of Semi-structured interview ............................ 88

3.7.2.7 Students’ semi-structured interview ......................................... 89

3.7.2.8 Lecturers’ semi-structured interview ......................................... 89

3.7.2.9 Managers’ semi-structured interview ........................................ 90

3.8 Quality assurance of instruments ................................................................... 90

3.8.1 Validity................................................................................................... 90

3.8.1.1 Content Validity ........................................................................ 91

3.8.1.2 Face Validity ............................................................................ 91

xv

3.8.2 Reliability ............................................................................................... 91

3.8.3 Data Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 94

3.8.3.1 Credibility ................................................................................. 95

3.8.3.2 Dependability ........................................................................... 95

3.8.3.3 Transferability .......................................................................... 95

3.8.3.4 Confirmability ........................................................................... 95

3.9 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................... 96

3.9.1 Initial Process ........................................................................................ 96

3.9.2 Pilot study .............................................................................................. 97

3.9.2.1 Students ................................................................................... 98

3.9.2.2 Lecturers .................................................................................. 98

3.9.2.3 Managers ................................................................................. 99

3.10 Ethical Compliance .................................................................................... 100

3.10.1 Ethical clearance from institutions ..................................................... 100

3.10.2 Voluntary participation ....................................................................... 101

3.10.3 Informed consent .............................................................................. 101

3.10.4 Prevention of physical or psychological harm ................................... 102

3.10.5 Anonymity and Confidentiality ........................................................... 102

3.11 Negotiation of access ................................................................................. 102

3.11.1 Managers .......................................................................................... 103

3.11.2 Lecturers ........................................................................................... 103

3.11.3 Students ............................................................................................ 103

3.11.4 Position of the researcher ................................................................. 105

3.12 Data Collection: Main study ....................................................................... 106

3.12.1 Managers .......................................................................................... 106

3.12.2 Lecturers ........................................................................................... 107

3.12.3 Students ............................................................................................ 108

xvi

3.13 Summary .................................................................................................... 109

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION .. 111

Description Pages

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 111

4.2 Demographic data ........................................................................................ 112

4.2.1 Students’ Demographic data ............................................................... 112

4.2.1.1 Survey .................................................................................... 112

4.2.1.2 Demographic characteristics of each student participated in the

interview ................................................................................. 114

4.2.2 Lecturers’ demographic data ............................................................... 115

4.2.2.1 Survey .................................................................................... 115

4.2.2.2 Demographic characteristics of each lecturer participated in the

interview ................................................................................. 117

4.2.3 Managers’ demographic data .............................................................. 118

4.2.3.1 Survey .................................................................................... 118

4.2.3.2 Demographic characteristics of each manager participated in the

interview ................................................................................. 120

4.3 Data Presentation and Analysis ................................................................... 121

4.3.1 Sample responses on the effectiveness of tablet use for learning in

university classrooms ........................................................................ 123

4.3.1.1 Descriptive analysis of students’ survey responses for learning123

4.3.1.2 Descriptive analysis of managers’ survey responses for learning124

4.3.1.3 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students and lecturers

survey responses for learning through engagement and

collaboration ........................................................................... 125

4.3.1.4 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students’ and lecturers’

survey responses for learning ................................................ 127

4.3.1.5 Students’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills ........... 129

xvii

4.3.1.6 Students’ interview responses: Engagement and collaboration

with lecturer ............................................................................ 130

4.3.1.7 Students’ interview responses: Engagement and Collaboration

with classmates ...................................................................... 130

4.3.1.8 Lecturers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets131

4.3.1.9 Lecturers’ interview responses: Students’ tablet activities ..... 132

4.3.1.10 Lecturers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills ........ 132

4.3.1.11 Lecturers’ interview responses: Engagement and Collaboration

between students ................................................................... 133

4.3.1.12 Managers’ interview responses: Pass rate ........................... 134

4.3.1.13 Managers’ interview responses: Tablet Training .................. 134

4.3.1.14 Managers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills ....... 134

4.3.1.15 Managers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets135

4.3.1.16 Triangulation of interview responses of stakeholders for

learning .................................................................................. 135

4.3.2 Sample responses on the effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in

university classrooms ........................................................................ 137

4.3.2.1 Descriptive analysis of lecturers’ survey responses for teaching137

4.3.2.2 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of lecturers and managers’

survey responses for teaching ............................................... 139

4.3.2.3 Triangulation of inferential analysis of lecturers and managers

survey responses for teaching ............................................... 140

4.3.2.4 Lecturers’ interview responses: Tablet Training ..................... 142

4.3.2.5 Lecturers’ interview responses: Teaching apps ..................... 143

4.3.2.6 Lecturers’ interview responses: Before integrating tablets ..... 143

4.3.2.7 Managers’ interview responses: After integrating tablets ....... 144

4.3.2.8 Managers’ interview responses: Tablet Training .................... 145

4.3.2.9 Managers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills ......... 145

xviii

4.3.2.10 Managers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets145

4.3.2.11 Triangulation of interview responses of lecturers and managers

on teaching ............................................................................. 146

4.3.3 Sample responses on the advantages and disadvantages of using

tablets for learning and teaching ....................................................... 146

4.3.3.1 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students and lecturers

survey responses on students’ activities using tablet ............. 147

4.3.3.2 Descriptive analysis of students’ survey responses on tablet use

when compared with personal computer (PC) ....................... 149

4.3.3.3 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students, lecturers and

managers’ survey responses on tablet use when compared with

personal computer (PC) ......................................................... 150

4.3.3.4 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students and lecturers

survey responses on tablet's advantages and disadvantages for

learning and teaching ............................................................. 151

4.3.3.5 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students and managers

survey responses on tablet's advantages and disadvantages for

learning and teaching ............................................................. 153

4.3.3.6 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students, lecturers and

managers survey responses on the convenience of using tablets

when compared with personal computer (PC) ....................... 155

4.3.3.7 Students’ interview responses: Non learning activities in class158

4.3.3.8 Students’ interview responses: Non learning activities outside

class ....................................................................................... 158

4.3.3.9 Students’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool .... 159

4.3.3.10 Students’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool159

4.3.3.11 Lecturers’ interview responses: Benefits as a teaching tool . 160

4.3.3.12 Lecturers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a teaching tool160

xix

4.3.3.13 Lecturers’ interview responses: Students’ non learning

activities in class .................................................................... 161

4.3.3.14 Lecturers’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool .. 161

4.3.3.15 Lecturers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool162

4.3.3.16 Managers’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool . 162

4.3.3.17 Managers’ interview responses: Benefits as a teaching tool 163

4.3.3.18 Managers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool163

4.3.3.19 Managers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a teaching tool164

4.3.3.20 Triangulation of interview responses of stakeholders on the

advantages and disadvantages of tablet use ......................... 164

4.4 Discussion of findings .................................................................................. 166

4.4.1 Effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms ......... 166

4.4.1.1 Survey responses .................................................................. 166

4.4.1.2 Interview responses ............................................................... 169

4.4.2 Effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms ........ 169



4.4.3 Advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching172



4.5 Summary ...................................................................................................... 175

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS

AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 176

Description Pages

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 176

5.2 Reaffirming the research questions.............................................................. 176

5.3 Summary of Major Findings ......................................................................... 176

5.3.1 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet

use for learning in university classrooms........................................... 177

xx

5.3.2 Views of lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet use for

teaching in university classrooms ...................................................... 178

5.3.3 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the advantages and

disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching .................. 178

5.3.4 Proposed Framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and

teaching............................................................................................. 179

5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 180

5.4.1 Effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms ......... 180

5.4.2 Effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms ........ 181

5.4.3 Advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching181

5.4.4 Conclusion of overall study ................................................................. 182

5.5 Limitations of the study ................................................................................ 183

5.6 Recommendations from the study................................................................ 183

5.7 Suggestions for future research ................................................................... 184

5.8 Summary ...................................................................................................... 185

LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 186

LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 225

APPENDIX A1: Student questionnaire SECTION A .......................................... 225

APPENDIX A2: Student questionnaire SECTION B .......................................... 226

APPENDIX A3: Student questionnaire SECTION C .......................................... 227

APPENDIX A4: Student questionnaire SECTION D .......................................... 228

APPENDIX A5: Student questionnaire SECTION E .......................................... 229

APPENDIX B1: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION A .......................................... 230

APPENDIX B2: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION B .......................................... 231

APPENDIX B3: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION C ......................................... 232

APPENDIX B4: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION D ......................................... 233

APPENDIX B5: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION E .......................................... 234

APPENDIX C1: Manager Questionnaire SECTION A ........................................ 235

APPENDIX C2: Manager Questionnaire SECTION B ........................................ 236

APPENDIX D1: Interview protocols for Students ............................................... 237

APPENDIX D2: Interview protocols for Lecturers .............................................. 238

xxi

APPENDIX D3: Interview protocols for Managers ............................................. 239

APPENDIX E1: Application letter requesting for Ethical clearance certificate .... 240

APPENDIX E2: Ethical clearance certificate from University of Fort Hare ......... 241

APPENDIX E3: Application letter requesting for permission to conduct the study in

research site ...................................................................................................... 243

APPENDIX E4: Consent from University where study was executed ................ 244

APPENDIX E5: Invitation letter to Managers to participate in pilot study ........... 245

APPENDIX E6: Invitation letter to lecturers to participate in pilot study ............. 246

APPENDIX F1: Survey Consent form - Managers ............................................. 247

APPENDIX F2: Survey Consent form - Lecturers .............................................. 249

APPENDIX F3: Survey Consent form - Students ............................................... 251

APPENDIX F4: Interview Consent form - Students ............................................ 253

APPENDIX F5: Interview Consent form - Lecturers and Managers ................... 255

APPENDIX G1: Certificate of Language Editing ................................................ 257

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 Introduction and background to the study

This chapter gives an introduction to the study and provides a background.

An overview of the education system, mobile technologies, mobile learning devices,

tablet computers and their history are demarcated. Tablet technologies are used in

institutions to change the old method of chalk and talk approach and implement a

new way of blended learning. Technology integration, ICT in education, tablet

computer in higher education institutions, professional development, mobile

applications, university students’, lecturers’ and managers’ views on the tablet use in

classrooms, its benefits and drawbacks are all summarised. The statement of the

problem, research questions, purpose of the study, its objectives and the

significance of the study are all elucidated. A brief summary of the methodology and

an overview of the theoretical frameworks used in the research are illuminated.

Definitions of operational terms used in this study are also provided thereafter.

Tablet computers and mobile applications are commonly known as tablets and apps

respectively and only these are used in this report from now.

Education has a very important role in the development of our society from a

very early stage. The method of learning and teaching that was followed in the olden

days was passive as it was a teacher centred approach (Zohrabi, Torabi &

Baybourdiani, 2012). Nasseh (2009) remarks that traditional way of learning and

teaching is vanishing nowadays and student centred approach which is the new way

of learning and teaching is implemented using various digital technologies. Value

based education should be integrated into the learning programme to make every

person a good citizen (Bhardwaj, 2016). A year later, Blazar and Kraft (2017) state

that the influence of teachers have shaped the education policy over the past years.

Students in the 21st century have transformed drastically in terms of finding

new learning methods and exploring technologies (Prensky, 2001b, 2006). In order

to maximise and utilize the potential of students and modern educators in learning

2

and teaching, an effective way of integrating the latest technology in the classroom is

highly obligatory (Rajasingham, 2011; Geist, 2011). The methodology of teaching

using technologies has revolutionised education all over the globe, especially in

higher education sectors (Castillo-Manzano, et al., 2017).

Institutions in this era are improving radically by incorporating the newly

advanced technologies in the classrooms (Keating, 2013; Kyzym & Petukhova,

2017). According to the findings of National Center for Educational Statistics (2010),

almost all computers in the classrooms of Unites states have internet access.

Technologies are rapidly growing up daily and it reflects in all areas of works,

so in education as well (Alhassan, 2016; Zidney & Warner, 2016; Huda, et al., 2018).

Brown (2002) states that students are utilizing the technologies such as internet and

World Wide Web in a successful manner, thereby discovering a new method of

learning and obtaining knowledge. Higher education institutions provide internet

access to lecturers and students with an intention to make use of all kinds of learning

and teaching using different tools such as desktop computers, laptops, tablets,

projectors etc (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). These technologies are playing

a huge role in bringing education to an upper level (Rossing, et al., 2012).

Mobile technologies such as smart phones and tablets have begun to

revolutionize the way people make purchases, make decisions and design

curriculum. Such devices also impact the way people think and learn. More

importantly, people continue to rely on their mobile devices for most daily tasks and

as a main method of communication (Geist, 2011; Geer, 2012; Alexander, 2014; Ally

& Blazquez-Prieto, 2014; Brown, 2015). People in this era of technology have

advanced tremendously in the way they think, make decisions and communicate

with each other. They also plan curriculum and learn courses using mobile learning

devices such as tablet computer or iPad. They use these mobile devices for their

daily activities and to interconnect with one another (Geist, 2011; Geer, 2012; Ally &

Blazquez-Prieto, 2014; Alexander, 2014; Brown, 2015). Alexander (2014) has

predicted that instructional practices and obtaining degrees will all be done using

new educational apps installed in mobile learning devices by the year 2024.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fict.2016.00001/full#B26


3

Furthermore, Geer (2012) and Gentile (2012) assert that a full transformation will

only happen if students actively utilize mobile learning device in a positive way.

Mobile learning devices such as smart phones and tablets can highly enhance

students’ interest in their studies at both pre university (Cobcroft, Towers, Smith &

Bruns, 2006; Kim, et al., 2015; Popović, Markovic, & Popović, 2016) and university

level (Henríquez-Ritchie & Organista-Sandoval, 2012; Lin & Lin, 2016). These

devices also help them to perform mobile learning using internet by being in their

own convenient place and time (Menkhoff & Bengtsson, 2012). This enables the

students to develop a collaboration with their classmates and educators and make a

better learning atmosphere (Motiwalla, 2007). The students in this generation are

very familiar with digital technologies when compared with educators (Rideout,

2011). Richards (2014, p. 2) remarks that “the use of technology in teaching

becomes more important in present times, because teachers also have to be able to

keep up with the technological knowledge of their students” in order to be competent

with the knowledge of current day students.

In order to effectively function the objective of mobile learning, curriculum

must be integrated along with the use of mobile learning devices (Labbo & Place,

2010). It is very important for lecturers to have the knowledge on how to use and get

acquainted with these devices to enhance the level of learning, motivation and

knowledge of students (Duhaney & Zemel, 2000).

The evolution of ICT has helped the institutions to offer a better education to

students (Husseini & Safa, 2009). Although it was a serious challenge for the

institutions to link lecturers and students with computers (Donovan, Green & Hartley,

2010), institutions managed to encourage students by integrating computers in

classrooms (Conn, 2012). Smart phone is one of the technologies that enabled

students to explore the learning concepts and communicate with lecturers (Ooms,

Linsey, Webb & Panayiotidis, 2008).

The emergence of tablet computers such as Galaxy (developed by Samsung

Inc.) and iPad (developed by Apple Inc.) into the electronic market have made a

http://ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/166/316#Rideout

4

greater impact everywhere. These tablets are introduced in order to overcome the

challenges experienced with the previous mobile devices such as smartphones and

laptops (John, et al., 2012).

Although tablets are fascinating devices, it is absolutely necessary to integrate

tablets into learning and teaching for the purpose of switching from chalk and talk

approach to blended learning approach (Figueiredo & Afonso, 2005). Meurant (2010)

postulates that tablet is a game changing device that is probably going to modernise

the current trend of education.

Many institutions all over the globe have already spent a large amounts of

money for purchasing bulk quantities of tablet computers for the benefit of their

students (Hu, 2011; Tomassini, 2012; Vu, McIntyre & Cepero, 2014). Foresman

(2010) and Miller (2012) emphasise that many universities around the world are

integrating this gadget into the curriculum as a cost saving, interactive and

collaborative tool.

The effectiveness of technology in institutions can be seen only if it

incorporates with the standard of curriculum (Debele & Plevyak, 2012). A research

was conducted by Sugar (2005) to assess the need for technology in classroom.

Findings of his study showed that there is a positive impact on teachers. Another

study conducted by Roschelle, et al. (2010a) revealed that technology enhanced

students’ learning capability. However, Roschelle, et al. (2010a) claim that training

and professional development offered for the educators is equally responsible for the

positive results along with technology innovation. Debele and Plevyak (2012) concur

that educators have a huge role in the success of the technology integration in

classrooms.

According to Ganser’s (2000) point of view, professional development can be

defined as the development of an individual by attending workshops, reading

articles, newspapers, publications and watching documentaries that relate to

academics. Moon (2002) reports that there are many universities in the east and

central part of the African continent that provides workshops for the lecturers to

5

develop their professional career. Generally, educators have a negative perception

towards using the new technology in the classroom. However, it is very vital for the

educators to attend workshops to gain more knowledge on the latest technologies

and apps that are installed in these gadgets for the betterment of themselves as well

as for the students (Mosenson & Johnson, 2010).

Cohen (2012) claims that there are plenty of educational apps available in the

tablets for effective learning and teaching. Preloaded apps that are installed in

tablets are the main factors for mobile learning (Cochrane, 2012). Many students

concur that selecting apps by themselves in tablets have boosted their engagement

and collaboration between each other (Gordon, Jackson & Usher, 2014).

A study conducted by Percival and Claydon (2015) in a Canadian university to

determine the views and attitudes of tablet users for learning revealed that students

had mixed opinions. Although in general students are admiring the portability and

easy access feature, some of them were concerned with the distractions caused by

those who use tablets for non-learning purposes. Mango (2015) claims that students

consider it as a learning tool. Using tablets in classrooms not only boosts students’

interest in attending lectures (Rossing, et al., 2012) but also improves their

confidence (Shen, 2016).

Past researches about the students’ views and attitudes on the tablet use

have also been discussed regarding collaboration and engagement in the classroom.

Tablets helped students to develop a collaborative atmosphere where they could

share, discuss and engage with one another (Weider, 2011; Rossing, et al., 2012;

Mang & Wardley, 2012; Diemer, Fernandez & Streepey, 2012). Nguyen, Barton and

Nguyen (2015) take a different view that there is a lack of pedagogical approach on

how efficiently tablets can be used to improve learning particularly in the field of

engagement and collaboration between students. Despite students holding positive

views about engagement in the classroom, Percival and Claydon (2015) suggest that

students need more workshops on tablet use to reach a higher level.

6

While many studies have addressed the views and attitudes of students on

tablet use in the classroom, some studies have documented the views and attitudes

of lecturers on its use for learning and teaching. A study conducted by Yeung and

Chung (2011) showed that lecturers were impressed with the accessing facility of

library resources. On the other hand, the apps that were preferred were either not

available or too costly to purchase. Vu, McIntyre and Cepero (2014) reveal that the

use of tablets for instructional practice has drawn positive responses from the

lecturers to a certain extent. On the other side, some other studies showed that

lecturers had a negative perspective towards the use of tablet technology (Beckerle,

2013) due to the lack of proper training and professional development (Percival and

Claydon, 2015). Moreover, Flanagan’s (2016) research shows that lecturers were

not impressed with students’ use of tablet in classroom.

.

More studies have been conducted to evaluate the views and attitudes of

managers on students’ and lecturers’ use of tablets. A study conducted in

Midwestern town by Bennett (2014) postulates that proper guidance must be given

to both students and academics to utilize tablets properly for effective learning and

teaching. Similarly, in Long, Liang and Yu’s (2013) study, managers revealed that

students and lecturers need more knowledge in understanding the use of tablet.

However, findings of the research conducted by Flanagan (2016) and Dogan and

Almus (2014) show that managers have positive attitudes towards students’ and

educators’ use of tablet in the classroom.

Many authors have concurred about the wide range of benefits on using

tablets in the classroom such as reading articles, searching information during

discussion and saving lecture notes (Mang & Wardley, 2012). Alsufi (2014) and

Sheppard (2011) aver that students will benefit as they do not need to buy costly text

books which can be downloaded from the internet. Ludwig and Mayrberger (2012)

suggest that students who regularly use tablets are extremely interested in

collaborating with their classmates. It also helps the educators to prepare the

teaching and learning materials for students and to follow the curriculum.

7

Despite the potential benefits of tablets, many researchers have pointed out

various drawbacks. Kinash, Brand and Mathew (2012) emphasise the off-task

attitudes of students such as visiting social networking sites, chatting with friends

and taking pictures. This makes students to deviate their concentration from the

lecture contents. Garrett (2012) stressed about the possibility of tablets getting

damaged as students take them home. Niemeijer, Donnellan and Robledo (2012)

posit that many institutions often purchase tablets in large numbers without a proper

plan. This may lead to a situation where students and lecturers do not realize their

value for money and education. Fischman and Keller (2011) argue that tablets are

not as user-friendly as laptops. This might be a challenge to students to perform their

tasks.

1.2 Statement of the problem

In the light of the literature shown in the background, it is evident that many

educational institutions around the globe have already started using tablets in

classroom. There is also a dearth of empirical research on how to implement tablets

in the classroom (Pegrum, Howitt & Striepe, 2013) and how tablet use affects

students’ learning (Wakefield, Frawley, Tyler & Dyson, 2018). Academics are in the

dark as they attempt to integrate these devices in effective ways (Rafiki, 2015). This

clearly shows that even though tablets are considered as the latest tool for learning

and teaching, there are some serious gaps still pending that need to be addressed in

this research such as how well lecturers are using tablets, how well students are

using tablets in university, the views of managers about the use of tablets by the

lecturers and students for learning and teaching. The strengths and weaknesses of

using tablets in a classroom and whether tablets can increase motivation and

engagement in class participation among students may also be discussed. Many

South African institutions are either integrating or planning to integrate tablets, yet

none seems certain of the outcomes or the process to undertake to ensure that the

devices serve their intended purposes. To date there is little published research to

confirm that tablets are valuable to classroom instruction, especially in the South

African context (Shuler, 2012; Rafiki, 2015). Similar pieces of research have been

done in developed countries such as Canada (Karsenti & Fievez, 2013), Georgia

(Hill, et al., 2012), Australia (Clarkson, 2018) and the Unites States of America

8

(Chou, Block & Jesness, 2014; Mango, 2015; Shen, 2016). However, similar

research, unlike in developed countries, is not popular in a developing country like

South Africa and little research has so far been done in the Eastern Cape Province

of South Africa. Moreover, frameworks that are used for this study are

Constructivism and Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Ben-Ari

(1998) asserts that even though constructivism studies in the area of Mathematics

and Science are common, study in the area of Information technology are still in its

infancy. Only 8% of the TPACK studies have been conducted on the use of ICT in

higher education (Wu, 2013). This makes the current study more distinctive as the

current research is conducted in a university particularly only on the use of tablet but

not on a broader terminology such as ICT. Leendertz, et al. (2013) stress that the

TPACK that was used in South Africa was only to examine TPACK level of

mathematics among in-service teachers in grade 8 and studies based on TPACK in

South Africa are still inadequate. Poore (2015) concurs with Leendertz, et al. (2013)

and state that empirical studies on the tablet teaching practice are highly limited.

Since 2016, merely a few researches using TPACK framework have been conducted

in South Africa. The observations made by Ben-Ari, (1998), Leendertz, et al. (2013)

and Poore (2015) further makes the current study an inevitable research. Therefore,

gathering and analysing the views of relevant stakeholders on the strengths and

weaknesses of the use of tablets in learning and teaching is a worthy problem for

investigation. Furthermore, the factors affecting the impacts need to be identified in

order to address and implement changes for the benefit of students and lecturers.

1.3 Research questions

This study was guided by one main and four sub-research questions which

are as follows:

1.3.1 Main research question

Based on stakeholders’ views, what are the strengths and weaknesses of

using tablets for learning and teaching?

9

1.3.2 Sub-research questions

1.3.2.1 How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the

effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms?

1.3.2.2 How do lecturers and managers differ in their views on the effectiveness of

tablet use for teaching in university classrooms?

1.3.2.3 How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the

advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching?

1.3.2.4 What feasible framework can be developed to enhance the use of tablets for

learning and teaching?

1.4 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to gather stakeholders’ views to assess the

strengths and weaknesses of using tablets in learning and teaching at a university in

Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

1.5 Objectives of the study

1.5.1 To gather data on university students’, lecturers’ and managers’ views on the

effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms.

1.5.2 To collect data on lecturers’ and managers’ views on the effectiveness of tablet

use for teaching in university classrooms.

1.5.3 To obtain data on university students’, lecturers’ and managers’ views on the

advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching.

1.5.4 To develop a feasible framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and

teaching.

1.6 Theoretical Framework

For the theoretical grounding of the present study, the researcher drew on

Constructivism framework and TPACK framework to explore the strengths and

weaknesses of the use of tablet technology in learning and teaching.

Constructivism framework was developed by Dewey (1933), Vygotsky (1978),

Bruner (1963) and Piaget (1963). Constructivism is based on theory of constructivist

10

learning which means learning happens only when the learners understand the

meaning and develop knowledge. Both Dewey (1933) and Piaget (1963) were

prominent in constructing an education that is informal. According to Dewey (1933),

knowledge must be constructed by expanding the experience, thinking and reflection

associated with the educators. However, Piaget (1963) suggests that knowledge

must be constructed by expanding all experiences that are related to learning from

the early stage to adulthood. Both ideas are incorporated in the extensive

programme of progressive education.

The past decade has seen voluminous number of studies on the integration

and use of ICTs in general that have used TPACK as their theoretical framework.

This framework was used to understand a new knowledge that helps the educators

to deliver the presentation using technology. TPACK was first defined by Shulman in

1986, focussing only on teachers’ knowledge for teaching. Later, Shulman’s idea

was expanded by Mishra and Koehler in 2006 by focussing also on ICT along with

teaching knowledge. It was articulated more by many researchers (Koehler & Mishra

2009; Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009; Schmidt, Cogan & Houang, 2011; Chai, Koh &

Tsai, 2011). TPACK recognizes a different kind of knowledge that educators need for

the purpose of teaching effectively using technology. Constructivism and TPACK

frameworks are described vastly in Chapter Two along with their importance in the

current study.

1.7 Significance of the study

It is envisaged that the empirical results of this study will provide valuable

knowledge to the management and procurement people of universities, Technical

and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges, Department of Education

(DOE), Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), school governing

boards (SGB’s) and private colleges considering the adoption of tablet technology for

learning and teaching. As Mobile learning devices such as tablets or iPads keep

updating their features, many more institutions may plan to integrate tablet into the

classrooms due to their benefits or trend or marketing strategy to register more

students (Brown, 2015). Findings from this study will show that students and

lecturers can fully utilize this tool only if there are necessary apps installed and

11

proper training given to all kinds of users including digital immigrants and not just

digital natives. Otherwise, more pressure will be put on digital immigrants by the

digital natives to change their lecturing approach in the classroom (Prensky, 2001a;

2010; Werth & Werth, 2011). It also plays a crucial role in shaping the academic

future of the students. Furthermore, researchers, learners, teachers, curriculum

developers and lecturers in universities will benefit from the findings of this research

work. It is expected that the findings of this research will stimulate further research

on other areas of tablet use by students and lecturers in universities as well as

learners and teachers in the schools of Eastern Cape Province.

1.8 Research Methodology

1.8.1 Research Paradigm

The researcher adopted a Post Positivist paradigm for this study.

1.8.2 Research Approach

A mixed method research approach was followed to conduct this study.

1.8.3 Research Design

The researcher had opted to use a case study research design with elements

of descriptive survey research and interview. Structured survey questionnaires were

given to university students, lecturers and managers.

1.8.4 Study site

The university where the study was carried out has four campuses. The

research was conducted at one of the campuses where the National Diplomas in ICT

and EE were offered.

1.8.5 Population, Sample selection and Sample size

Details of sample and sample selection are given in Chapter three. In

summary, a total sample of 155 students that comprised of ICT and EE students

from a population of 254 and another sample of 14 lecturers that comprised of ICT

and EE from a population of 25 participated in the survey. Furthermore, a total of 16

managers from a population of 20 also took part in the survey.

12

An overall sample of 18 students were interviewed from the ICT and EE

cohorts. A total of five lecturers were interviewed from both ICT and EE departments.

In addition to that a total of nine managers were also interviewed.

1.8.6 Instruments

The instruments used in the mixed method research consisted of closed-

ended questionnaires and interviews.

1.8.7 Data analyses

The data were statistically analysed. Quantitative data was analysed

statistically by the use of descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Moreover,

thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data.

1.9 Definitions of operational terms

Tablet

A small portable computer device that is used to be online but not to make

any calls or receive calls (Parajuli, 2016). In this study, tablet is a tool that is used by

university students and lecturers for learning and teaching in the classroom.

iPad

iPad is a device that is introduced by Apple Inc. iPad is used to take photos,

shoot video, play games, play music and do web browsing and e-mailing. An iPad is

also called a slate and is an example of a tablet computer (Buchanan, 2010). iPad is

a flat-screened tablet computer that has touch screen keyboard developed by Apple

(De Clercq & Celine, 2015). In this study, iPad is used in multiple literature to explain

the tablet technology.

Laptop

A small, portable computer that can be kept on an individual’s lap (Beal,

2015). In this study, laptop is a tool that is used to differentiate between tablets in the

way it is used in universities to determine the level of substitutability.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/portable.html

http://www.webopedia.com/author/Vangie-Beal

13

Student

“Student” refers to learners at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels at the

Department of Computer and Systems Sciences at Stockholm University (Aghaee,

2015). In this study, a student is someone who is doing his/her studies at University

level by using tablet.

Lecturer

A lecturer is someone who fills knowledge in students’ minds and gives more

and more information to withstand in the outer world. Lecturer shapes them for

preparation of actual building (Naveen, 2015). Lecturer is someone who is

professionally qualified for educating others in a particular discipline (Aklilu, 2016).

In this study a lecturer is regarded as someone who uses tablet to lecture his/her

students at university level.

Manager

Manager is a person in a formal position or role having certain powers that are

received as a result of workers seeing the manager as a role model (Mele, 2012).

For the purpose of this study, Manager is referred to as Dean, Head of the

department (HOD), e-learning administrator, e-learning specialist, Extended

Programme coordinators (Ex PCO) of the department and Extended Programme

coordinator (Ex PCO) of the whole university.

University

A "university" is a group of schools for studies after secondary school. At least

one of these schools is a college where students receive a bachelor's degree. The

other schools in a university are "graduate" (also known as "postgraduate") schools

where students receive advanced degrees. Therefore, a university offers both the

bachelor's degree and graduate degrees such as the master's (M.A.) and doctorate

(Ph.D.) (Sharon, 2016). In this study, university is a place where the lecturer delivers

the lecturing presentation to the university level students.

https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=EN3YEYOP23POMFIICMN2LZLS3Q&t=g

14

Learning

Learning is a process of obtaining latest knowledge, behaviours, skills, values

or preferences (Gross, 2012). For the purpose of this study, learning is a process

done by the university students using the latest technology called tablet.

Teaching

According to Gage (1964), "Teaching is a form of interpersonal influence

aimed at changing the behaviour potential of another person". In this study, teaching

was a process done by lecturers using the latest technology called tablet.

Lecturing

Lecturing is a process by which the lecturer gives oral presentations to

students who are obliged to listen and take notes (Good & Merkel, 1959). In this

study, lecturing is a process done by lecturers using the latest technology called

tablet.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

ICT consists of the hardware, software, networks and media for the collection,

storage, processing, transmission and presentation of information (voice, data, text,

images), as well as related services (Evoh, 2007). ICT is a broad area that includes

many computer related aspects. In this study, ICT included all kinds of computer

technologies such as desktop computer, laptop, iPad, iPod, mobile phones, smart

phones and Tablet.

apps apps are the abbreviation for applications. It is a software program that can

run on computer and electronic devices such as phone, tablet, computer etc. There

are apps that may work even without internet connection (Karch, 2018). For the

purpose of this study, apps are applications that are downloaded and installed in

tablets for educational purposes.

Technology

Technology is a substance for a community, financial and radical change at

the different stages of an individual, group, company and institution (Fountain, 2002).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

15

In this study, technologies are devices such as tablets, iPad, iPod, laptop,

smartphones and mobile phones that are developed from scientific knowledge.

Professional development

Professional development “refers to the attaining or developing new skills

and knowledge required for upholding a particular career path and growing as a

proficient in a specific field” (Education Commission of the States, 2015, para 1).

Providing training or workshops to lecturers and students and staff development in

various ways are termed as Technology training/Professional development in this

thesis.

TPACK

TPACK is the abbreviation for Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge. It is a theoretical framework “demonstrating how teachers’

understandings of technology, pedagogy, and content can interact with one another

to produce effective discipline-based teaching with educational technologies” (Harris,

Mishra & Koehler, 2009, p. 396). TPACK is one of the frameworks used in this study

for the purpose of understanding the views of lecturers.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a theoretical framework that is used for constructing,

producing and developing an individual’s own knowledge and skills (Liu & Chen,

2010). It is a framework that is used in this study for the purpose of understanding

the views of students.

Main stream

Main stream refers to streams designed for degree and diploma programmes

which are offered to the students based on their entrance requirements (UNISA,

2018). In this study, students who qualify academically for the entrance

requirements of their chosen programme are placed in the mainstream.

16

Extended Stream

Extended programmes are “streams within regular diploma or bachelor

degree qualifications which are offered over a longer period than the formal time for

regular programmes” (UNISA, 2018). In this study, students who do not qualify

academically for the entrance requirements of their selected programme were

supposed to study an extra year in order to reach up to the level of main stream.

Digital immigrants

Digital immigrants are those who were not born into the digital world (Prensky,

2007). Digital immigrants have adapted and are learning the language of technology.

In this study, the researcher determined the age of digital immigrants to be anyone

born before 1990.

Digital natives

Digital natives are students of the 21st century who are native speakers of

technology and are fluent in the digital language of computers, video games and the

internet (Prensky, 2007). In this study, the researcher determined the age of digital

natives to be anyone born in or after 1990.

1.10 Chapter Demarcation

This thesis contains five chapters and are organised as follows:

Chapter One presented an introduction and background of the study, emphasised

some of the elements that motivated the researcher in commencing the study, such

as the need for an education using tablet computer. The different mobile learning

devices and the importance of professional development were also described. An

outline of the benefits and drawbacks of the tablet use in a university classroom was

presented. The objectives of the study, the research questions, the scope, a brief

overview on population and sample, instrument, data analyses and the significance

of the study were summarised.

Chapter Two provides a critical review of the theoretical frameworks and relevant

literature applicable to this study.

17

Chapter Three describes the research paradigm, approach and design. The

population, sample, data collection instruments are discussed. Issues such as

validity and reliability, data collection procedures, analysis and ethics are also

addressed.

Chapter Four provides a detailed report of the results obtained during the collection

of the data. Data are presented, interpreted and analysed.

Chapter Five presents a summary of the thesis and concludes with limitations of the

study and recommendations related from the findings of the research.

1.11 Summary

In this chapter, the study was introduced and the background to the study was

sketched. An overview of the use of tablet computers in university classrooms was

demarcated. Tablet technologies are used in institutions to change the old method of

chalk and talk approach and implement a new way of blended learning. Technology

integration, ICT in education, tablet computer in higher education institutions,

professional development, mobile apps, university students’, lecturers’ and

managers’ views on tablet use in classrooms, its benefits and drawbacks were all

summarised. A concise summary of the significance of the study was followed. A

brief summary of the methodology used in the research was shadowed. Definitions

of operational terms used in this study were also provided thereafter in this study. In

the next chapter, two theoretical frameworks for the current study would be

presented, followed by a review of the pertinent literature.

18

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Education system

Education has a crucial role in the everyday life of an individual which makes

a holistic development not only to an individual but also to the public and the country.

Blazar and Kraft (2017) posit that education policy has been shaped due to the

effectiveness of teacher over the past decade. Value based education should be

incorporated into the curriculum to make every individual a good citizen (Bhardwaj,

2016). Institutions play a significant role in building good citizens by providing

excellent education to the students through new ICTs (Keating, 2013). Many of the

students nowadays are using modern technologies (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009;

Kyzym & Petukhova, 2017) from an early stage itself (Gutnik, et al., 2011; Rideout

2011) which will make them easier to use these tools later in an institution. However,

educational technologies are not yet implemented effectively due to unqualified

teachers and shortage of academic resources (Stošić, 2015). However, the

incredible expansion in the area of ICT is changing the style of higher education.

Educators are engaged in additional responsibilities to update themselves with the

current progress in the scientific and technical field. Technologies must be

implemented in higher education institutions that include both on campus and distant

education to enhance the skill of students and academics from the traditional

methods of learning and teaching (Lambert, et al., 2014).

2.2 Traditional methods of learning and teaching

A glimpse at the former way of learning and teaching reveals that the learning

style was passive as the teaching style was based on teacher centred approach

where the teacher plays the main role which is commonly known as traditional

teaching methods (Zohrabi, Torabi & Baybourdiani, 2012). In earlier days, teaching

entailed both teachers and students to be at one place at the same time to deliver

knowledge (Nasseh, 2009). Information from the prescribed curriculum and

resources are organised and presented structurally by the teacher which can be

considered as the traditional technique of school based learning (Kim, Tan &

http://ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/166/316#Greenhow

http://ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/166/316#Gutnick




19

Bielaczyc, 2015). According to Bowers and Flinders (1990), teacher-centred

approach is similar to an industrial production in which student is a product of “exit

skills” or “outcomes”. The role of a teacher was to provide information to students

who passively receive information and this traditional method of teacher centred

learning was used more commonly than student centred learning (Lynch, 2010;

Ahmada, Bakarb & Ahmadc, 2018). The main drawback is that the students are

limited to a certain extent and the assessment of their knowledge is based on their

performance in tests or exams that cannot bring out their full potential. Donnelly

(2014) pointed out that “chalk and talk” approach is favoured in China. However,

countries such as the US (Rossing, et al., 2012; Diemer, Fernandez & Streepey,

2012; Shen, 2016), UAE (Hargis, Cavanaugh, Kamali & Soto, 2014), Australia

(Pegrum, Howitt & Striepe, 2013; Clarkson, 2018), Georgia (Hill, et al., 2012) and

Canada (Karsenti & Fievez, 2013) have upgraded from this mode of teaching to a

collaborative mode of learning where students take greater control. Students need to

be prepared in such a way to be a part of the information society where knowledge is

the most significant factor in the social and economic development of a country. It is

also considered as a crucial necessity for upcoming growth in the education sector

(Spathis, 2004). Print media and tools used for writing are the modernised ways to

spread ideas and knowledge (Nasseh, 2009).

The structure and functionality of education has been changed by the

implementation of ICT in the field of education particularly in universities and open

universities resulting in the wide spread and growth of distance learning and

electronic learning (e-learning). These new technologies convert and support the

adaptation of new syllabus and developments in the existing applications (Petridou &

Spathis, 2001; Mohamed & Lashire, 2003). Moreover, the approaches of teaching

may change based on the influence of active learning (Cottel & Millis, 1994; Bonner,

1999) as given below.

The following table shows the comparison of traditional teaching methods and

moderately evolved teaching methods.

http://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-donnelly-118593


20

TABLE 2.1: Comparison of Traditional teaching methods and moderately

evolved teaching methods

Traditional teaching methods Moderately evolved teaching methods

• Reading texts and problems

• Formulating questions

• Attending lectures

• Monitor discussions

• Writing and reply brief or extensive

questions and objective type

questions

• Solving short or lengthy

unstructured problems and cases

• Oral presentation of topic and

reply to short questions from the

audience

• Video Watching

• Attendance and participation in lectures

using interactive whiteboards

• Accounting applications using simple

systems

• Role Playing

• Simple modelling

Source: Cottel & Millis, 1994; Bonner, 1999

The old style of classroom based teaching is undergoing a change due to the

emergence of various digital technologies (Nasseh, 2009).

2.3 Evolution of technologies

Education sectors in the 21st century have been revolutionized by the rapid

growth of ICT (Siu & García, 2017). Recent research on communications technology

(Pew Research Center Global attitudes and trends, 2015) has shown that common

people are using smart phones to access the internet rather than using the old

broadband land phone connection. Pownell and Bailey (2001) identified some trends

in the link with education and ICT. Internet, World Wide Web are those trends of ICT

which has made a tremendous change in the communication among people. Internet

plays a vital role in the day-today activities of general users, especially students due

to the assistance they are obtaining to complete assignments and related works.

This also helps students to acquire knowledge and upgrade themselves by moving

to the next level of studying which makes them confident in their studies (Brown,

2002; Turkle & Papert, 1991). Internet access is offered for lecturers and students in


21

higher education to provide different methods of learning and teaching using tools

such as desktop, laptop, tablet, Personnel Digital Assistant (PDA). The opaque

projector that was used in the olden days is no longer used and it is replaced by the

new advanced fast response time digital projectors which are used by lecturers to

deliver the presentation to students in university classrooms (Grudin, 1994; Stahl,

Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). Different mobile technologies such as laptops, tablets

and mobile phones are revolutionising the range of learning and teaching to a higher

level (Rossing, et al., 2012).

2.4 Modern methods of learning and teaching

Kyzym and Petukhova (2017) aver that modern methods are launched in

education by improving the curriculum and introducing new learning technologies. It

is very important to integrate technology into education by updating the curriculum so

as to prepare the next level of students with essential skills for their forthcoming

(Green, 2005; Motteram, 2011; Saine, 2012; McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy &

Tate, 2012). Gawelek, Spataro and Komarny (2011, p. 28) argue that “no matter

their economic status, they know the world wide web, social media, and

entertainment technologies such as film, music, and games as consistent and

constant components of everyday experience”. Students of the present generation

have high hopes and anticipations which are unlike in the days of chalk and talk

approach in higher education (Siemens, 2005; Castle & McGuire, 2010; Jean-Louis,

2011).

Daniels and Pethel (2005, p. 47) compare students in the current classrooms

with those in the classrooms of olden days and find that they “report higher

subjective satisfaction on a number of dimensions, including overall quality of

educational experience” and “the more they judge the experience to be collaborative,

the more likely they are to judge the outcomes as superior to the traditional

classroom”. Teachers who support the modern method of learning and teaching

claim that “when students are engaged in digital literacy activities,” they “become

more creative in their thinking” (Saine, 2012, p. 38). Kim, Tan and Bielaczyc (2015)

define modern learning as student centred education that lays the responsibility on

students for the learning path without any prescribed curriculum.





http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesj.192/full#tesj192-bib-0005







22

During the beginning of 21st century, Barrows (2000) and Salvatori (2000)

claimed that problem based learning (PBL) was first comprehended at a medical

school in Canada to train students for attaining the knowledge required, through

group studies to solve realistic problems. Furthermore, instructional approaches

such as inductive teaching and learning (Prince & Felder, 2006) and PBL (Klegeris &

Hurren, 2011; Jurewitsch, 2012) have taken over and followed by many universities

and colleges around the world (Klegeris & Hurren, 2011) to foster the inquiry based

learning in real world contexts which is gaining an acceptance across many

educational disciplines (Spronken-Smith & Walker, 2010). Field based learning plays

a significant role in the education system (Whitmeyer, et al., 2009) that aids the

conceptual development and understanding of student learning (Orion & Hofstein,

1994; Elkins & Elkins, 2007). Researches have proved that field courses are

assisting the students in enhancing their knowledge (Spencer, 1990). Nasseh (2009)

describes distance learning as a new method of education system where the study

materials and guidelines are given to learners by not being in a designated place

called classrooms but through the wide access of libraries. Jethro, Grace and

Thomas (2012) refer e-learning as the Internet technologies that deliver a wide range

of solutions to enrich knowledge and performance. Many of the e-learning

technologies (Garrison, 2011) assist the students to learn the topics from their

convenient place and time (Herrington, et al., 2012). There are several technologies

available to adopt a blended learning approach that can be used to enhance the

skills of learners and these include videos for demonstration, recording and reflective

analysis for simulation-based e-learning (SIMBEL) systems (El-Mowafy, Kuhn &

Snow, 2013). PowerPoint delivery of lecture is an effective way of lecturing when

compared with chalk and talk approach (Shah, Patel & Shah, 2017).

To mark the shift from chalk and talk approach where the students are

passive to a modern approach where the students are active, collaborate and

engage in classroom (Pelgrum, 2001; Figueiredo & Afonso, 2005), a magic device

called tablet computers came into market (Melhuish & Falloon, 2010; Falloon, 2013).

These tablets are more narrowly defined by the New Media Consortium in 2012 as a

wireless mobile PC device that has finger driven touch screens (Clark & Luckin,

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Whitmeyer1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Orion2')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Orion2')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Elkins2')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Spencer1')

23

2013). Meurant (2010, p.54) indicate that the tablet’s “operating system and

innovative apps are a potential game changer. An integrated ecosystem that is being

established will likely revolutionize education”. It is therefore necessary to observe

the different mobile technologies that are changing the world today.

2.5 Mobile technologies

The high popularity of the mobile technologies have greatly influenced people

all over the world especially the youth (Alhassan, 2016; Zidney & Warner, 2016;

Huda, et al., 2018). Mobile technology is increasingly being used to support blended

learning beyond computer centres (Mayisela, 2013). The adoption of these

technologies provide communication, knowledge and information from anyone

around the world at any time which removes the gap from old style of life and work to

modern (Sadler, Robertson, Kan & Hagen, 2006). Portable computers such as

laptops, wireless communication tools such as 3G/data card, data bundles,

Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, general packet radio service (GPRS) and mobile devices can all

be called mobile technologies. The most recent growth in the field of mobile

technologies are smartphones and tablets (Mayisela, 2013).

While over 75% of the world’s population uses mobile technology, more than

30 billion users have downloaded mobile apps in 2011 all over the world (World

Bank, 2012). There are mobile devices of various models easily available in the

arcade which are widely used by all kinds of people who range from university

students to senior citizens. Students get familiar with these devices fast but teachers

takes some time to get acquainted with them (Knezek, Christenson & Tyler-Wood,

2009) even though they have a high interest in the invention of mobile apps since it

assists learning and teaching (Johnson, Adams & Cummins, 2012).

Mobile phones have made an impact in almost all the developed countries

(BuddeComm, 2011), where it is common for people to own two devices. During

mid-2012, in Australia the use of mobile phones and smart phones came up to a

level of 130% (BuddeComm, 2012), and 52% (Google & Ipsos, 2012) respectively.

The report from International Telecommunication Union shows that more than 6

billion customers purchased mobile phones in 2012 (Liu & Wei, 2014). Another

24

report by Comscore (2014) indicates that 163.2 million people in the U.S. owned

smartphones during the beginning of 2014. Mobile phones have developed into a

multipurpose device that has various features such as audio recording, video

capturing, web browsing, playing games as well as sending and receiving emails

(Engel & Green, 2011).

Mobile health or mHealth is applied in the medical field where health

information networks are accessed with the help of mobile devices (mDevices). The

information is retrieved using radio waves either through the central access points or

satellites. Among all these mobile devices, mobile phones are most commonly used

in mHealth (Hart, 2000).

Recent developments in mobile technology including the introduction of

smartphone and tablet devices have provided essential new tools for communication

(MCNaughton & Light, 2013). In the beginning of 2012, tablet ownership of the

people in Australia was 18% and it was expected that by the end of the year, it would

reach to 39% (IAB Australia, 2012). The wide availability of these portable, powerful,

networked technologies have changed our ways in how we work, learn, spend our

leisure time and interact socially. The impact has been rapid and widely spread

(MCNaughton & Light, 2013). “Mobile technologies are able to support learners’

engagement in creative, collaborative, critical and communicative learning activities”

(Cobcroft, Towers, Smith & Bruns, 2006, p. 25). Mobile technologies such as mobile

phones and tablets can highly supplement students’ interest in studies and produce

effective academic results when blended with traditional strategy. These

technologies enable students to perform mobile learning by being online and work

more independently inside and outside of the classroom (Menkhoff & Bengtsson,

2012).

2.6 Mobile learning

Chen (2012) states that mobile learning is a type of learning by not being in a

specified time or at a particular place where the study material can be obtained from

various locations. Mobile learning or m-learning includes all kinds of learning using

any mobile device such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), digital media players

25

(iPods and iPod Touches), smartphones (iPhones, Android phones, BlackBerrys and

Windows phones) and tablet computers including tablets (Wood, 2003; McQuail,

2005; Wallace, 2008; Mark, Grace & Robert, 2012; Gong, 2012). These mobile

learning devices are weightless, portable, easier to handle and need less

requirements when it is compared with the older version of computers (Milks &

Bloxham, 2010). O’Malley, et al. (2005) indicate that mobile learning is a kind of

learning in specialized contexts that are entered in numerous ways such as learning

by not determining a particular location (Ally, 2009; Motiwalla, 2007), study materials

accessing from various sources and by taking advantage of learning prospects

offered by the mobile technologies. This process of mobile learning “plays an

essential role of online collaboration for educational purposes” (Liu, Tao & Nee,

2008, p. 127). As discussed by Motiwalla (2007), m-learning is possible as long as

one has a wireless connectivity to the internet. This assists students to enhance their

collaboration and interaction with the lecturers and classmates which are valuable for

enlightening the learning environment.

However, the mobile learning used in universities around the globe is still in its

infancy. The latest models, systems and applications need to be implemented in

higher education sectors for the successful integration of mobile learning. Educators

need to update themselves with the new technologies and update the learning styles

that are available in the current era to safeguard an efficient and effective mobile

learning environment (Khaddage, Lattemann & Bray, 2011). In the next section, the

discussion focuses on technology integration.

2.7 Technology Integration

While technology has become a greater force to improve the productivity in

the field of business, education did not have much change (Geringer, 2003). Only a

minority of the educators are using technology in classroom to enhance learning and

teaching even though much have been discussed to integrate technology into

classroom (Geringer, 2003). “The level of knowledge and familiarity with technology

can be a factor in the incorporation of technology into the daily lesson planning” (Al-

Bataineh, Anderson, Toledo & Wellinski, 2008, p. 381).





26

Labbo and Place (2010, p.9) define the technology integration as “curriculum

integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to

enhance learning in a content area or a multidisciplinary setting”. Dockstader (1999,

p.2) states that “technology integration is using computers effectively and efficiently

in the general content areas to allow students to learn how to apply computer skills in

meaningful ways”.

Educators should have knowledge in the latest technologies and use it

regularly in classroom in order to fully utilize the integration of tools in learning and

teaching (Duhaney & Zemel, 2000). "The challenge for educators today is not about

chasing the latest technologies, but about utilizing the potential of technology to

enrich learning” (Khim, 2003, p. 2). Using technology in classroom is an essential

factor to make the students not only productive but also to motivate, develop the

knowledge and boost creativity in all their courses (Duhaney & Zemel, 2000).

“Integrating technology isn’t about using complex technology programs but rather

simplifying technology choices and focusing on how technology connects to learning”

(Antifaiff, 2000, p. 7).

The use of technology on a regular basis into the instruction has made the

educator a facilitator in a student centred approach from teacher centred approach.

This made a vital change in students to collaborate and engage more with their

classmates by being active participants in learning (Pisapia, 1994).

However, teachers should initiate the process of using technologies in the

classroom and it is very important for a teacher to have knowledge on how to

integrate technology into curriculum as well as to have the ability to use the

technology efficiently and effectively (Wang, Ertmer & Newby, 2004). Incorporating

technology into curriculum is to improve students’ learning by which curriculum

drives the use of technology, not technology driving curriculum (Dockstader, 1999).

A review of ICT in education explains this concept further.

27

2.8 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education

The rapid development of ICTs has provided the way for academic institutions

all over the globe to develop the learning and teaching process (Husseini & Safa,

2009). The use of ICTs in education have transformed the learning and teaching

approach (Talibian, Hamid & Ahmed, 2014). Means and Olson (1997, p.9) state that

technology “promotes student learning through collaborative involvement in

challenging, multidisciplinary tasks by providing realistic complex environments for

student inquiry, furnishing information and tools to support investigation, linking

classrooms for joint investigations”.

Technology has revolutionised the field of education during the beginning of

1980s with the emergence of computers. It was a challenging task for institutions to

connect computers with educators and students (Donovan, Green & Hartley, 2010).

When the impact of computers stood up, educators started to realize the benefits of

using computers in classrooms. For example, in 1995, 79% of the institutions in the

U. S. had computer labs (Lowther, Ross & Morrison, 2003). Taylor, Casto & Walls

(2007) declare that more computer facilities are available in institutions compared to

the previous years. Adopting computers and technologies in the classroom have

always encouraged students (Conn, 2012). Serin (2011) and Donovan, Green and

Hartley (2010) also hold the same view that integrating computers into learning has

made students to think independently and involve more using learner centred

approach. According to Li and Ma (2010), students were highly productive when

computers were integrated into mathematics education. “Technology-enriched

classrooms were prone to produce more student-centred and individualized

interactions, and non-technological classrooms consisted of the traditional model of

teacher centeredness” (Page, 2002, p. 403). Classrooms that have computer

facilities have made the environment learner centred rather than teacher centred

(Swan & Mitrani, 1993).

Mobile phone is an ICT tool which can be considered as a learning tool in

classroom as it can assist students in discovering new concepts and offer better

interaction between students and educators (Ooms, Linsey, Webb & Panayiotidis,

2008). Students in China, Japan, Philippines and Germany very often use mobile

28

phones in classroom to learn English spelling, mathematics and health related

matters (Roberson & Hagevik, 2008). Prensky (2005) notes that university students

use mobile phones to complete exams and record voice to check the test taker.

Many students benefit from using mobile phones in computer programming class

(Chen, Wang & Li, 2007).

Tablets in institutions encourage innovative teaching methods such as game-

based learning (Chen, 2012), exploratory learning outside the classroom (Liu, Lin,

Tsai, & Paas, 2012) and cooperative learning (Lan, Sung & Chang, 2007;

Roschelle, et al., 2010b) by gathering and sharing the information. Furthermore,

tablets can be used from any place at any time. Therefore, teachers can use this

device to foster student learning (Lemke, Coughlin & Reifsneider, 2009; Melhuish &

Falloon, 2010). Tablets are revolutionising the learning and teaching environment

from traditional method to blended method (Kiger, Herro & Prunty, 2012). Among all

the mobile devices, tablet is the latest technology that has created a boom in all

sectors especially in education (Cochrane, Narayan & OldField, 2013). The next

section will discuss more on tablet technology such as its evolution and impact

around the world.

2.9 Introduction of iPad tablet technology

Despite mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones and personal digital

assistants (PDA) gaining high popularity in recent years due to its establishment in

the electronics market, they all have defects in one way or the other (John, et al.,

2012). While laptops are heavier and have less battery life, some of the smartphones

and PDAs have small screen size. Tablet computers such as Galaxy (developed by

Samsung Inc.) and iPad (developed by Apple Inc.) have been introduced to enhance

features such as graphic display resolution and touch screen user interface when

compared with previous devices such as laptop and smartphones (John, et al.,

2012).

After the revolution of iPod touch and iPhone, Apple Inc. hurled a supernatural

and innovative device (Apple Inc., 2012) called iPad in January 2010. iPads connect

all ages of people ubiquity through emails, social networking portals, Skype or imo

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515300804#bib41





javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Cochrane1')

29

applications. This device has created a platform that is familiar with multi-touch

support and finger gestures which makes it a mixture of laptop and smartphones

(Jane, 2011). Since then, Apple has declared iPad as “poised to change the learning

landscape” (Apple Inc, 2011). Mc Cracken (2010) report in Time Magazine that iPad

was declared as one of the fifty best inventions of the year 2010. Due to its large

capacity to store Apple iTunes with over 500,000 apps and 72% of educational apps,

iPads offer innumerable software choices for all types of users including students

(Shuler, 2012).

iPads are in much use as a tool for educational and academic purposes

(Manuguerra & Petocz, 2011; Keane, Lang & Pilgrim, 2012; NAEYC, 2012;

Cochrane, Narayan & OldField, 2013; Cavanaugh, Hargis, Kamali & Soto, 2013).

Apple claims iPad as an educational tool that has creativity and hands-on learning

where one cannot find similar features in any other tool (Apple Inc., 2013a). The

powerful apps that are installed in iPads allow students to access information quickly

from anywhere and engage in learning (Apple Inc., 2013b). iPad is widely used not

only for reading, filling, signing and managing the official documents(Warren, 2011)

but also to read e-books, communicate with one another and learn in the new style

that challenges the old style of learning (Henrik, 2011). It is therefore necessary to

observe the entry of tablet technology into higher education.

2.10 Introducing tablets into Higher education

Tablets have made a great impact in higher education. The method of

technology based teaching is spreading all over the world particularly in universities

(Castillo-Manzano, et al., 2017; Henderson, Selwyn & Aston, 2017). Integration of

tablet technology into classrooms has become ubiquitous and it enhances the skill to

read, motivates to learn and helps to collaborate and engage between each other

(Shuler, 2009). Research shows that emerging institutions are incorporating this

gadget into student learning while supplanting the previous computer devices such

as desktop and laptops (Hu, 2011). Another research conducted by Vu, McIntyre and

Cepero (2014) report that institutions in the New York City paid out more than $1.3

million to purchase more than 2000 tablets for the students. The department of

Education in Virginia spent $150,000 to procure tablets at 11 schools. More than 200

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Manuguerra1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Keane1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Cochrane1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-Hargis1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-AppleInc1')

javascript:popRef2('i1089-9995-61-4-385-AppleInc2')

http://mashable.com/author/christina/

30

institutions in Canada applied for a fund grant of approximately $450,000 to

purchase tablets (Vu, McIntyre & Cepero, 2014). Within a period of two years after

the release of iPad tablet computers, 1.5 million iPads and 20,000 education apps

have been purchased for education as per the findings of Apple (Tomassini, 2012).

Nevertheless, the goal of potential technologies to interact with learning and

teaching is still not nearer than expected (Timmermann, 2010). It will not be a difficult

task for academics to integrate technologies such as tablet into classroom to

encourage creativity and collaboration among students as they are already familiar

with all these devices (Timmermann, 2010).

A report made by Foresman (2010) shows that Higher education institutions in

Oklahama are planning to implement this gadget into their curriculum as they

consider it as a cost saving device and a collaborative tool. Many colleges and

Universities such as Oklahoma State University, University of Maryland, Reed

College, North Carolina State University, Duke University, George Fox University,

Seton Hill University, Darden School of Business and Illinois Institute of Technology

plan to begin a pilot tablet program to expand the tactical abilities of students as they

enter the workforce.

The multipurpose features of tablet such as its flexibility and easiness in

reading e-books make it an apt learning tool in the higher education sector. Tablets

are helping hands for students as they are cheaper than their textbooks (Miller,

2012). Beyond reading, tablets have many other facets for academics and students

to use in colleges and universities. Walczak and Taylor (2018) and Minocha, Tudor

and Tilling (2017) posit that a combination of face to face and tablet based

instruction have made substantial developments in learning outcomes. Results from

the study conducted by Enriquez (2010), show a tremendous improvement in

students’ learning when compared with students who did not use tablets. This study

shows that students were more collaborative and their interaction with lecturer and

classmates were easier when tablets were used. Overall, tablets have revolutionised

education in colleges and universities and created more opening for student

improvement and professional development.

31

2.11 Theories of Professional Development

Professional development has been defined in multiple ways by each

researcher. “Professional development is defined as activities that develop an

individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher”

(OECD, 2009, p 49). In Mokhele’s (2011, p. 35) view “Professional development is

defined as the development of a person in his or her professional role”. Galtthorn

(1995) defines professional development as a process of acquiring knowledge

through experience and methodical assessment of the educator’s teaching strategy.

However, Ganser (2000) states that professional development is a professional

growth that can be obtained through both formal and informal involvements such as

attending workshops, meetings, reading peer reviewed publications and watching

academic documentaries. Roters and Trautmann (2014) claim that professional

development will address the knowledge base, beliefs, practical skills or attitude of

teachers. Educational institutions offer a learning space with the necessary gadgets

that provides workshops for training (Avalos, 2011).

The common types of professional development that were offered for years

for educators were staff development workshops, inter training workshops and short

term courses that provided educators with innovative ideas to perform their work

(Villegas-Reimers, 2003). But many of these workshops and trainings were not

fruitful for the work to be done in classroom (Walling & Lewis, 2000; Cochran-Smith

& Lytle, 2001). Educators always have worries about the new tactics that need to be

implemented in learning and teaching once the workshop is done (Guskey, 1986).

Guskey’s (1986, 2002) point seems to be that educators are not ready to change

their mind set and style of teaching as they believe that it will affect negatively on the

performance of students for which they will be held accountable later.

Converse to Guskey’s (1986, 2002) claims, Hochberg and Desimone (2010)

argue that educators should develop their academic and subject knowledge in order

to meet students’ learning needs. Professional development helps the educators to

develop their skill and thereby students can improve their performance in

assessments which definitely stimulates the academics. Technology integration and

32

professional development must always be linked to each other as academics need to

develop their skill and knowledge whenever technologies are implemented

(Bouterse, Corn & Halstead, 2009; Spires, et al., 2012). Spires, et al. (2012, p.234)

state that “Given the effect computers have in the classroom, high quality and well-

designed teacher professional development initiatives become even more crucial for

1:1 learning environments”

Globally, many colleges are improving their quality in education by

augmenting the content and course knowledge of the lecturers and their pedagogical

strategies through various trainings (Darling-Hammond & BaratzSnowden, 2005).

2.12 Professional training for Lecturers

Since the beginning of the 20th century, higher education sectors promote

training for academics to enhance the quality of education. University of Sudan,

University of Tanzania, Makerere University and many more universities in east and

central African continent play a significant role in training and updating the

qualifications of many lecturers (Moon, 2002).

According to Smerdon, et al. (2000, p.9) “teachers' preparation and training to

use education technology is a key factor to consider when examining their use of

computers and the Internet for instructional purposes”. Educators should be updated

with the knowledge of latest technologies in the current market such as tablets,

smart phones for appraisal and professional development which also helps to

communicate between student-teacher-parent effectively and become familiar with

tablet technology (Agir, 2015). Agir (2015) argues that they should be pedagogically

trained on how to use tablets effectively in the learning and teaching environment

with the assistance of various new applications apps to improve the deliverance of

content to students in classroom. Training provided to the academics will certainly

help students to learn the topics more effectively (Caverly, Peterson & Mandeville,

1997).

Cennamo, Ross and Ertmer (2010) undermine the position that

educationalists need to have knowledge on the different stages of implementing

33

technology in the classroom even if they have a negative perception towards the use

of new technologies in learning and teaching.

As a matter of fact, Brooks-Young (2007) and Buabeng-Andoh (2012) indicate

that it is highly significant for an educator to undergo training to integrate new

technologies into the classroom to enhance the instructional strategies for the benefit

of students. However, some researches indicate that there are very little training

facilities available for educators and these are not successful in most cases (Finley &

Hartman, 2004; Brooks-Young, 2007; Buabeng-Andoh, 2012). Educators should be

aware and have knowledge on the current technologies including mobile applications

apps to be prepared for using with their students (Mosenson & Johnson, 2010).

To describe more on this topic, application apps used in tablets for learning

and teaching is explained in the next section.

2.13 Mobile Application apps used in tablets for learning and teaching

Norris and Soloway (2012) note that Apple’s iTunes store has more than

500,000 apps among which there are many apps that can be used for learning and

teaching. Apple provides numerous updating apps that are available to enhance skill

and cover all learning areas for academics and students of different ages

(Bonnstette & VanOverbeke, 2012). According to Carr and Prater (2013, p.3857)

“classrooms with the tablets involved students utilizing apps to reinforce skill

acquisition of letters/sounds, sight/spelling words”.

There are plenty of pedagogy apps available for quality learning and teaching.

Educators have their own way of incorporating technology seamlessly (Cohen,

2012). Some of the commonly used apps have been described in this literature.

iWrite words app is suitable for students who like to write numbers, letters,

words and sentences by using their fingers (Moffet & Amend, 2011). Diigo app is

appropriate for students who want to work collaboratively. It helps students to

highlight, save or comment in the textbooks and receive links to books or articles

(Cohen, 2012; Beach & O'Brien, 2013). Access My Library (AML) app is similar to

34

Diigo app where students can input the name of the database to search for a book or

topic (Cohen, 2012).

A very recent study lists the various functions of educational apps that need to

be installed in smart phones by academics and students while using tablets for

learning. The table shown below describes the criteria of students and educators for

choosing a specific educational app (Eppard, Nasser & Reddy, 2016).

TABLE 2.2: Criteria for Selecting Appropriate Educational apps

Source: Eppard, Nasser and Reddy (2016, pp. 23-25)

Many researches have taken place that provide freedom to students to select

the apps for their coursework (Backhouse, Wilson & Mackley, 2014; Brown, 2015;

Gordon, Jackson & Usher, 2014; Kerrigan, et al., 2014; Manakil & George, 2017).

Zou and Li (2015) conducted a study in Xi’an jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU),

China to examine in what ways mobile apps can be incorporated into the learning

and teaching of English language and the students’ perception on different apps that

can be used to enhance their learning. Two phases were used to collect the data

35

from students. First phase included observation, 40 students completed the

questionnaire and 18 randomly selected students participated in interviews. Second

phase comprised of questionnaire and interviews. While 44 students completed the

questionnaire, 19 students were involved in interviews. Participants reported

positively on the use of tablets with apps for learning in English lessons and they

self-studied inside and outside of the classroom.

The findings of the study conducted by Kim (2013) to investigate the

substantial variances between two groups namely control group and experimental

group are as follows. Students in the control group had only class activity while those

in the experimental group used their smart phone apps. This research was done in a

women’s university in Korea where 24 and 20 students participated in control group

and experimental group respectively. The result discloses the benefits and

drawbacks of smart phone apps in a foreign language classroom.

A research was conducted at the University of New Haven with 20 General

Chemistry honours students who were using tablet3 both in the classroom and the

laboratory. In the beginning, both students and the academics struggled to use the

apps. However, at a later stage, they were satisfied with the efficiency of apps when

tablets had been preloaded with appropriate apps before the commencement of the

chemistry class (Hesser & Schwartz, 2013).

Tablets with preloaded apps for quality learning in classroom can be

considered as the main aspect of mobile learning (Cochrane, 2012) which is one of

the foretelling developments in higher education (Brown, 2015). Majority of the

students agreed that choosing their own apps and devices had enhanced their

learning, collaboration and engagement in a better way (Gordon, Jackson & Usher,

2014).

The literature that follows hereafter will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of

using tablets in a university classroom, views and attitudes of university students,

lecturers and managers regarding tablet use for learning, collaboration and

engagement in classroom. Lecturers and managers views and attitudes on the use

36

of tablets for teaching are also discussed. These are the key factors that drive this

research.

2.14 Benefits of tablets and other mobile technologies

The 21st century generation is very fast in adapting new technologies due to

the benefits these offer. According to Ludwig and Mayrberger (2012, p. 2158),

“mobile devices are easy and safe to handle and can be integrated in the class

without a big expenditure”. A study conducted in Midwestern state college reported

positively on the cognitive skill, organization and learning motivation of students

using tablets in classroom and at home (Dyer, 2013). In addition to that, students

understood that it was an easy tool to take lecture notes and easy to handle and use

when compared with previous mobile technology. As it is portable and can be used

anywhere and at any time, it has improved students’ processing and accessing skill

for information (Dyer, 2013; Hunter & Storksdieck, 2017).

In Barone’s and Wright’s (2009) view, the gadget has helped students to

interact and communicate with their classmates and educators very easily due to its

ability to share and pass information. Based on the findings of a study conducted by

Oblinger (2003) on the use of internet by adolescents, 41% of them used emails and

instant messages to communicate with their teachers for the purpose of learning.

Among all mobile technologies, tablet specifically has helped students to collaborate

with educators and engage more in the classroom (Dhir, Gahwaji & Nyman, 2013).

Berk (2010) argued that gadgets are not only helping students to communicate

between each other in the form of capturing pictures but also through sharing

knowledge in a structure of peer to peer.

Goral’s (2011) point seems to be that the key benefit for students using

tablets is the provision to download and read e-books thereby cutting the

expenditure on textbooks. It also boosts the critical thinking and creativity of the

learners through software included in the technology. Sheppard (2011) highlights

that tablet has the features of an eBook reader, it also allowed access to the myriad

resources of the internet; allowing users to seamlessly switch from one text to

another. Despite mobile technologies such as laptop and tablet being costly for low

37

income people, it will benefit students in terms of not purchasing textbooks but being

online and download e-books (Alsufi, 2014).

Alyahya and Gall (2012, p. 1269) found that “students felt confident carrying

their tablet with them because it organized everything: planner, articles, notes,

emails, appointments etc”. It helps students to be assertive and talented in

classroom. Incorporating tablets into the classroom has made learning enjoyable and

promoted student motivation and interest in learning (Norris & Soloway, 2012;

Ludwig & Mayrberger, 2012; Alsufi, 2014).

Mang and Wardley (2012) pointed out numerous benefits of incorporating

tablets into the classroom such as students reading articles, taking lecture notes,

sharing the work with each other and conducting research during debates. A student

who regularly uses tablet will be much interested to have group study as they share

information in classroom (Ludwig & Mayrberger, 2012).

The vast spread of mobile technologies offer much support for students to

learn inside and outside the classroom (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013). Students in

different age groups who use tablets in classroom are obtaining the benefit of

learning (Alsufi, 2014) that includes slow learners as well (Sheppard, 2011). Mobile

technologies provide multiple learning styles that can be used at any place at any

time (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013). Baya’a and Daher (2009) firmly believe that mobile

technologies are a learning tool that can be used by students to learn effortlessly and

proficiently. Incorporating tablets in classroom can make instructional strategy a

blended learning approach such as project based learning, independent inquiry,

problem based learning and cooperative learning (Lowther, Ross & Morrison, 2003).

Tablet apps provide significant benefits to the educators especially to design

and prepare study materials and curriculum which make it easier for them to devise

instructional strategies (Ludwig & Mayrberger, 2012). This also makes students to

have an interest in attending classes and engaging in learning and completing large

portions in less time (Schachter & D'Orio, 2011; Ludwig & Mayrberger, 2012).

Tanaka, Hawrylyshyn, and Macario (2012) also reveal the viability of using tablets to

38

teach anaesthesiology students. Apple provides many educational apps that can be

potentially used by educators for the purpose of teaching (Ludwig & Mayrberger,

2012).

It is essential to make use of the opportunity to incorporate mobile

technologies into the classroom as it is affordable for the institution (Cobcroft,

Towers, Smith & Bruns, 2006). Barone’s and Wright’s (2009) point seem to be that

institutions should come forward to mould students with new technologies such as

tablets to create a better tomorrow.

2.15 Drawbacks of using tablets in learning and teaching environment

2.15.1 Off-task use of technology in classrooms

Contrary to the earlier literature, mobile technologies that create benefits in

higher education can also create drawbacks (Kim, Mims, & Holmes, 2006). As

students are not familiar with tablets, its software and apps, it is not worth to

incorporate tablets into the classroom (Mang & Wardley, 2013). Kinash, Brand and

Mathew (2012) record the off-task behaviour of students using tablets during lecture

time which includes checking mail, web browsing and visiting social networking sites

such as Facebook and Twitter. Karsenti and Fievez (2013) argue that it is not the

mobile technology particularly tablet that matters but it is how teachers and students

use the tool that matters. None of these devices can create interest in students

unless they themselves use them in a productive manner.

A measurement tool to monitor each student should be implemented in the

classroom. Research conducted by Mifsud (2002) has shown that educators cannot

determine the students’ activities while they are using tablets in classroom. Students

are using the device for ineffective purposes such as playing games, chatting, instant

messaging and visiting websites. These purposes are not appropriate during class

hours and malpractices during tests and exams are supposed to be carefully

controlled. Mifsud (2002) stresses that educators require proper training on how to

use the device effectively before the technology is adopted in the classroom or else

technology will be considered as an intruder into the chalk and talk approach of the

educator.

39

2.15.2 Challenges of adopting technology for technology’s sake

McNaughton and Light (2013) emphasise that the supreme jeopardy in the

revolution of tablet technology is that overenthusiasm on these new technologies will

lead to people focussing on only on technology but not on studies. Due to common

people’s attention to technology, there is a high possibility that parents will purchase

tablets for their children without a clear sense of their purpose and requirement. This

eventually results in them not achieving the goal of purchasing the tablets which

frustrates the consumers and families. Even regular users claim that the tablet is

merely a piece of multi-component communication system (Hyatt, 2011; Rummel-

Hudson, 2011; Niemeijer, Donnellan & Robledo, 2012).

A study conducted by Murphy (2011) reveals that many institutions have

adopted tablets for each and every student registered for the various courses. It is

possible that more institutions may purchase tablets for students in the near future.

Nevertheless, purchasing tablets for the sake of technology will not bring the desired

outcomes.

Similarly, a study conducted in North America indicates that adopting tablets

in institutions have been unsuccessful. Consequently, institutions that have tablets

should be prepared for the successful implementation of tablets in classroom (Mang

& Wardley, 2012).

2.15.3 Upgrade of internet infrastructure

Institutions should come forward to filter and restrict the unnecessary and

irrelevant sites that are used by students during teaching time (Business Wire,

2011). The websites and portals that students visit during the absence of the

educator will deviate their minds from learning and seriously affect their academic

performance (Vuorikari, Garoia & Balanskat, 2011). Vuorikari, Garoia, and Balanskat

(2011) undermine the position that tablet computers make the work harder for an

educator as it is a convenient tool for students to access internet very easily during

any situation. Hence, managements are enforced to implement a technology to limit

the unwanted sites for a productive education. McGee and VanderNoor (2013)

40

expect institutions to do a tight monitoring on the access of content students use to

avoid issues in later stages.

2.15.4 Drawbacks of using tablets when compared with PC and Laptops

Despite the potential benefits offered by tablets, there still remain many

challenges that must be addressed if these benefits are to be fully realized. The main

drawback of tablets when it is compared with the previous technologies such as PC

and Laptops is that tablets lack the feature of inserting CDs or DVDs, thus creating a

serious problem of not being able to install software. A study conducted in Stanford

University and University of Notre Dame revealed that management and students

were unhappy with the use of tablets and discontinued it within a few weeks’ time.

Students were not friendly with the structure, interface and keyboard facility that it

offered and they preferred the earlier technology which was laptop for learning

(Fischman & Keller, 2011).

2.16 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet

use for learning in university classrooms

A study conducted in an Australian university explored the views of 84

students from a population of 92 to assess the effect on learning through the use of

iPad tablets. Mixed method was used for this research. Findings of the study

indicated that iPad use enhanced engagement, realism, collaboration and critical

thinking (Clarkson, 2018).

An interdisciplinary team of faculty from Indiana University – Purdue

University Indianapolis (IUPUI) studied the use of Apple iPad tablet computers as a

supplemental tool for learning in classroom. A total of 209 students partook in the

study. A concurrent mixed method approach was used for the collection of both

qualitative and quantitative data. Findings revealed that some of the students felt the

tablet was a hindrance to their learning and they also had issues with the

touchscreen. However, majority of the students felt tablet as an entertainment tool

that motivated them to learn the topics. Additionally, it generated an interest in them

to attend classes actively. The researchers also recommended that in order to

maximize this potential, the curriculum must be prudently developed and applications

41

that assist various styles of learning and content delivery need to be installed. They

also did not fail to recall the drawback that tablets were a shared resource (Rossing,

et al., 2012).

Mango (2015) conducted a study to investigate the perception of college

students on the use of tablets in their learning. The participants in the study were 35

students from two college level classes of Arabic in a university in the southwest of

the US. A quantitative analysis was performed and a 5-point Likert-type

questionnaire was used in this study. The data analysis and results indicated that

students not only enjoyed using the tablets but also believed that the tablets could be

an effective tool in their learning.

Agir (2015) explored the experience of the first institution that had purchased

tablets in Turkey for classroom use. The aim of this study was to evaluate how well

tablet was used in a classroom and whether it increased the motivation among

students to learn. A total of 15 students participated in the survey. Data was

collected through qualitative analysis in which observations, focus group meetings

and interviews were conducted. From the findings, it was observed that students

used tablets neither to read e-books nor to make presentations. Many students have

used tablets to gather information to conduct online researches thereby getting an

exposure to different learning methods. Overall, students reported positively on

synchronizing smart boards and tablets in education. Nevertheless, classrooms,

management and facilitation must be conducive enough to realize the actual

potential of technology.

Conversely, in a study conducted in China to examine the application of tablet

computer and perception of students on the technology, Long, Liang and Yu (2013)

collected the data from 112 students who participated in an online anonymous

survey. Despite, students agreeing that tablets were used as a learning tool, they

used the device only for fun and entertainment activities.

Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012) investigated the perception of 209

undergraduate students to understand the factors that may shape the attitudes of

42

students towards the use of tablet in the classroom. The authors also examined how

the gadgets had impacted student perceptions of learning and their engagement in

active and collaborative learning during tablet-centred activities. A quantitative

method was used and a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was circulated for this

approach. Although, the authors reported that the adoption of tablets had enhanced

collaborative learning and engagement between the students, they did not measure

the learning styles of the students prior to the analysis.

A pilot study conducted in Midwest United States with a total of 237 students

in a qualitative research analysis showed that students had more openings to work

together in groups for the project and brainwave with their peers to be more creative.

The students were also interested in attending classes to perform tablet activities

which makes them productive (Chou, Block & Jesness 2014).

A research conducted in Turkey warns that students must pay attention to

their work instead of becoming distracted or dominating the gadget in a group (Agir,

2015). However, on an overall appraisal, the tablet facilitated their participation and

collaboration among groups when they worked on a project (Agir, 2015; Mango,

2015).

The views and attitudes of academics on the use of tablets in learning and

teaching environment are equally significant as those of students (Ogle, 2015). The

purpose of Rossing’s (2012) study was to determine the perceptions of university

lecturers on students tablets use when tablets were incorporated into communication

courses. Each faculty member received a tablet during the 2010-2011 academic

year and had access to a set of tablets for in-class use. Indiana University-Purdue

University-Indianapolis faculty attempted to determine how mobile technology might

promote the values and outcomes of liberal education. He used observations,

discussions and experiences to capture the perceptions of teachers on the use of

tablets. The findings indicated that the use of mobile devices invited collaboration

and cooperation, as well as changed the way students interacted with one another

and applied their knowledge. He suggested that students in higher education should

be provided with specific guidance as the new technology is introduced.

43

Research in Turkey from the perspective of academics indicate that majority

of the students use the tool for educational purposes such as to gather information,

prepare presentation and conduct research online. It helps to assert the notion that it

can be used for any lesson (Agir, 2015). Nevertheless, the author states that for the

higher pedagogic effectiveness of using tablets, the institution should take necessary

steps to set a barrier to social networking sites.

Research conducted by Long, Liang and Yu (2013) in China explored the

perspectives of 68 educational administrators who include principals and curriculum

supervisors of different institutions from Beijing and Shandong on the implications of

introducing tablets in developing countries. All the three parts of surveys included

close-ended questions in which the first part focussed on their knowledge of tablets

and their choice between tablets and other similar devices. The second part

concentrated on applications of tablets and the third part engaged on the

requirements of introducing tablets into their learning, teaching and work. The study

shows that students and lectures still need in depth knowledge of applications on

tablets.

Beckerle (2013) measured the perceptions of administrators, professional

support staff and district content facilitators to evaluate how worth and effective was

tablet in terms of learning and teaching tool in classroom. Despite the population of

administrators being 18, unfortunately only one person was ready to participate.

Therefore, statistical analysis was not performed for administrators. Sample for

professional support staff and district content facilitators were 13 and three

respectively. The professional support staff performed the role of counsellors,

psychologists and librarians. A mixed method study was used where the quantitative

data was collected through Likert- scale and qualitative data in the form of open

ended responses and interviews. Generally, all the participants responded positively

to use the gadget for pedagogical purposes in classroom.

44

2.17 Views of lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet use for

teaching in university classrooms

Research conducted to examine the perspective of faculties on deploying

tablets at the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) and Abu Dhabi Women’s

College (ADWC) campus in Abu Dhabi shows that the device has highly influenced

the faculties in terms of professional development. Three kinds of methods such as

1) case study interviews, 2) a faculty dispositional survey and 3) tablet lead faculty

were used for the study. A sample of 4 instructors out of 30 participated in the case

study. While 224 out of 325 faculty members participated in the survey, 19 of the

initial 30 national iChampions were used for the tablet lead faculty. The case study

was analysed using the framework of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities

and threats). The adoption of tablets also helped to create an active student- centred

education and encouraged other technical colleges to integrate the new digital

content (Hargis, Cavanaugh, Kamali & Soto, 2014).

Furthermore, Hill et.al (2012) conducted an exploratory study to seek how

tablet assists physicians in professional practice and clinical decision making. All the

nine faculty preceptors were from St Mary’s Health Care System in Athens, Georgia.

They had received the third generation tablet for the research that was preloaded

with apps to access the medical knowledge for clinic purposes. Classroom

observation and interview were used for the data collection. Findings show that

tablets are very useful for the faculty preceptors to access patients’ information while

doing rounds. Overall, they are motivated and benefiting from the use of tablets.

Contrary to the above studies, Percival and Claydon (2015) argue that even

though tablet is a weight less tool that is portable and easier to handle, faculty

members expressed strong concerns. In order to investigate the use of tablets in the

higher education sector, the authors interviewed lecturers who had used tablets in

classrooms. Majority of them struggled to type on the keyboard as it was tiny.

Tablets cannot be connected to the projector which is another reason for their

concern. Lack of proper training and professional development which made many

academics struggle to get familiar with the gadget and they prefer to stick on to the

45

traditional approach until it becomes user-friendly with the learning and teaching

environment.

Additionally, Nguyen, Barton and Nguyen (2015) revised 20 selected full text

papers from 2011 to 2013 to investigate how tablets had been implemented in the

tertiary institution. They examined and collected peer- reviewed published articles

and scholarly journal articles in ProQuest Academic Research Library, Scopus,

EBSCOhost, Informit A+ Education and Google Scholar and piloted a content

analysis. Notwithstanding some of the benefits such as tablet supports professional

development and administration, it was not clear how well the devices should be

incorporated into the curriculum and how wisely these technologies could be

implemented and handled in higher education.

Shen (2016) conducted a research to evaluate the experiences of teacher

educators regarding tablet use in teacher education from 2013-2015. The study took

place in the School of Education in a Midwestern private university in the United

States of America. Five, four and three faculties participated in the fall semesters of

2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively. However, three faculties in the fall semester of

2015 were the same faculties who had participated in the fall semesters of 2013 and

2014. Data was collected through semi structured interview. In 2013, the researcher

conducted face to face interview and the responses were recorded and transcribed.

On the other hand, responses in 2014 and 2015 were collected through mail. During

this three year cycle, faculties who used tablets on a regular basis in lecturing had

been incorporated into the curriculum. Majority of the faculties had not used the

digital technology very often and used maximum of twice in a semester.

A survey based on quantitative study was conducted to investigate the

attitudes of administrators and educators regarding the use of tablets in classroom in

a south western state. Administrators included the principal and vice principals of

various institutions. A total of 51 administrators participated in the study. The

researcher developed two survey instruments such as pre survey and post survey

and administered to collect the data. The result showed that administrators were

impressed with the training that the lecturers received to enhance their talents and

46

knowledge on tablet use for professional duties. Administrators were also glad with

the present and future use of tablets in the classroom by the teachers and students

(Dogan & Almus, 2014).

A case study conducted by Flanagan (2016) examined the use of tablets to

provide information in connection with the process of incorporating similar

technologies and thereby investigating the effects of student learning from the

perspective of administrators. Two administrators comprising of the principal and

vice principal participated in the interview process. Findings of this qualitative study

elicited a positive response regarding the implementation of tablets in instructional

strategies.

2.18 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the advantages and

disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching

A study in which the viability of introducing tablet into the English curriculum

was scrutinised and the researchers found that tablets were useful to students who

had expertise in the apps. This research highlights both benefits and drawbacks.

Even though, students reported about the slow speed in Wi-Fi connectivity, they

managed to collaborate and engage with their classmates to understand the

concepts and complete the tasks (Brown, Castellano, Hughes, & Worth, 2012).

A case study was conducted at Indiana University – Purdue University

Indianapolis (IUPUI) to examine students’ impressions of mobile technology,

particularly tablets in the classroom. The results showed that tablets provided a

collaborative learning environment that included debates, developing knowledge,

discussing ideas together, participating in classroom activities and thereby having a

greater interaction between each other (Rossing, et al., 2012). Likewise, findings of

the tablet study conducted at Pepperdine University by Weider (2011) revealed that

tablets enhanced the collaboration between student and lecturer in terms of sharing

tablet screen images while solving Calculus problems in Mathematics.

Additionally, research done by Pegrum, Howitt and Striepe (2013)

investigated the existing academic uses of handheld devices in tertiary institution

47

and the views of pre-service teachers in tablet use on their learning about teaching.

Semi structured interview, non-participant observation and focus group interview

were the three types of data collection methods used for the study. Eight pre-service

teachers in the faculty of education at the University of Western Australia were used

for the study. The findings reported that tablet use facilitated them to study a new

way of learning and enhanced their understanding of the pedagogy, content and

helped to stay connected and organized.

A pilot study was conducted at Loyola Marymount University, USA with 30

faculty participants to examine potential pedagogical uses of tablet. The researchers

Yeung and Chung (2011) discussed about the benefits and challenges of using

tablet as well. This study is one of the first tablet Exploration Projects (iPEP) that is

cross disciplined and collaborative enough to encourage the faculty to check the

effectiveness of using tablet in education sector. Qualitative analysis was performed

to code all the data in a software called Nvivo 9. The Faculty responded that tablet

was very useful in terms of accessing the library resources and course resources

very quickly. Tablet also helped the lecturers to communicate with students instantly.

Some of the challenges they have confronted were related to apps where either

preferred apps were not available or it was too expensive to purchase.

In recent times, a large study was conducted in seven vocational college

campuses to investigate the perception of both faculty and students on the

productivity of using tablet in classrooms. About 51 faculties from various programs

such as criminal justice, dental hygiene, medical billing and coding, medical

assisting, pharmacy technology and dental assisting participated in the survey. The

population of the faculties from all the campuses of the various programs were 130.

As the design was mixed-method, both quantitative and qualitative methods had

been used to collect the data. Findings of this study showed that the perception of

faculties and students were not identical. While faculties indicated that their

experience of using tablet in classroom was challenging, students believed that

tablets had helped them to have a high engagement in the classroom. However,

qualitative result showed that both faculties and students believed tablets caused

distraction in learning environment (Reed, 2017).

48

Bennett (2014) conducted a qualitative study in a small Midwestern town that

began a 1:1 tablet initiative. The purpose of the study was to determine the

perceptions of administrators and directors to evaluate the effectiveness of tablet

integration into curriculum and instruction. A focus group was used with three

administrators and two technology and curriculum directors were interviewed to

collect the data. Bennett (2014, p.8) states, “Whether or not technology should be

used in the classroom is no longer debated; instead, the emphasis is ensuring that

technology is integrated into instruction to promote student achievement and future

success”. She found that an institution considered as technologically-rich needed to

improve the integration of technology and instruction for all educators and students.

Furthermore, having technology is not enough, educators and students must be

properly trained with good technology practices for it to be optimized as an

educational tool.

A pilot study conducted in Massachusetts reported positively on the use of

tablets in classrooms. Neither the method nor the number of tablets provided to the

students was mentioned in the research. From the perception of the head of the

institution, the result showed that educators in the experimental study reported

extremely well regarding the implementation of touch gadget and this prompted the

higher officials to provide 1:1 tablets to students (Taborn, 2011).

2.19 Theoretical Framework

Many authors namely Tapscott (2008), Hammer, et al. (2010), Werth and

Werth (2011), Geist (2011), Franklin (2011), Menkhoff and Bengtsson (2012),

Alexander (2014), Ally and Blazquez-Prieto (2014) and Brown (2015) debated about

the young new students in the universities who liked to be entertained by the Wi-Fi

facility, video games and computer technology. These authors named these new

generation students as “Gen Y Learners” (Menkhoff & Bengtsson, 2012),

“Millennials” (Werth & Werth, 2011), “Net-Geners” (Tapscott, 2008) and “Digital

Natives” (Prensky, 2001a; 2001b; 2005; 2010). Constructivism and TPACK were the

two theoretical frameworks that guided this study. Both frameworks were suitable in

this literature to analyse the effects of integrating tablet technology into learning and

49

teaching. These theories together provided the theoretical underpinnings of the

literature related to this study’s sub-research questions. A deep look at each

theoretical framework provides better understanding of the following literature.

2.19.1 Constructivism

The constructivist form of approach converts the teaching from teacher-

centred approach to student-centred approach. The main belief of Constructivism

framework is that students develop their knowledge by themselves through different

ways. This theory advocates the concept that each student creates different sense

and skills as they learn. “Constructivism means that learning involves constructing,

creating, inventing and developing one’s own knowledge and meaning” (Liu & Chen,

2010, p.65). Liu and Chen (2010) state that the teacher will act as a facilitator to

pass the information and arrange the various activities for the students to learn

themselves.

2.19.1.1 History of Constructivism

The Constructivism framework was developed by Dewey (1933), Vygotsky

(1978), Bruner (1963) and Piaget (1963). Liu and Chen (2010) suggest that there

should be a relationship between students learning and their living environment.

In Constructivism framework, students’ learning includes communication,

teamwork and real world situations through which they develop new knowledge by

themselves. Piaget “thought that human’s cognitive structure should construct from

the interaction with the environment gradually and the human’s cognitive structure

develop by the internal and external cause” (Zhang & Kou, 2012, p. 2294).

Dewey (1897) suggests that the interest and experience of the students are

the most important events that will help them to learn in a better way. Lutz and Huitt

(2004) articulate that according to Dewey (1897), people should interact and

collaborate with real situations in order to construct the knowledge. Experience of

each individual offers “foundation for the development of the necessary attributes for

successful living” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.2).

50

2.19.1.2 Significance of Constructivism

Kopelman and De Ville (2001) concur that Dewey’s philosophy has provided a

positive impact on education internationally such as obtaining skills to solve

problems, communicating with small groups, group discussions and acclimatising the

new data into the curriculum programme. Liu and Chen (2010) posit that many

institutions have incorporated the theory of constructivism into their education

programme as they observed that students develop their knowledge by themselves

and teachers being the facilitator.

2.19.1.3 Constructivism in IT courses

Constructivism has been widely explored in the field of education, in

mathematics (Davis, Maher & Noddings, 1990; Coetzee, 2017) and science (Glynn,

Yeany & Britton, 1991) where “radical constructivism represents the state of the art

in epistemological theories for mathematics and science education” (Ernest, 1995, p.

475). Conversely, studies related to Information Technology and Computer Science

education are still in its infancy (Ben-Ari, 1998).

2.19.1.4 Implications of Constructivism to education

Abdulwahed, Jaworski and Crawford (2012) aver that constructivism is a

theory of learning and it is not considered as a pedagogy. However, pedagogy is

highly influenced by constructivism and thus it has implications on teaching.

McCarthy (2016, p.13) concurs with the observation of Fosnot and Dolk (2005,

p.175) and Vygotsky (1978) that learning is closely associated with teaching and

thus it should be integrated into the frameworks of learning and teaching.

Furthermore, they state that teaching will not happen without learning. This clearly

shows that learning and teaching are directly proportional to each other. Hence, it

proves that students’ learning can be improved if the instructional practices are

enhanced (McCarthy, 2016). Cometto (2008) supports learning through facilitation

rather than learning through lecturing and the comparison between these two

approaches is shown below.

The following table shows the comparison between learning through a lecturer

and learning through a facilitator.

51

TABLE 2.3: Comparison of learning through a lecturer and learning through a

facilitator

Lecturer Facilitator

Dictates material Guides Students to the material

Informs Asks/Involved in dialogue with students

Teaches from the front Supports by walking around

Gives answers Provides guidelines, asks good questions

Learner is passive Learner is active

Focus on the material Focus on the student

Source: Cometto (2008, p. 88)

2.19.1.5 ICT Utilization in a Constructivist Learning Approach

Many researchers have compared student-centred learning with teacher-

centred learning. According to Dart (1997), student-centred learning is an approach

where students develop an in-depth understanding of the content. On the other

hand, teacher centred learning assists students to learn the content on a surface

level. Lee, Johanson and Tsai (2008) posit that students were able to connect lesson

content with real life situations when they used student centred learning. However, in

teacher-centred learning, students learned the content for the sake of completing the

course. Trigwell and Prosser (1991) and Cano (2007) also agreed that the quality of

student-centred learning approach was better.

Jonassen (1994) concurs with Wilson and Cole (1991) and states that

student-centred learning is based on constructivism. This involves a combination of

blended learning where knowledge is related to the real environment by themselves.

Cooperative learning is another feature of constructivism where learning by

socializing is done.

The theory of Constructivism framework uplifts ICT as a teaching tool (Willis &

Mehlinger, 1996). Rakes, Fields and Cox (2006) emphasise that a blend of

constructivist theory with the use of ICT will lead to useful applications of technology

tools to enhance the skills of students. Muniandy, Mohammad and Fong (2007)

52

argue that ICT and learning theory should not be separated as these two aspects

must be combined together always in order to produce an effective learning

atmosphere in classroom. Hence, it is significant for teachers to enhance their skills

of TPACK to understand how technology is associated with pedagogy and content

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). TPACK emphasises that an academic must have the

knowledge to use ICT for teaching the subject content in a better pedagogical

approach for quality teaching. The following section provides a detailed elucidation

on TPACK which is the second framework used for this study.

2.19.2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework

This study used a framework for the integration of technology into teacher

knowledge called Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK).

TPACK was first proposed by Koehler and Mishra in 2006. They have derived

TPACK framework from Shulman’s (1986) work on the knowledge of teachers for

teaching using ICT. After the development of TPACK, many researchers such as

Koehler and Mishra (2009), Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009), Schmidt, Cogan and

Houang (2011), Chai, Koh, Tsai and Tan (2011), Lin, Tsai, Chai and Lee (2013)

have used this framework to integrate ICT in schools. Shumlan’s (1986) work was

reformed by Koehler and Mishra (2009) to emphasise that TPACK centres around

technology, pedagogy and content and the association between them. Comparing

with Shulman’s framework, Koehler and Mishra (2009) posit that in TPACK, the

educators need an additional knowledge in order to teach courses well using

technology which can be considered as an extension from Shulman’s framework.

Koehler and Mishra (2009) concur that the use of Technology in education

stimulates the inferences concerning pedagogy and content. Jang (2010) argues that

teachers need to update themselves with cognizance of relation between the

knowledge of pedagogy and content along with technology in order to mould the

students of the 21st century. Although the mode of teaching with technology is

critical, it benefits in implementing the content and PK of the educator in classroom

using technology. Technology is a part of pedagogical and content knowledge

(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). TPACK model removes the complexity in each component

namely technology, content and pedagogy and the intersection of these three basic

53

components that enables each situation in a classroom to be a unique interaction

(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). They further added that it is very vital for an educator to

interrelate these components with contextual parameters along with the articulacy

and cognitive flexibility of each component to develop effective solutions.

The integration of a new technology such as tablet into education sectors

challenges the educators to assimilate all the basic components of knowledge.

Koehler and Mishra (2006) assert that educators must know how effectively and

efficiently technology can be incorporated into pedagogy and content. TPACK is a

framework which can be used by the educators to integrate technology to enhance

the level of learning and teaching. Jang and Tsai (2012) corroborate that

effectiveness and efficiency of teaching can be maximised by teachers using the

model called TPACK.

There are totally six types of knowledge components in TPACK to describe

knowledge. They are Technological knowledge (TK), Pedagogical knowledge (PK),

Content knowledge (CK), Technology Pedagogy knowledge (TPK), Technology

Content knowledge (TCK) and Pedagogy Content knowledge (PCK). These

knowledge components and their relationship between each components makes the

framework TPACK. The Venn diagram of TPACK is shown below.

54

Fig 2.1: TPACK FRAMEWORK

Source: http://tpack.org

The above diagram has three circles for TK, PK and CK. The intersecting

portion of all the circles represents TPACK which is in the middle signifying the

synthesis of all different knowledge components.

The researcher of this study used the framework of TPACK to measure the

tablet use of lecturers during teaching practice in university classrooms in terms of

the different knowledge components. This enables the researcher to make sense of

how they integrate these components during the stage of instruction. The TPACK

framework was an indispensable model in structuring the quantitative and qualitative

method of lecturers for this research study. TPACK was investigated through the

execution of closed-ended questionnaire and interview revolving around how the

tablet computers were beneficial and unfavourable for teaching in university

classrooms. Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) aver that TPACK is a holistic

framework that contains all parts of knowledge and these parts mixed up together

and developed one domain of knowledge.

http://tpack.org/

55

2.19.2.1 Technological knowledge (TK)

TK is the main domain knowledge in TPACK framework. This knowledge

component was included to define TPACK from Shulman’s (1986) PCK model. Chai,

Koh and Tsai (2013, p.33) define TK as “Knowledge about how to use ICT hardware

and software and associated peripherals”. Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) and

Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013) articulated that TK was hard to describe as there

were many possibilities to become outmoded. National Research Council (1999)

claimed that Fluency of Information Technology (FITness) required people to

understand Information Technology (IT) largely to implement it at work as IT could

assist in achieving the objective and updating themselves with the new knowledge.

Knowledge about “certain ways of thinking about and working with technology can

apply to all technology tools and resources” (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013, p.15).

Hence, the above statement balances with the use of IT products such as tablet

computer for learning and teaching in a working environment. Mouza, et al. (2014)

postulate that it is necessary for a teacher to have basic skills for using technology

tools and practical application of technical skills in order to engage students with ICT

which is considered as TK.

TK discusses about the knowledge of different tools that ranges from pencil

and paper to digital technologies such as interactive whiteboards, digital video,

internet and software programs (Schmidt, et al., 2009). Delivering a lesson using IT

tools such as the use of Microsoft word, PowerPoint presentations and mailing

learning materials to the students and lecturers, presenting information in Excel

spreadsheet to a class are all considered as example of TK. The more chances

lecturers get to use IT tools such as tablet computers, the more they acquire TK. The

lecturers who have high level of TK will always update themselves with the latest

change in the ICT market. Each lecturer will decide which application and what

feature of tablet computer to use for each session. Lecturers can become more

competent, learn deeper and acquire more TK if they use tablet computers in

maximum number of classes for teaching. Hence, utilizing the opportunity of tablet

computer for instructional purpose will enhance the skills of TK and make them self-

reliant and competent lecturers.

56

2.19.2.2 Pedagogical knowledge (PK)

Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013, pp. 397) viewed about PK as:

teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and practices of teaching and learning, encompassing educational purposes, goals, values, strategies, and more. PK is a generic form of knowledge that applies to student learning, classroom management, instructional planning and implementation, and student assessment. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods used in the classroom, the nature of the learners' needs and preferences, and strategies for assessing student understanding.

In this study, lecturers should acquire various skills in teaching under different

circumstances such as project based learning in teaching, problem based learning in

teaching, micro teaching and experimental teaching.

2.19.2.3 Content knowledge (CK)

CK is one of the domain knowledges in TPACK framework. Koehler, Mishra

and Cain (2013) assert CK as a knowledge about the subject content that is to be

taught or learned. A concrete foundation of subject knowledge is an essential for a

teacher. Schmidt, et al. (2009) articulate that teachers are the people who must

know the contents in the course that they are going to teach and how the nature of

discipline distinguishes for each subject area. CK is significant as it determines the

particular modes of thinking unique to each field (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu &

Rosenberg, 2013).

As far as this study is concerned, ICT and EE lecturers must be qualified and

must have deep knowledge on their subject matter and central theories. They must

also have a clear view on what they are going to lecture. In order to teach and

assess students’ learning effectively, academics should be experts in subject matter

(Department of Basic Education, 2011).

Shulman (1986) posits that future teachers need to understand and connect

CK with other domains in TPACK such as Technology Content Knowledge (TCK)

and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in order to be competent in CK.

57

2.19.2.4 Technology Content knowledge (TCK)

According to Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013) TCK is a knowledge of how

technology can influence the subject content by changing the way it is offered for the

purpose of teaching. It also helps teachers to change the way students learn and

understand each topic (Schmidt, et al., 2009; Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013).

In this study, TCK represents a relationship between tablet technology, ICT

and EE subjects’ areas. Lecturers must know how educational apps can enhance

the subject content to the best level and be capable of presenting the contents to

students in a highly effective manner. Lecturers can record a video of EE or ICT

practical and play it to students to help them to understand the content more

effectively.

2.19.2.5 Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

Friedrichsen, et al. (2009) advocate that learning opportunities for students

might be limited and this may also discourage students from productive learning

unless teachers merge CK with pedagogy. Shulman (1986) concurs in his

observation in addition to the general knowledge of pedagogies, a teacher should

also blend pedagogies with content for the purpose of teaching.

Tablets are one of the technologies in ICTs that the lecturers need to explore

in order to be competent in CK. A lecture video that is recorded by using tablet or a

soft copy handout can be re-enforced by students as many number of times as

possible by being in their own convenient place and time.

2.19.2.6 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Schmidt, et al. (2009, p.125) enunciate that TPK refers to the “knowledge of

how various technologies can be used in teaching, and to understanding that using

technology may change the way teachers teach”.

Tablets offer individual learning and collaborative learning among students.

Lecturers can avoid face to face meetings and use Google Docs for collaborative

activities over the distance. The facility of online learning through tablets helps

58

lecturers to explore new pedagogical approaches in teaching. Tablets also have the

provision for simulated learning, automated assessment as well as synchronous and

asynchronous way of learning (Rafiki, 2015). As such, this makes a change in the

way the lecturer delivers the instruction in the classroom. Lecturers should have the

knowledge on the pedagogical shifts that will take place if these approaches are

used to teach EE and ICT subjects. TPK gives lecturers the potential to explore

when they have opportunities to practise teaching under various situations. Lecturers

must be able to understand the benefits and drawbacks of using tablets when

preparing and developing study materials for different students. A capable lecturer

would be able to use tablets effectively to teach a particular section of the content.

2.19.2.7 Significance of TPACK study

TPACK is a theoretical framework model which is used in this study to

investigate the different components of teaching in ICT and EE using tablets in

university. There are many researches that have been conducted in the previous

years on the integration and the use of ICT for learning and teaching by using

TPACK as the framework. Many researchers around the globe have used TPACK

survey instrument to examine the integration of technology.

2.19.2.8 TPACK studies in terms of respondents and subject specific studies

This study engages with the current discussions about the interpretation and

implementation of TPACK in higher education sectors. Wu (2013) avers that 54.2%

of the recent studies and publication based on TPACK from 2000 to 2011 is

focussed on pre-service teachers. For the purpose of narrowing down this research,

the researcher of this study focussed more on similar researches published since

2013 where TPACK was used to evaluate the elements of teaching. The following

table shows the framework of TPACK used by different researchers centring on pre-

service teachers in subject specific studies.

59


focussing on pre-service teachers in subject specific studies

AUTHOR/

DATE

PURPOSE RESPONDENTS COURSE RESULT

Haydn, T.,

2014

The study

examines the

different

approaches of

preservice

teachers used

in

development

programmes to

teach their

subject using

ICTs with the

help of

TPACK.

pre-service

teachers

Science and

English

The result shows

that there is a

need for subject

specificity in the

use of ICTs.

Zelkowski,

J.,

Gleason,

J., Cox,

D.C. &

Bismarck,

S., 2013

The aim of the

paper was to

investigate the

views of pre-

service

teachers in

teaching

mathematics

using ICTs

with the help of

TPACK.

pre-service

teachers

Mathematics

The study

concludes that

the knowledges

such as

technological,

pedagogical, and

content

knowledge;

technology

knowledge;

content

knowledge and

pedagogical

knowledge are

60

valid and

reliable, whereas

pedagogical

content

knowledge,

technological

content

knowledge and

technological

pedagogical

knowledge

remain hard for

preservice

teachers to

separate and

self-report.

Doyle, H. &

Reading,

C., 2013

This study was

aimed to

enhance pre-

service

teacher’s

ability to

incorporate the

effective use of

ICT into the

new Australian

Curriculum

using TPACK

framework.

Pre service

teachers

science Findings indicate

that the

transformation

play can enable

the objectives of

learning and

teaching

Lin, T.C,

Tsai, C.C,

Chai, C.S.

The aim of the

study was to

explore the

pre- and in-

service teachers

in Singapore

Science

The results

confirm that pre

and in service

61

& Lee, M.H.

2013

perceptions of

TPACK on the

use of

technology in

teaching

practice.

science teacher

consider

Technology

pedagogy and

content (TPC) as

a factor that can

be positively

linked with the

remaining

TPACK factors.

Öz, H.,

2015.

The purpose of

the study was

to examine pre

service English

teachers views

on the TPACK

development.

This study also

presents the

strengths and

weaknesses of

preparation

and practice of

pre service

English

teachers in

Turkey.

pre-service

teachers

English

The results

suggest

incorporation of

TPACK into the

current teacher

education

programme will

contribute to

quality learning

and teaching.

Öz (2015) concurs that much of the studies conducted in worldwide focus on

the level of TPACK on any particular course. Hechter and Vermette (2013), Doyle

and Reading (2013), Lin, Tsai, Chai and Lee (2013) examined in-service or pre-

service science teachers in the learning of theory (science) course during a teacher

education programme using TPACK instrument. The aforementioned studies also

62

focus on the pre-service teachers in subject specific studies. However, the current

study is not focusing on pre-service teachers but on university lecturers on the major

courses of ICT and EE. Therefore, the current study is different from all the previous

studies and also unique in terms of respondents and subject specific studies.

2.19.2.9 TPACK in Universities

Wu (2013) argues that hardly 8% of the TPACK studies have examined on

the integration and the use of ICT for the different ways of teaching practice in

universities. Rienties, Brouwer and Lygo-Baker (2013) articulate that researches on

the developmental programmes of teaching practice aiming on technology

implementation using TPACK instrument are inadequate. Following are a few

researches that have been done since 2015 regarding the lecturer’s use of

technology practice in different subject streams in universities around the world using

TPACK as a framework.


regarding the use of technology by the lecturers around the world

AUTHOR/

DATE

PURPOSE RESPONDEN

TS

INSTITUTION METHOD CONCLUSION

Reyes,

Reading,

Doyle &

Gregory,

2017

The

purpose of

the study

was to

explore the

perception

s of

university

lecturers

on the

pedagogic

al

practices

Education

Lecturers

Australian

Regional

University

Mixed

method

Approximately

66% of the

lecturers

indicate that

there is a

serious gap in

the pedagogy,

content and

technology in

connection

with the

integration of

ICT in

63

of teacher

education

using ICT

by

examining

TPACK.

university for

the teaching

purposes.

Wu, Hu,

Gu & Lim,

2015

The aim of

the paper

was to

examine

ICT

profession

al

developme

nt of

Higher

education

(HE)

lecturers.

Higher

education (HE)

Lecturers

Higher

education

institution in

China

Quantitati

ve using

online

surveys

The study

revealed a

positive impact

on the HE

lecturers, their

use of ICT and

level of

TPACK.

Chukwue

meka &

Iscioglu,

2016

The study

explores

the TPACK

perception

s of

lecturers

experience

at the

Faculty of

Education

towards

the use of

ICT.

Education

Lecturers

Eastern

Mediterranean

University

Quantitati

ve

The results of

this study

show that

lecturers have

a massive

knowledge on

all levels of

TPACK.

64

Pattinasar

any &

Juwono,

2016.

The aim of

the paper

was to

examine

and

analyse

the

lecturer’s

use of e-

Learning

using the

framework

TPACK

and how

they are

implement

ed to bring

about

active e-

learning.

Social

Sciences and

Humanities

Studies major

lecturer

Higher

education

institution in

Indonesia

Qualitativ

e

The study

concludes with

the result that

lecturers need

to have

knowledge in

technology,

pedagogy and

content to

model an

effective

blended

learning that

includes both

face to face

teaching and

e-learning.

2.19.2.10 TPACK in ICT

Zhang and Martinovic (2008) assert that there is no particular definition for

ICT as they develop every day. Khan, Hasan and Clement (2012) define ICT as a

broad range of computing devices that includes computer hardware, computer

software, super computers, calculators and telecommunication facilities. It also

comprises of all kinds of networks to connect between computer and people, all

varieties of projection and display devices, cameras, smart phones, tablets, iPads,

video games, CDs and DVDs. All of the aforementioned researches on TPACK use

ICT as a common factor for the technology in education. ICT is a broad area that

includes many computer related aspects. Shankar (2008, p. 50) states ICT as a

“broad terminology referring to multiple communication technologies which range

from simple and complex namely mobile phone applications (SMS), Digital Cameras,

65

Internet, Wireless (Wi-Fi and WiMAN), VOIP,GPS, GIS, Convergence, Digital radio”.

In this study, the researcher is not focussing on a broader technology such as ICT

but emphasising only tablet technology.

2.19.2.11 TPACK in South Africa

Leendertz, et al. (2013) assert that TPACK instrument has been used in

South Africa only for examining the TPACK level of mathematics in-service teachers

in grade 8. Leendertz, et al. (2013) argue that researches using TPACK are still

inadequate in a developing country like South Africa. Rafiki (2015) and Schuler

(2012) concur that researches and publications in the South African context on the

use of tablets in classroom are inadequate. Poore (2015) advocates that the

empirical studies on the tablet teaching practice is limited due to the latest

technology. Since 2016, merely a few researches using TPACK framework have

been conducted in South Africa. For example the study conducted by Thuthukile

(2016) aims to investigate the capability of pre-service teachers in teaching science

using ICTs with the help of TPACK framework. Another study conducted by Coetzee

(2017) explores the level of TPACK of mathematics teachers and how the elements

of TPACK improves the teaching of mathematics in grade 8. Consequently, the

current research is completely different from all these previous researches. The main

aspect of this research focuses on the use of tablets by the lecturers for the purpose

of teaching and students for learning in university classrooms. The present research

which is particularly based on the tablet use in a higher education institution using

TPACK framework is highly scarce in South Africa which makes the current study a

highly distinctive research. Furthermore, the mixed method used for this research

exploring the level of TPACK for IT and EE courses makes this study a unique

endeavour and differentiates much more with all previous researches.

2.20 Summary

Technology is not a solution for all the educational problems (Torkelson,

1972; Dede, 1989; LeFevre, 2004). “Computers alone don’t make the difference.

Computers have to be in the right hands and use in the right ways” (LeFevre, 2004,

p. 81). Fox (2009, p. 26) points out that the benefits of technology in learning is

“more than just the distribution of machines, but creates a technology-rich learning

66

environment that is supported by ongoing professional development, technology

coaches, high-quality curriculum, sufficient broadband access and administrative

leadership”. Richardson (2013, p. 12) argues that “it is not about tools. It is not about

layering expensive technology on top of the traditional curriculum. Instead, it is about

addressing the new needs of modern learners in entirely new ways”. Apple

Classrooms of Tomorrow-Today (Apple, 2008) highlights that students in this

generation are not like those in earlier days. “Not surprisingly, students today expect

to learn in an environment that mirrors their lives and their futures” (Apple, 2008, p.

19).

This chapter reviewed the literature related to the research questions. The

literature reviewed provided a summary on the use of tablets by the students and

academics in the classroom as the device can be used for learning, teaching,

engagement and collaboration between each other in the most modern way. It

reviewed the perception of managers on the use of tablets by the lecturers and

students. The literature also discussed the benefits of tablets and other mobile

technologies. The section of drawbacks focussed deeply on areas such as the off-

task use of technology in university classrooms, challenges in adopting technology

for technology’s sake, upgrade of internet infrastructure and drawbacks of using

tablets when compared with laptops. This chapter provided relevant information

about the use of mobile technologies particularly tablets in higher education. The

reviewed researches exposed the paradigm shift in the style of learning and teaching

and how often students use this technology. As technology is changing globally,

tertiary institutions need to use these tools to motivate and enhance the skills of

students to a level that is required in the current market.

Various methods were used to collect the data such as survey tools,

interviews and observations for much of the researches and the results showed that

technology had powerfully influenced the current higher education sector.

Nevertheless, academics are in a panic situation as the management are adopting a

bulk number of tablets for each individual without having a proper research and

training on how to use the device in classroom (Attard & Northcote, 2011).

67

The outcomes of the researches established that tablet computers had the

potential to revolutionize the higher education system. The significance of integrating

tablets into universities and its impact on students and educators had been highly

described in each study and the results of each research varied. There is a lack of

empirical research on the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets in South

African context. As such, the need for additional research demands. Hence this

study seeks to understand the aforementioned in learning and teaching in higher

education sector. This chapter also described the theoretical frameworks such as

Constructivism and TPACK that the study was based on.

In Chapter Three, a review of research methodology will be described along

with the information that includes research paradigm, approach, design, population

and sample, instruments, validity and reliability, data collection procedures for

quantitative and qualitative data.

68

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter reviewed the literature on the uses of tablets in colleges

and Universities. In this chapter, the researcher describes the research methodology

that was employed in this study and how the research process was elucidated. The

researcher defines and justifies the methods that were adopted to conduct a case

study that examined the views of students, lecturers and managers on using tablets

for learning and teaching in a university classroom. According to Merriam, a case

study involves “an examination of a specific phenomenon such as a program, a

process, an institution, or a social group” (Merriam, 1988, p.9). This research

methodology begins by describing the research paradigm, research approach,

research design, population, sample, data collection instruments, data collection

procedures, data trustworthiness and ethical compliance. The chapter ends with a

brief section to summarise the overall items in research methodology and a link to

the next chapter. In the next section, the chapter focuses on the paradigm which is

used for this study.

3.2 Research Paradigm

A research paradigm discusses about the ideologies behind the research

process and it should meet the purpose or knowledge on interest of the research (De

Vos, et al., 1998). Saunders, Thornhill and Lewis (2003) state that values and

assumptions are the main factors that a research paradigm is composed of and the

foundations for a research. These factors serve as a bench mark for the scholar to

interpret the data and reach the final goal.

Bearing the aforementioned outlook in mind, the researcher had found that

the most appropriate paradigm to plot the complex territory of this research is post-

positivist paradigm. The reason for choosing this paradigm emerged from the central

knowledge of the study that was to explore, determine and understand the strengths

and weaknesses of students’ and lecturers use of tablets in learning and teaching

69

respectively in a university. This research also sought to explore and understand the

perspectives of higher managers on the use of tablets by the lecturers and students

for the development of higher education. The three aspects of this study mentioned

above demanded a post-positivist paradigm.

Creswell (2003) defines post-positivist paradigm as thinking after positivism.

Post-positivist paradigm includes the features of both quantitative (positivist) and

qualitative (interpretivist) approaches (Saunders, Thornhill & Lewis, 2003; Glicken,

2003; Brown & Schulze, 2007; De Wet, 2007). This helps the researchers in this

paradigm to have numerous perspectives from participants instead of a single reality

(Creswell, 2007). This paradigm uses various methods, different views and multiple

procedures of data collection and analysis (Richie & Rigano, 2001; Ajibade, 2016).

The researcher employed different instruments such as closed ended questionnaire

and interview during the course of this study for a deep understanding of the

integration of tablets in university classrooms. This attitude was supported by

Trochim (2006) due to its significance of different observations to find multiple faults

which helps to achieve the best objectivity. Therefore, triangulation was adopted in

this study to find the concrete meaning of what was happening practically. The next

section explores the research approach that the study was adopted.

3.3 Research Approach

Research approach is an approach that is essential and it is based on the

purpose of the study (Jankowicz, 2000; Maylor & Blackmon, 2005). Creswell (2014,

p.3) defines research approach as “the plans and procedures that span the steps for

research from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection, analysis,

and interpretation”. The research approach and problem of the study are correlated

to each other. Therefore, the selection of research approach depends on the

respondents of the study, personal experience of researcher, nature of the issue that

is being addressed (Creswell, 2008a) and responses to the following three questions

that are sought by the researcher (Creswell, 2003, p.5).

a. “What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including

theoretical perspective)?”

b. “What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures?”

70

c. “What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?”

There are different ways to approach a research. They are quantitative

approach, qualitative approach and mixed method approach (Creswell, 2009). A

mixed method approach was used for this study which included strategies from both

qualitative and quantitative approaches. The description of each of the approaches

have been shown below.

3.3.1 Quantitative Research

File, Mueller, Wesneski and Stremmel (2017, p. 13) define quantitative

research approach as "means for testing objective theories by examining the

relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured through

instruments so that numbered data can be analysed using statistical procedures". As

a result, the research will have a set of norms that includes introduction, review of

literature, research methodology, findings and discussion (Creswell, 2008b). In

quantitative approach, all parts of the research process such as expectations about

testing theories, protection against preferences, controlling for alternative

explanations, and being able to generalize and reproduce the outcomes will be fixed

by the researcher before the commencement of data collection (Kumar, 2005).

The advantage of using quantitative research approach is that statistical

analysis in this approach helps to arrange the data, define the association and detect

the differences and similarities between different groups of data (Hopkins, 2008;

McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The sample of the participants were recorded to

have a clear picture of descriptive nature that was attained from the items of

quantitative questionnaire. Subsequently, a wide range of data collected through

various instruments should provide features of precise situations, individuals or

groups and conclude in a whole depiction of the variable studied groups (Hopkins,

2008; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).

The disadvantage of using quantitative approach is that it is not good to view

individual cases in detail and its structure stops from unanticipated results. This

71

approach is also criticized for its inability to provide exact outcome, explanation or

examples (Ryan, 2006).

3.3.2 Qualitative Research

In Qualitative approach, researchers collect descriptive data deeply with an

aim of understanding and developing a particular phenomenon (Cooper & Schindler,

2006; Creswell, et al., 2010). Qualitative research is a type of research approach in

which people who have experience in a phenomenon of interest, develop several

realities. This is a relativist and constructivist ontology research approach that does

not have any objective reality (Krauss, 2005). Qualitative researchers concentrate on

the perceptions of respondents on how they observe the world and the environment

and how they interact with one another (Creswell, et al., 2010). Creswell (2007)

describes this approach as one to be used to explore the understanding of

individuals or a group of people to find a social problem. As this approach is

subjective in nature, the researchers are more interested in realising the behaviour of

people in deep and the cause of such behaviours (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010;

Creswell, et al., 2010).

Moreover, qualitative approach generally uses open ended data with the

major intention of creating themes from the data. Sample in qualitative approach is

small but focused compared to quantitative approach (Hossain, 2011) and results

obtained from this approach are not generalizable in most cases (Creswell, 2003;

Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In line with the above statement, Hossain (2011)

emphasises that qualitative researchers scrutinise not only “what‟, “where‟, and

“when‟ questions but also “why‟ and “how‟ questions to establish the meaning of the

phenomenon under study. Narratives, phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded

theory studies or case studies are some of the strategies that are used by qualitative

approach (Creswell, 2003). In Kumar’s (2005) point of view, qualitative

methodological approach is likely a shapeless but changeable aspects in response

to the events it take place. This is a time consuming approach for the data collection

and analysis when it is compared with quantitative approach (Dahlberg & McCaig,

2010).

72

3.3.3 Mixed Method Research

Authors such as Ridenour and Newman (2008), Leech and Onwuegbuzie

(2009), Tashakkori and Teddlie, (2009) and Nastasi, Hitchcock and Brown (2010)

indicate that there are multiple reasons for combining qualitative and quantitative

research methods. Nastasi, Hitchcock and Brown (2010) define mixed method

approach as the mixture of qualitative and quantitative methodologies during the

collection of data and analysis. Creswell (2009, p. 4) defines mixed method as “an

approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative

forms". Research skills are necessary for a research to collect quantitative and

qualitative research data to integrate and link the data (Creswell, 2009). Polit (2010),

Creswell (2003), Wilkins and Woodgate (2008) describe mixed method approach as

the mixture of both quantitative and qualitative approach where quantitative methods

comprise of collection, analysis and interpretation of data numerically and qualitative

methods include the collection, analysis and interpretation of data narratively. A

researcher or a group of researchers use the features of both quantitative and

qualitative components to sight the collaboration and broad understanding of the

world (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). Consequently, a mixed method

researcher need to be cautioned that the approach calls for extensive data collection

as it is time–intensive to analyse both numerical and textual data (Creswell, 2003).

In this study, this research was focused on acquiring information regarding the

implementation of tablet programmes for learning and teaching in university

classrooms. To best understand this phenomenon, the researcher sought

information from respondents, namely: students, lecturers and higher managers in a

selected university in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Using only

quantitative method was inadequate to address all the sub-research questions in this

study. Consequently, qualitative method was used for validating quantitative analysis

to sight broadly the space of pragmatic functions of vague language. The researcher

used both quantitative and qualitative research approach to deliver a detailed idea

about the vague language of tablet use in university classroom. An approach to

understand the problem of research by collecting, analysing and combining both

quantitative and qualitative research and methods in a particular study is called

Mixed Method Research Approach (Johnson & Turner, 2003; Creswell, 2012).

73

In Maree’s (2007) view, mixed methods research models can be divided into

two namely: sequential model and concurrent model. In sequential model, the

investigator gathers the quantitative and qualitative data sequentially one after the

other in any order depending on the initial requirement of researcher. On the other

hand, time can be saved in concurrent model when it is compared with sequential

model, as the investigator collects both quantitative and qualitative data

simultaneously. This study was under the first category mentioned above as

interviews were done after conducting the survey.

To have an interactive and iterative system based approach to mixed method,

it is significant to have five interconnected elements when designing a mixed method

study (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). They are purpose of the study, conceptual

framework, research question, methods and validity considerations.

According to Creswell (2009), there are three ways of mixing the methods.

They merge both quantitative and qualitative data by bringing them together, connect

both quantitative and qualitative data by having one build on other and embed one

data within the other ensuring one type of data provides a supportive role for the

other data. In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data are merged by

bringing them together which means this study falls under the first category.

Mixed method approach helps to enhance the understanding of human

behaviour deeply and their experiences particularly in a complex situation (Creswell,

et al., 2010). Therefore, the method chosen was appropriate as the key objective of

the study was to examine the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets in learning

and teaching at a university. The main justification of using mixed method approach

for this study was due to the fact that different instruments used to collect the data

aided to offer valuable and pertinent information to the phenomenon of this study.

The next section explores the research design of this study.

74

3.4 Research Design

De Vos, et al. (1998) and Denzin and Lincoln (2000) define research design

as a blueprint to conduct the study. Research design is a structure to clearly specify

the best way of determining the research objective (Coolican, 2004; Babbie &

Mouton, 2009). Trochim (2006) describes design as a glue that joins all the research

components together. Research design can be defined as a procedure on how to

conduct the study, when to conduct the study, from whom the data will be collected

and under what criteria the data will be collected, till what level the researcher can

interfere, time horizon and the unit of analysis (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2010;

Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Creswell and Clark (2007) describe research design as a

structure in which the investigator uses to obtain, analyse, interpret and present the

data. Moreover, it is an action plan that the researcher must implement to lead the

methods and decisions to interpret the findings. To support this fact, many authors

such as Trochim (2006), Creswell and Clark (2007), Creswell (2009), Tashakkori and

Teddlie (2009) and Pierson and Thomas (2010) assert that research design is a

process of designing, organising and implementing the whole research to reach the

main purpose of the study in a systematic mode.

The reality viewed in quantitative and qualitative approaches are in different

ways. Williams (2007) indicates that while quantitative method delivers an objective

measure of reality, qualitative method assists the investigator to insight the

complexity of the problem. Therefore mixed method design fitted well with this study

as it included both quantitative and qualitative instruments to seek the views of

students, lecturers and managers about their views and attitudes of using tablets in

university classroom. Quantitative approach enabled the researcher of this study to

obtain huge amount of data in a short time and qualitative approach helped to

understand the data deeply for the phenomenon of interest. According to the

researcher’s point of view, an intense understanding of the result cannot be obtained

only through one method. Moreover, mixed method neutralizes the chances of bias

with one method (Creswell, 2003) and this increased the reliability and generality of

the results of this study. Another benefit of using mixed method is that the strengths

of one method will counterbalance the weaknesses of the other method (Tashakkori

& Teddlie, 2003).

75

In this study, the research design was a case study using survey and

interview. A case study is an in-depth investigation on a few cases, generally only

one (Gorman, Hammersley & Foster, 2000; Henning, Rensburg & Smit, 2004) of the

situations. A phenomenon such as an event, an activity, a person, group, institution

or community that has a description and analysis is called a case study (Merriam,

1988; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, 2007; Yin, 2009). The researcher opted a

case study to have a better insight on the use of tablets for learning and teaching

and understand the strengths and weaknesses of using it in university classrooms.

Table 3.1 shown below describes the advantages and disadvantages of a case

study.

TABLE 3.1: Advantages and disadvantages of case studies

Advantages Disadvantages

One issue can be studied in depth Huge volume of qualitative data

may be difficult to analyse

The interaction of factors and

events can be taken into account

Difficult or impossible, to cross-

check information

Breadth of methods of data

collection

Generalisation may not be

possible

Access to one organisation (or a

small number of cases)

Researcher may influence and be

influenced by the case.

Can focus in-depth in one

department or group

Lack of rigour within case study

research

Source: Anderson (2009, p.55).

A case study offers an irreplaceable situation of real people in real situations

which helps the reader to recognise how facts and principles can be adequate

together (Nisbert & Watt 1984, cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, 2007). In

this study, the case study enabled the researcher to understand the reactions of

students, lecturers and managers on the use of tablets for learning and teaching in

university classroom.

76

Case studies have three forms, namely: exploratory, explanatory and

descriptive (Yin, 2003). The description of each form is described below.

a. Exploratory case study: An explanatory case study explores an emerging

phenomenon which can be generated into new facts and single set of results

(Yin, 2003) that can be a basis for other researches.

b. Explanatory case study: An explanatory case study explains what has

happened in particular case and the justification of it (Rule & John, 2011).

c. Descriptive case study: “A descriptive case study presents a complete

description of a phenomenon within its context” (Yin, 2003, p.5).

Explanatory case study was adopted as this was the most appropriate case

study of all the three as it endeavoured to explore the current situation of learning

and teaching using tablets through obtaining the views of different stakeholders. The

next section discusses the study site.

3.5 Study site

The selected university is situated in the Eastern Cape province of South

Africa. The university has four campuses around the province. However, this study

focused only on one campus and two departments (ICT and EE) where the tablets

were supplied. Students from this province cannot afford to join tertiary institutions in

cities for their higher studies as they were from financial deprived backgrounds. This

university was established with an objective of providing excellent education to

students who were from the same region. To enhance the level of pedagogy, the

university had purchased a bulk quantity of tablets by the end of 2013 for the

students of Extended Stream (ES). The researcher opted this university for the study

as this was the only university from this region where students and lecturers used

tablets for learning and teaching.

ES was one of the divisions of diploma programmes in the University to assist

students with great potential but inadequate knowledge in understanding their

diploma programmes. Main Stream (MS) was another division of diploma

programme. Entrance into the diploma programme was based on the results of

77

matric and Standardised Assessment Test for Access and Placement (SATAP). The

score of each student in SATAP determined whether he/she could enter into ES or

MS. The year level of students in the diploma programmes was categorized into

seven. They were ES year 1, ES year 2, ES year 3, ES year 4, MS year 1, MS year

2 and MS year 3.

Fig 3.1: Flow diagram of ES and MS

Researcher-constructed flow diagram

Students who were registered in ES would have an extra year in the

beginning. While ES students complete the course in 4 years, MS students complete

it in 3 years. This additional year was utilised to prepare ES students by providing

additional academic support for particular MS courses, university studies in general

and to facilitate their transition from school to university. While MS students study the

modules in Year 1 courses in one year, ES students study the same courses in 2

78

years. In year 1, ES students will study the first half of the MS year 1 courses. In

year 2, ES students will study the second half of the MS year 1 courses. Students

must pass all the courses of ES year 2 to gain admission to the ES year 3. As the

courses in ES year 3 and MS year 2 are same, students are mixed together in one

classroom. Then those in the ES year 3 and those in the MS year 2 will proceed to

the final year of study. The diagrammatic representation of the flow of ES and MS is

shown in Fig 3.1. ES students’ progress to the subsequent years and continue to

have access to tablets. The tablets were delivered to the students on an agreement

that they are supposed to return it back to the department before they go for

university approved holidays. As the tablets are delivered only to ES students, this

study focussed exclusively on the ES student’s use of tablets in University

classroom.

The decision to purchase tablets was taken by the ES programme committee

in 2013. The committee had purchased bulk quantity of tablets from the fund that

was allocated for the betterment of ES education. At the beginning of 2014, tablets

were supplied to all ES students and lecturers in the department of ICT and EE to

use inside and outside the classroom. It had been four years now since the students

and lecturers had started using tablets. The university distributed the tablets with an

expectation that it would enhance students’ learning and knowledge and simplify

lecturers’ tasks and upgrade the instructional method. Next section will discuss more

on population and sample that are used in this study.

3.6 Description of the Population and Sample

3.6.1 The Population

Walliman (2006) defines population as a group of cases of a particular type of

the study. A set of people are those who have common characteristics from which

the data can be collected and analysed. A year later, Briggs and Coleman (2007)

argued that population was a targeted group in which the researcher was interested

and wished to obtain the data and find the conclusions. Certain common

characteristics of various cases that are of interest to the researcher for the purpose

of delivering a foundation to a scientific conclusion is referred to as population

(Tuckman, 1999; Best & Khan, 2003; Welman, Mitchel & Kruger, 2005). Moreover,

79

Macmillan and Schumacher (2010) describe the concept of population as the

quantity of items, individuals, events or components which follow a specific

benchmark to generalize the results of the study. Babbie and Mouton (2009)

hypothesise that population is a group of elements from which the sample is drawn.

The population in this study were ES students in ICT and EE cohorts,

lecturers who lectured to ES students in ICT and EE cohorts and managers of all the

departments in the selected campus of the university who were involved in the tablet

programme.

The criteria of the population were:

(a) Students from National Diploma: ICT and National Diploma: EE.

(b) Students from ES.

(c) Students who use tablets for learning in classroom.

(d) Lecturers from the department of ICT and EE.

(e) Lecturers of ES courses.

(f) Lecturers who use tablets for teaching.

(g) Lecturers of the students who were participating in this research.

(h) Managers who were in charge of implementing tablet use.

3.6.1.1 Students’ population

ICT cohort

A total of 186 students who registered in 2017 for year levels 2, 3 and 4 were

considered as the population for National Diploma: Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) ES. Due to some internal issues in the department, tablets were

not offered to year 1 ES. Therefore, year 1 students were excluded from the study.

A total number of 59, 90 and 37 ICT students were enrolled in year 2, year 3 and

year 4 respectively.

EE cohort

A total of 68 students who registered in 2017 for year levels 1, 2 and 3 were

considered as the population for National Diploma: Electrical Engineering (EE) ES.

As the year 4 ES students need to do project in industries or companies as a part of

80

their studies, they were unavailable in university classrooms. Therefore, year 4 EE

students were excluded from the study. A total number of 48, 12 and eight EE

students were enrolled in year 1, year 2 and year 3 respectively.

Consequently, an overall population of students from National Diploma: ICT

(186 students) and National Diploma: EE (68 students) were 254.

3.6.1.2 Lecturers’ population

These consisted of those who lectured the aforementioned cohorts and there

were 12 and 13 lecturers for ICT and EE respectively. Thus, the overall population of

lecturers from both departments was 25.

3.6.1.3 Managers’ population

These consisted of managers who were involved in the implementation of

tablet programme in the selected campus of the university: two deans, seven heads

of the departments (HoDs), two e-learning specialists, one e-learning administrator,

seven extended programme co-ordinators and one Institutional Head of Extended

programme co-ordinators. The Managers’ population was 20.

3.6.2 Sample

The sample size is always small when compared with the population. Sample

is a fraction of participants from the population which should always be an unbiased

one (Adam, 2010). Lind, Marchal and Wathen (2008) assert that researchers use

sample to collect data from a large population of interest and draw the inferences

since sample is a subset of population. According to Barker (2003), cited in Strydom

(2011), sample can be described as a small element in the population which is

assigned as the actual subject of the study. The sample for this study was derived

from the population which was mentioned earlier.

3.6.2.1 Students’ sample

From each year level, the names of those who volunteered to participate in

the study were documented with intention of choosing year-wise representation.

However, it was seen that those who volunteered were representing the different

81

year levels. Therefore, those from the population of ES students from the ICT and

EE cohorts who volunteered to participate in the study constituted the student

sample. It needs to be pointed out that the numbers decreased from years 1 to 4 in

line with lower enrolment as year levels progressed.

The details of the sample were as follows:

Total sample was 155 (N=155) consisting of 109 from ICT cohort (46, 42 and

21 from year levels 2, 3 and 4, respectively) and 46 from EE cohort (32, 8 and 6 from

year levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively).

3.6.2.2 Lecturers’ sample

Those from the population of ICT and EE lecturers who volunteered to

participate in the study constituted the lecturers sample and the sample size was 14

(N=14) consisting 10 from ICT cohort and four from EE cohort.

3.6.2.3 Managers’ sample

Those from the population of managers who volunteered to participate in the

study constituted the managers’ sample (2 Dean, 6 HoDs, 2 e-learning specialists, 1

e-learning administrator, 4 extended programme co-ordinators and 1 Institutional

Head of Extended programme co-ordinators) and the sample size was 16 (N=16).

3.7 Data Collection Instruments

A data collection instrument is a research tool that is used to collect, compute,

study and report data (Creswell, 2009). In mixed method approach, data are

collected in various ways. The researcher obtained data in this study by using

research instruments such as closed-ended questionnaire and interview. Below is

the description of both instruments.

3.7.1 Questionnaire

A questionnaire is one of the most widely used instruments to gather

quantitative data from a large population as it is easy to administer, collect and

analyse the data obtained. The respondents use a questionnaire to answer the

questions about demographics, views, attitudes, knowledge and other groups of data

82

(McNabb, 2004). A questionnaire is a list of structured questions that are carefully

developed to obtain reliable data from the sample (Hussey & Hussey, 1997). The

researcher draws these structured questions to collect the responses from the

respondents to achieve the objective (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 1997). Direct

involvement is less in using questionnaire which makes the data unbiased and

reduces the influence of the researcher (Payne & Payne, 2004).

The researcher used a questionnaire as an instrument to collect the data from

students, lecturers and managers regarding their views on the use of tablet in

learning and teaching in university classrooms. This questionnaire was used to

gather the data necessary to answer the sub-research questions. The researcher

had made three questionnaires for each type of stakeholders: students, lecturers and

managers.

In order to draw up the questionnaire, the researcher used various sources.

As the discipline in school and university is common in terms of usage of tablets, the

researcher initially had an in depth study on the literature of both types of institution

which assisted in the development of the instrument. Some of the items in the

questionnaire that was used by the authors in their studies has been modified and

used in this research. For example, Agir (2015); McBeth et al. (2015); Rossing,

Miller, Cecil & Stamper, (2012); Diemer, Fernandez & Streepey, (2012); Shen,

(2016); Mango, (2015).

3.7.1.1 Advantages of using questionnaire in this study

The researcher had chosen a questionnaire for this study to collect the data

due to its following advantages:

(a) The questionnaire helped the researcher to gain a larger view of students,

lecturers and managers on the use of tablets for learning and teaching in University

classrooms in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

(b) It enabled the researcher to gather the data on the demographical profile of

participants such as students, lecturers and managers, students’ tablet use for

engagement, collaboration in classroom and their current use of tablets compared

with earlier use of PCs. Collecting data using rating scale in questionnaire is useful

83

for understanding the attitudes, perceptions and opinions of a particular aspect

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007).

(c) It enabled the researcher to collect information about students’ use of tablets in

classroom from the point of view of lecturers which assisted the researcher to

triangulate the data and generate the inferences.

(d) It helped to collect the data about the lecturers’ use of tablet for teaching in

classroom.

(e) It assisted the researcher to understand the views of managers on the use of

tablets in learning and teaching in University classrooms in the Eastern Cape

Province of South Africa.

(f) Respondents were given an opportunity to answer the questions anonymously.

“The advantages of the questionnaire over interviews, for instance, are: it tends to be

more reliable; because it is anonymous, it encourages greater honesty” (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2007, p.158).

(g) The data collection using questionnaires benefited this research in terms of time

saving. The researcher was able to collect a large number of data over a short

period of time from a large geographically dispersed population. Wilson and McLean

(1994) emphasise that a questionnaire that has closed ended questions can be

easily completed fast and forwarded straight to computer analysis.

(h) It was less expensive to collect the data using questionnaire. Cohen, Manion and

Morrison (2007, p.158) assert that “it is more economical than the interview in terms

of time and money”.

(i) The method of collecting the data using the instrument questionnaire was

relatively easy to conduct and carry out.

(j) The return rate of receiving the questionnaire back from participants was accurate

and optimal.

(k) Closed- ended responses were easy to analyse in this study. Punch (1998)

suggests that questionnaires are easy to analyse and the data will be unbiased as

there are no visual hints or vocal clues to influence the participants.

3.7.1.2 Disadvantages of using questionnaire in this study

The researcher acknowledged the disadvantages of the questionnaire in this

research. As the researcher’s role was outsider, participants were not able to ask

84

questions for clarity. Hence some participants refrained from completing the

questionnaire or avoiding a few questions.

3.7.1.3 Students’ questionnaire

Questionnaire that was developed for students consisted of five sections.

Section A (See Appendix A1) covered background details such gender, age group,

national diploma and level of study. A five point Likert scale format was the scale

used in Section B (See Appendix A2), Section C (See Appendix A3), Section D (See

Appendix A4) and Section E (See Appendix A5) of the questionnaire. The scale

ranged from level 1 to level 5 with level 1 being “STRONGLY DISAGREE” and level

5 being “STRONGLY AGREE”. Section B to Section E were used to find their views

on the use of tablets from different angles to answer the sub-research questions

1.3.2.1 and 1.3.2.3 (Refer 1.3.2 in Chapter One).

3.7.1.4 Lecturers’ questionnaire

Questionnaire that was developed for lecturers consisted of five sections.

Section A (See Appendix B1) covered background details such gender, age group,

lecturing department, highest qualification, lecturing experience and experience in

using tablet for teaching. Section B to Section E were used to find lecturers’ views on

the student’s tablet use in learning and their tablet use in teaching which responded

to all the sub-research questions (Refer 1.3.2 in Chapter One). A five point Likert

scale format was the scale used in Section B (See Appendix B2), Section C (See

Appendix B3), Section D (See Appendix B4) and Section E (See Appendix B5) of the

questionnaire. The scale ranged from level 1 to level 5 with level 1 being

“STRONGLY DISAGREE” and level 5 being “STRONGLY AGREE”.

3.7.1.5 Managers’ questionnaire

Questionnaire that was developed for managers consisted of two sections.

Section A (See Appendix C1) covered background details such as age group,

highest qualification, designation and Managing experience. Section B was used to

find their views on the tablet use of students and lecturers in learning and teaching

respectively which answered to all sub-research questions (Refer 1.3.2 in Chapter

One). A five point Likert scale format was the scale used in Section B (See Appendix

85

C2) of the questionnaire. The scale ranged from level 1 to level 5 with level 1 being

“STRONGLY DISAGREE” and level 5 being “STRONGLY AGREE”.

3.7.2 Interview

Creswell, et al. (2010) state that interview is a reciprocal chat where the

interviewer gathers the data and understand the ideas, views, attitudes and

behaviours of the interviewee by asking questions for witnessing the world from the

respondent’s perspective. Willis (2007) defines an interview as a conversation

between the person who conducts the interview and the person who appears in the

interview. An interaction between interviewer and interviewee for the purpose of

collecting information is called interview (Gray, 2004). According to Maree (2013)

interview is a shared talk between two parties. One person will act as interviewer and

other one takes the role of interviewee. In this process, interviewer inquires the

interviewee in order to gather data and to understand the perspectives, attitudes and

behaviours of the person. These data can be valuable if it can be used in the proper

way. The purpose of conducting interview in this study was to explore the views of

students, lecturers and managers on the use of tablet technology in higher

education. All the participants got the opportunity to voice their views during the

interview.

The researcher of this study decided to conduct interviews apart from

questionnaire survey because interview enabled the researcher to repeat the

question if the respondent was not clear with it. This prompted the researcher to

collect more precise answers. Maree (2013) claims that there are three different

probing approaches such as detailed-oriented probes, elaboration probes and

clarification probes that can be used to collect maximum amount of data and to

confirm whether what the interviewer collected is what the interviewee meant.

Detailed-oriented probes are used to check whether the researcher has understood

about the “what”, “where” and “who” answer by the interviewee. Elaboration probes

are probes that aim at obtaining the whole picture by asking the interviewee to

explain more about a particular response which is answered. Clarification probes are

designed to ensure whether the researcher has understood all the responses given

by the interviewee and ensuring the data are accurate. The researcher of this study

86

had opted clarification probes to ensure whether researcher had understood

accurately the interviewee’s response.

3.7.2.1 Advantages of an Interview

(a) It would not have been possible for the researcher to probe and access deeper

information about the views, attitudes and behaviours of the respondents if the

instrument chosen had not been an interview.

(b) Conducting an interview was very flexible. The researcher was able to adjust the

words in the questions slightly in order to collect accurate information. The

atmosphere of the place where the interview was conducted helped the respondents

to be honest and open to answer the questions.

(c) Instead of the traditional way of using microphone and tape recorder, the

researcher of this study used high quality smart phone to record the interviews.

Professional audio recording software installed in laptop was also used as a

secondary safety measure to record the interviews.

(d) In interviews, the probability of participants responding to all the questions was

high as the researcher can ensure it.

3.7.2.2 Disadvantages of an Interview

It was a time consuming process to transcribe the recorded interviews into

hand-written notes or narrative form. Bryman (2001) notes that one hour of recorded

video takes approximately five to six hours to transcribe.

According to Gray (2004), interviews are categorized into five types. They are

structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, informal conversational interviews,

non-directive interviews and focused interviews.

In this study, the researcher used semi structured interview to obtain

information from students, lecturers and managers. The aim of conducting the

interview was to obtain “one-on-one” information on the tablet use for learning and

teaching. The researcher opted face–to–face interviews where semi-structured

questions were set for collecting the data.

87

Face-to-face interview is also known as personal interview. Face-to-face

interview is a type of interview in which the researcher can probe the response of the

respondents and observe their behaviour either as a group or as an individual.

3.7.2.3 Advantages of the Face-to-face interview

Some of the advantages of face-to-face interview are:

(a) The researcher recorded all interviews and wrote down the conversation to

support the recordings for the purpose of analysis.

(b) The response rate received from the respondents was good as the researcher

conducted a face-to-face model of personal interview.

(c) Face-to-face interview helped the researcher to observe the attitudes and

behaviours of the participants.

3.7.2.4 Disadvantages of the Face-to-face interview

Some of the disadvantages of face-to-face interview are:

(a) The cost of Face to Face interviews was high as the researcher needed to travel

to the some of participants’ places to conduct the interview. There were even cases

where the respondents requested the researcher to postpone the scheduled

interview multiple times even after the appointment had been fixed.

(b) The researcher lost valuable time when the respondents were not punctual.

(c) Some of the student respondents panicked as it was a face to face interview.

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) aver that semi-structured interview is a

hybrid interview which is in between structured interview and an in-depth interview.

Hence semi-structured interview is also called non-standardized interview. The semi-

structured interview was suitable for this study as it enabled the researcher to

provide in-depth data. The researcher conducted semi structured interviews to

collect data from all stakeholders such as students (See Appendix D1), lecturers

(See Appendix D2) and managers (See Appendix D3).

Gray (2004) remarks that despite the fact that the researcher has a set of

questions he wishes to ask, some of them may not be asked in each interview due to

the high chance of changing the order of interview questions. These pre-determined

88

questions are generally controlled by the flow of the interview. The interviewer may

ask some new questions which was not anticipated earlier.

The researcher did not choose structured interviews as there was a need to

probe for more information and it would not have been possible with the structured

interview. In some cases, the interviewees might not be able to answer certain

questions as they did not understand the question or lack insufficient information to

answer. Probing would then support the participants to deliver the information that

was desirable.

3.7.2.5 Advantages of Semi-structured interview

Some of the advantages of Semi-structured interview are:

(a) In semi structured interviews, the researcher had the benefit of rephrasing the

questions as and when the questions were not clear for the respondents. Morse and

Field (1995) suggest that the interviewer has full freedom in using different words to

express the question for the purpose of making the interviewee understand the

question to get in-depth data.

(b) The respondents gave honest answers in reply to the questions asked by the

researcher. Therefore, cheating was not done by receiving responses from others.

(c) The researcher was able to record the date, time and venue of the place where

the interview was conducted.

(d) The researcher was able to arrange a quiet and calm place in order to conduct

the interview so as to avoid noise during recording.

3.7.2.6 Disadvantages of Semi-structured interview

Some of the disadvantages of Semi-structured interview are:

(a) Semi structured interview was time consuming both in the case of data collection

and analysis.

(b) It was difficult for the researcher to directly compare the results of semi structured

interview as each interview was unique.

(c) As each interview consumed more time, the number of participants were less in

semi structured interviews.

89

The structure of semi-structured interview began with the researcher’s

welcoming introduction, brief summary of the study and the purpose of recording the

interview. The participants were also given informed consent form (See Appendix F4

for students, Appendix F5 for lecturers and managers) to sign. This consent form

included the description of the research, ethical compliances such as anonymity and

confidentiality.

3.7.2.7 Students’ semi-structured interview

Age group, level of study and branch of study were inquired by the researcher

to gather demographical information about the students and to maintain a positive

relations for the purpose of obtaining maximum data. Key questions (See Appendix

D1) that answered to the sub-research questions were asked by the researcher

along with some probing questions for the purpose of obtaining core data. Out of

eight key questions, the third, fourth and fifth questions answered to the first sub-

research question. All other key questions answered to the third sub-research

question. The interview ended with a closure question so as not to leave the

students with emotionally susceptible or with painful remembrances. Hennink, Hutter

and Bailey (2011) suggest that closing questions have a huge role in an interview in

not making the participant emotionally weak or leaving him or her with hurting

memories.

3.7.2.8 Lecturers’ semi-structured interview

The researcher asked a few background questions to the lecturers such as

age group, lecturing department, highest qualification, years of lecturing experience

and years of lecturing experience particularly using tablets. This enabled the

lecturers to freely respond to the questions of the researcher. Subsequently, the

researcher collected core data by asking the essential interview questions (See

Appendix D2) to answer to the sub-research questions. Out of fourteen essential

questions, the sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth and thirteenth question answered to the

first sub-research question. The first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth answered to the second

sub-research question. All other questions answered to the third sub-research

question. The first three questions were related to TK, fourth question was related to

PK and fifth question was related to CK. The remaining questions focussed on the

90

lecturer’s views on the students’ use of tablets. For the sake of acquiring penetrative

data, some probing questions were also asked by the researcher after the interview

questions. A closing question was also asked for the closure of the interview to be in

line with the suggestion of Hennink, Hutter and Bailey (2011).

3.7.2.9 Managers’ semi-structured interview

The interview recording started with the demographic questions such as their

age group, highest qualification, designation and years of managing experience.

These questions helped the researcher to understand the background of the

participants and to develop a relationship in the interview. By doing so, participants

were very comfortable and it helped them to narrate their responses in the most

effective way. This was followed by key questions (See Appendix D3) on the

research topic to gather core information that would answer to the sub-research

questions. Out of thirteen key questions, first, third, fifth, seventh questions

answered to the first sub-research question. Second, fourth, sixth and eighth

questions answered to second sub-research question. All other key questions

answered to the third sub-research question. In some cases, probing questions were

also followed after the key questions to obtain in depth information from the

managers. There was a closing question at the end to conclude the interview.

To describe the credibility of the instrument, the researcher has explained

Validity, Reliability and Data trustworthiness in the next section.

3.8 Quality assurance of instruments

3.8.1 Validity

Denscombe (2002) describes validity as the accuracy of the items in the

questionnaire, collected data and the explanation offered. He further continued that

“claims to validity involve some demonstration that the researcher’s data and his or

her analysis are firmly rooted in the realm of things that are relevant, genuine and

real: they act to reassure the reader that the research is not based on poor data and

erroneous interpretations” (Denscombe, 2002, p. 100). The quantitative research

and qualitative research of this study was backed up by closed-ended, interview

questions. The data that was collected through these methods enabled the

91

researcher to get the right information to analyse and interpret in order to reach the

right conclusion. The responses that were collected through these methods helped

the researcher to obtain accurate information to analyse and interpret to meet the

exact inference. Babbie (2010) defines validity as a technique to measure the

instrument that accurately reflects the concept it is intended to measure. It is very

significant to validate the research study because it tells people whether an item

describes what it should be (Maxwell, 1998; Kasenga, 2007). In Joppe’s (2000) point

of view, validity is defined as a technique to measure that which was intended to

measure or to assess how truthful the results of the research are.

The researcher of this study had given the instrument to his supervisor and

the post-doctoral fellow who were experts in this area to ensure its validity.

Moreover, a pilot study was conducted to measure its validity. The two types of

validity are content validity and face validity.

3.8.1.1 Content Validity

“To demonstrate this form of validity the instrument must show that it fairly

and comprehensively covers the domain or items that it purports to cover” (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2007, p.137). The researcher had consulted with his supervisor

and the post-doctoral fellow to ensure the content validity.

3.8.1.2 Face Validity

Face validity discusses about the instrument’s superficial appearance or face

value of the variables it claims to measure (Deport & De Vos, 2005). The supervisor

of this study and the post-doctoral fellow were consulted in this regard to measure

the face validity of the instrument and it was confirmed.

3.8.2 Reliability

Reliability affects the credibility of the findings. Denscombe (2002, p. 100)

describes reliability as a process that “provides results that do not vary from

occasion to occasion and that do not vary according to particular persons

undertaking the research. Researchers need to feel confident that the results they

obtain are not being affected by a research instrument that throws up different

92

results each time it is used”. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), Cohen,

Manion and Morrison (2000), Kuze (2009) and Babbie (2010), reliability focuses on

accuracy and consistency of the results. Delport (2005) argues that the instrument

must produce similar results as long as the instrument is tested under the same

condition. Leedy and Ormrod (2009) concur in their observation that the result which

is generating from the instrument to measure should be constant when the entity

being measured has not changed. When this technique is repeated each time under

similar conditions using the same technique, it should output the same result

(Babbie, 2010).

The measuring instrument which was the questionnaire in this study was pilot-

tested on the respondents who were not part of the sample to ensure conclusions

drawn were warranted. The questionnaires were administered to evaluate the

efficiency of the research instruments. Hence, the actual research instruments were

adjusted and refined for the main study. The researcher ensured that the

administrators had administrated the questionnaires in a consistent manner. The

respondents were well sampled for the statistical processing of data. The validity and

reliability of the measuring instruments were developed during the course of the pilot

study. There were no ambiguities and difficulties for all participants to understand

any words or instructions. However, the researcher noticed during analysis that there

were two significant items which had been missed out. This was then added and

rectified.

Reliability depends upon the coefficient value it generates between the ranges

0 and 1. The greater the value the more reliable the instrument will be. A value of

0.70 or higher can be regarded as adequate value (Maizura, Masilamani & Aris,

2009). Cronbach Alpha value was used to determine the reliability of the

instruments. The following table shows the Cronbach Alpha value for the different

sections in each questionnaire and where the sections referred to appear in

Appendices.

93

TABLE 3.2: Cronbach Alpha value for each questionnaire

Questionnaire

for

SECTION Description No of

Items

Cronbach's

Alpha

value

Appendix

Students B Students’ activities

using tablet.

10 0.700 A2

C Students’ tablet use

in learning the

courses

7 0.748 A3

D Engagement and

collaboration in

classroom

8 0.807 A4

E Students’ use of

tablets when

compared with

personal computer

(PC)

5 0.758 A5

Lecturers B Students’ activities

using tablet.

10 0.700 B2

C Engagement and

collaboration in

classroom

8 0.733 B3

D Students’ use of

tablet when

compared with

personal computer

(PC)

3 0.960 B4

E Lecturer’s tablet use

while lecturing the

courses

10 0.754 B5

Managers B tablet use of

students and

8 0.788 C2

94

lecturers in learning

and teaching

respectively

3.8.3 Data Trustworthiness

The quality issues in qualitative research are not the same as in quantitative

research (Rolfe, 2006). The issues in qualitative research should be connected to

“trustworthiness” and not to “truth” or “value” as they are for quantitative

(Sandelowski, 1993, cited in Rolfe, 2006). Trustworthiness is a way in which the

audience are inspired by the results of the study obtained and it is worth spending

time as the research is of high quality (Maree, 2007). Bryman (2004) describes

trustworthiness as how the investigator defines the terms and approaches for

assessing the purity of the qualitative study.

According to Marshall and Roshman (2006), cited in De Vos (2007), the

research must answer to all the questions that are used as the criteria to evaluate

the trustworthiness of the project. The following are the list of questions the research

must respond to.

a. How credible are the particular results of the research?

b. What criteria can be used to measure the credibility of these results?

c. How are these results applicable and transferable to another research or group

of people?

d. How can we ensure that the results would be replicated if the study is conducted

with same respondents in the same background?

e. How can we ensure that the results are reflective of the subjects and inquiry

rather than researcher’s biases?

Trustworthiness is all about establishing the following four criteria, which are

described in more detail below (Rolfe, 2006; Guba & Lincoln 1985, cited in

Nieuwenhuis 2007).

95

3.8.3.1 Credibility

Credibility corresponds more to the internal validity in quantitative approach

(Rolfe, 2006). In this study, the researcher was strongly confident in the truth of the

findings obtained. With the assistance of triangulation done in this research, the

researcher could strongly comment that the data were true, accurate and genuine.

This showed that the findings of the study were credible.

3.8.3.2 Dependability

Dependability corresponds more to the reliability in quantitative approach

(Rolfe, 2006). It was the extended version of the study that could be repeated by

other researchers to produce their findings which would be similar to the current

study. If any other researcher wants to replicate the study, they should have

sufficient information from the existing study to obtain consistent findings. In this

study, the researcher had used inquiry audit in order to address the dependability

issues.

3.8.3.3 Transferability

Transferability corresponds more to the external validity (Rolfe, 2006). It

showed how the researcher demonstrated that the research findings were pertinent

to other contexts such as similar situations, similar population and similar

phenomena. In this study, the researcher used thick description of data to show that

the research study’s findings could be relevant to other similar conditions and

circumstances.

3.8.3.4 Confirmability

Confirmability is an issue of presentation (Rolfe, 2006). It is the degree of

neutrality in the findings. In confirmability, findings must not be based on any

potential bias or influence of the researcher but it must be based on the responses of

the participants. To address the confirmability issues, the researcher of this study

provided an audit trail which emphasized every stage of data analysis that was made

in order to provide rationale for the decisions made. This helped to establish that the

findings of this study were accurately portrayed responses of the participants.

96

It was very significant to know how data was collected from each participant.

Therefore it was necessary to observe what procedures the researcher used to

collect the data from participants.

3.9 Data Collection Procedures

This section aims at revealing how the researcher collected data for the study.

Mason (1996) and David and Sutton (2004) defined data collection as a process of

producing and recording the data which is not there in the data sources chosen by

the researcher. Mouton (1996, p.67) describes that in data collection it “involves

applying the measuring instrument to the sample or cases selected for the

investigation”. Data collection in this study was carried out in various stages. The

detailed description of these stages are shown below.

3.9.1 Initial Process

Before conducting a pilot study to test the feasibility of the main study, the

researcher first applied for ethical clearance certificate from the university where the

researcher registered for the study. An application letter (See Appendix E1)

requesting for the same was sent to the ethics committee of the university. After the

researcher had received the ethical clearance certificate (See Appendix E2), a

permission letter to conduct the study was requested by the researcher to the

university (See Appendix E3) where the research was going to be conducted. After

receiving the consent letter (See Appendix E4) to execute the research, an invitation

letter was sent to seven managers (See Appendix E5) to be a part of the pilot study

to test the questionnaire for managers. However, only five managers responded and

accepted the invitation. Another invitation letter was sent to six lecturers (See

Appendix E6) to be a part of the pilot study to test the questionnaire for lecturers.

Five lecturers responded and agreed to answer the questionnaire. There was no

invitation letter given to students but the researcher verbally communicated with

BTech students who graduated from the same university with National Diploma.

These students are still using tablets and chosen them to participate in the pilot

study. Five students came forward to be a part of the pilot study. All of those who

participated in the pilot studies to test the questionnaire for managers, lecturers and

students were not a part of the main study.

97

3.9.2 Pilot study

The process of testing the questionnaire that is designed by the researcher for

a forthcoming survey is called a pilot study (Strydom, 2007). According to Bless and

Higson-Smith (1987), cited in Strydom (2007), it is a small study conducted before

the start of the main study to determine whether the methodology, sampling,

instruments and analysis are adequate and appropriate. Briggs and Coleman (2002)

articulated that all instruments that are used to collect the data need to be piloted.

In this study, the researcher considered the following factors in pilot testing

the questionnaire. They were whether the items added in the questionnaire had been

answered to the sub-research questions, whether the responses from the

questionnaire met the objective of the research, whether the participants could

complete the questionnaire within the duration of time and whether resources were

available for the study design and procedures. Five students, five lecturers and five

managers who did not participate in the main study were utilised for the pilot study.

Moreover, the supervisor of this research and a post-doctoral fellow also had a

thorough look at all the items and overall structure of all the questionnaires. The

researcher’s main intentions were to get a feedback from the respondents on

whether they could understand all the questions and the overall time for all

respondents in completing the survey was adequate. A group similar to that of

population must pilot the questionnaire and provide feedback (Briggs & Coleman,

2002).

Drew, Hardman and Hosp (2008) argue that the quality of the data depends

on how the researcher records the interview which can be executed only by practice.

The researcher had done a rehearsal by questioning, listening and recording for the

smooth running of the interviews with all stakeholders such as students, lecturers

and managers. This practice session had been done before the commencement of

the actual interview which helped the researcher to be accurate and consistent when

the actual data was collected.

98

In short, the purpose of the pilot study was to determine the possible

weaknesses, uncertainties, inadequacies and any challenges in all stages of the

research and tackle those in advance before the main data collection was started.

3.9.2.1 Students

The questionnaire for students was piloted and administered by the

researcher himself to the students. All the five participants showed positive attitude

and willingness to participate in the study. The approach of self–administration made

it easier for the researcher to explain the contents of the questionnaire to the

participants. The researcher explained clearly to all participants about the aim of this

pilot study and what the research topic was all about. Although instructions were

clearly described in the first three pages and before the start of each section in the

questionnaire, the researcher still explained all the instructions and reminded them to

sign on the consent form. The researcher requested all students to check the time

before they started and ended. The researcher also reminded them to indicate the

time at the top of the page once they finished. He encouraged them to freely ask any

queries that they had. Almost all of them returned after completing within 20-25

minutes time duration. However, one student took 31 minutes to complete the survey

which could be considered as the maximum time. Therefore, the researcher edited

the approximate duration time in the questionnaire to 45 minutes in order not to have

any pressure for the students in the main study. The common feedback which came

from all the students was they agreed unanimously that all items were

straightforward and they had seen no hitches to understand neither in any words nor

in any of the sentences used in the whole questionnaire.

3.9.2.2 Lecturers

The researcher piloted the lecturers’ questionnaire to the lecturers who had

accepted the request from the researcher to participate in the pilot study. The

questionnaires were distributed to them by the researcher himself. The researcher

treated the pilot study as very formal and in an official manner by describing about

the research and the intention of doing the pilot study. The researcher also

requested all participants to read the instructions carefully, sign and enter the date

on the space provided in the consent form. The researcher reminded all of them to

99

write the duration of time at the top of the first page to determine how long it took for

them to complete the questionnaire. He also reminded them to ask him freely by

making a telephone call in case any clarity was needed in any particular place and

ensured that all participants had his mobile phone number. All the participants

managed to complete all the questions and returned the questionnaire within a

weeks’ time. The maximum time taken by all the lecturers was 17 minutes.

Responses from the respondents were positive. Two items were added to the

lecturers’ questionnaire for the main study as the researcher noticed that there was

something missing to triangulate the data received from students’ pilot study. Three

items from Section E was removed before the main study. Due to the

aforementioned situations, Babbie (2001) asserted that the pilot study would

discover any abnormal flaws in the questionnaire. Although the lecturers were able

to complete the pilot study in 17 minutes, the researcher still edited the approximate

duration time in the questionnaire to 30 minutes in order not to have any pressure for

them in the main study.

3.9.2.3 Managers

Similarly, the questionnaire for managers was delivered to three HODs and

two Ex PCOs who were from other campuses of the same university. The researcher

visited their departments by taking an appointment and hand delivered it to them. In

addition, he described about the research and requested them to sign the consent

form and write the time required to complete the task at the top of the page. As they

were busy, the researcher requested them to respond through mail. They managed

to read all the instructions and completed the questionnaire in four minutes’ time.

The fully completed questionnaire was returned to the researcher within a week time.

Thereafter, the researcher called each of them by phone to glean their comments

about the questionnaire. In their view, there was nothing that was hard to grasp. An

excellent design of the instrument is to be developed only when he does a detailed

pilot study (McBurney, 1990). Although the managers were able to complete the pilot

study in four minutes, the researcher still edited the approximate duration time in the

questionnaire to 10 minutes in order not to have any pressure for them in the main

study.

100

Obtaining ethical clearances from the concerned authorities was very

important while doing a research. It was therefore necessary to observe the ethical

compliances that surrounded this research.

3.10 Ethical Compliance

The word “Ethical” means following the standard of any profession or group

(Babbie, 2008). Research ethics is based on what is ethically right or wrong when

using the respondents for the study or retrieving archival data (McMillan &

Schumacher, 2010). Babbie (2001) posits that all the respondents in a research

must be aware of the general agreement on appropriate and inappropriate aspects in

a scientific research. Researchers must enable a high level of academic care and

behave with trustworthiness and self-respect (Kuze, 2009). Blanche and Durrheim

(1999) concur that the researcher must respect and protect the respondents in the

research. In the current study, the researcher had considered the dignity and

autonomy of all participants as very significant. He minimised all psychological and

social risks connected with research and maximised the benefit of gaining the

knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The researcher of this study had followed all

ethical compliances to corroborate the study but not compromising the faith the

participants had on him (Creswell, 2009; Silverman, 2011). Ethical compliance in

research included the need for ethical clearance certificate from institution, informed

consent as well as prevention of harm and confidentiality.

3.10.1 Ethical clearance from institutions

The researcher of this study had collected ethical clearance certificate from

the University of Fort Hare (See Appendix E2). Permission had been obtained from

the Ethics Committee of the university where the research was conducted (See

Appendix E4) which is the gate keeper in this study. In this regard, both universities

were informed in detail about the study that was performed and they agreed. The

researcher had followed all ethical requirements, guidelines and rules listed in the

ethics certificate of the relevant ethics committee.

101

3.10.2 Voluntary participation

The researcher clearly articulated to all participants that the participation was

entirely voluntary and they had all the right to withdraw at any time without providing

any reason and they were under no obligation to participate (Creswell, 2003). None

of the participants were forced to participate and only those who volunteered had

been in the study.

3.10.3 Informed consent

Informed consent is one of the most important tools to safe guard that

participants understand what it means to participate in a particular study in order to

decide whether to participate or not consciously (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Henning,

Rensburg & Smit, 2004). Babbie (2010) advocates that informed consent is a

procedure that the researcher follows to ensure that the participants understand the

threats of the investigation. In informed consent form, the researcher should provide

adequate and accessible information regarding the investigation for the participants

to take a decision whether to participate or not (Gray, 2009). Attaining informed

consent means all likely information on the objective of the research, the measures

that will be taken during investigation, the possible benefits and drawbacks, possible

risks that would occur if the participants are exposed and reliability of the researcher

be rendered to potential subjects or their legal representatives (Strydom, 2007). The

standard of informed consent ascends from the subject’s right to liberty and

autonomy (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000).

In the context of this study, the researcher was frank and honest with the

participants. He explained the nature of the research, procedures involved in the

research, its risks and benefits and promised that there would not be any risks to the

participants. All the participants such as managers, lecturers and students in this

research were adults and they were all requested to sign a letter of consent if they

agreed to participate in the survey (See Appendix F1, Appendix F2 and Appendix

F3) and interview (See Appendix F4 and Appendix F5).

102

3.10.4 Prevention of physical or psychological harm

Welman, Mitchel and Kruger (2005) advocate that participants should not

have unnecessary stress, inconvenience or harm due to the participation in the study

and their honesty and personal safety must be assured. Researchers should not

lead the participants to an injury or danger. In this regard, the researcher guaranteed

that the involvement of participants in this research would never result in harm or

threat.

3.10.5 Anonymity and Confidentiality

Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000) argue that anonymity should be assured

always for all participants who are being a part of study. Consequently, the

researcher guaranteed and informed them before the commencement of the

research that all the participants would be anonymous and confidentiality which was

explicitly stated in the consent form. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000) further

justified that nobody should identify the participants and they must be kept as

anonymous. They have answered the questionnaires anonymously in order to keep

their anonymity. The researcher assured that responses of all participants would be

treated with the strictest confidentiality and used only for academic purposes.

Strydom (2005) emphasised that no one including the researcher should be able to

identify the participants once the research had been conducted. The name of the

university where the study was conducted was also not mentioned anywhere in the

research to maintain a high level of anonymity and confidentiality.

3.11 Negotiation of access

Although the permission was received from the university (research site) to

collect data from respondents, the researcher still informed the HODs that the data

would be collected from managers, lecturers and students. HODs responded

positively to this. To start with the data collection, the researcher approached the

manager cohort and lecturer cohort simultaneously to save time needed for the

study.

103

3.11.1 Managers

The managers included the Deans, HODs, e-learning specialists, e-learning

administrators, extended programme co-ordinators and Institutional Head of

Extended programme co-ordinators where the study was conducted. The

researcher’s request for an appointment with each Dean was fortunately granted on

the same day itself. The researcher received permission from other managers to

hand deliver the questionnaire to them in their office. The researcher organised his

office itself as the venue to interview the Deans and HODs. However, other

managers preferred their own office.

3.11.2 Lecturers

The researcher had a friendly talk with all lecturers personally to determine

whether they were willing to participate or not and all of their responses were

positive. The researcher was much worried of the strike which was very common in

the university where the study was conducted. Generally, if once it is started, it would

certainly prolong and affect the study. This would make the researcher hard to get

the questionnaires back from respondents if it was hand delivered. Consequently, in

order to make the survey quick, easy and make them feel free while answering to the

questions that are asked in the questionnaire, the researcher decided to mail it to

respondents. As all the respondents are researcher’s colleagues, he had their

contact details. The researcher organised his office itself as the venue to interview

the lecturers.

3.11.3 Students

The lecturers accepted the request put forward by the researcher to assist

him by sparing their last period (45 minutes) for administering the questionnaire.

There was a delay in the data collection and it was due to poor students’ attendance

from first week after the holidays. Most of the students’ could not afford the travel

expenses until their parents received their monthly salaries. Accordingly, having

waited for more students until the third week, the researcher decided to go ahead

with the data collection. Eventually, data collection started only on the third week

after the semester holidays that was during the second week of August 2017 and it

went on for two weeks.

104

As described earlier in section 3.5, ES students were spread into four years.

After year 2 of their study, they had the option to choose their branch in ICT such as

Software Development (SD), Communication networks (CN) and Business

application (BA) for year 3 and year 4. The flow diagram of the branches is shown

below.

Fig 3.2: Flow diagram of ICT Branches

Researcher-constructed flow diagram

As mentioned earlier in section 3.6.1.1, the department did not provide tablets

to ES year 1. Hence, the data of ICT were drawn only from seven lecture classes

and the data of EE students were drawn from three lecture classes.

In order to obtain the data from students, it was very important to know their

availability and also lecturers of the research site as it was they who were

administering the questionnaire. Therefore, the researcher had a meeting with each

105

and every lecturer who were lecturing these streams to find the convenient time and

made a chart in order not to miss the time permitted to the researcher. It was the

same lecturer who administered ES year 2 and ES year 3 BA as she was the

responsible lecturer in charge of that class. She managed to administer the

questionnaire one period before the end of each class. The lecturer for ES year 4 BA

also distributed the questionnaire and collected data during the last period of her

class. However, the lecturer of ES year 2 CN was not ready to sacrifice his class

although he was ready to administer the questionnaire. Therefore, lecturer collected

the data from his students after the end of his class. Fortunately the academic venue

was available and students were also free at that time. In order to diminish the bias,

the researcher requested another lecturer to administer ES year 3 SD, ES year 4 SD

and ES year 4 CN as one of the lecturer of these classes was the researcher

himself. The researcher organised his office itself as the venue to interview the

students.

3.11.4 Position of the researcher

The current study originated from the researcher’s role as a lecturer who is

responsible for different courses such as Development Software II, Development

Software III and Technical Programming II in the national diploma programme of the

same university where the research had taken place. The aforementioned course

was under the branch of ES year 3 SD, ES year 4 SD and ES year 4 CN. The

researcher deliberately considered himself as an outsider as he did not want to

remain a member of staff while he was a researcher to avoid unwanted influence on

the participants.

A case study becomes good only when the investigator has the skill to

connect the purpose of the study with the data that are collected and to make a

meaningful analysis (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). Face to face data collection

through survey was conducted only with the students. Some students knew the

researcher was a lecturer and the researcher acknowledged it. However, he was

present in the place only to give a brief introduction and instructions and he strictly

did not want to be an administrator to administer the questionnaire.

106

The researcher requested a few qualified trained academics to assist him to

administer the questionnaire to gain the validity of the instrument and their

responses were positive. Kvale (1995) suggests that the idea of validity becomes

powerful when researchers choose outsider action. The validity of the insider

research becomes complex if the researcher administer the questionnaire.

Therefore, the researcher of this study opted to be an outsider in order to make the

data less biased. Hammersley (2000) postulated that to make complete objectivity in

a research is highly impossible and therefore the aim of the study should be to

reduce the impact of biases. The next section explains the data collection of the

main study.

3.12 Data Collection: Main study

3.12.1 Managers

The researcher hand delivered the questionnaire to HODs and other

managers and explained clearly about the project, the objective of the research and

what each section was about in the questionnaire. He emphasized that the data

collection was absolutely for study purposes and would not affect anybody in

anyway. The researcher also explained all the instructions even though it was

described in the consent form (See Appendix F1). He reminded them to sign at the

end of the consent form with date.

The researcher collected mobile numbers of all managers who participated in

this study in order to remind them through Whatsapp after a week. Both the deans

were so generous and very positive. Deans instructed that the researcher can come

and get it back on the same day afternoon from their secretaries. However, in the

case of other managers, researcher gave his email id and requested all of them to

respond back through mail as each one of them come to work at different times. One

manager replied to the researcher to come and get the responded questionnaire

from his office on the same day in the evening half an hour before he leaves. All

managers in the sample participated in the survey. Therefore the response rate was

100%.

http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue3/rooney/rooney_refs.htm#hammersley1

107

The researcher himself was the interviewer and stressed that the interview

was totally for study purposes and it would not upset anybody in anyway. He also

explained all the instructions even though it was described in the consent form (See

Appendix F5). He prompted them to sign at the bottom of the consent form with date

where the space was provided. Data was collected through interview from nine

managers (1 Dean, 3 HoDs, 1 e-learning specialists, 1 e-learning administrator, 2

extended programme co-ordinators and 1 Institutional Head of Extended programme

co-ordinators).

3.12.2 Lecturers

Despite the instructions and guidelines clearly mentioned in the consent form

(See Appendix F2), the researcher met officially each and every lecturer on the

same day to explain more about the research, the purpose of the questionnaire and

the intention of doing this research. He indicated that there was no need of any

mental pressure to complete the questionnaire and no compensations would be

provided. He highlighted that at any point of time, if the respondent wished to quit or

skip any questions, they were free to do so and their anonymity would be protected

by all means. He exhorted the respondents to read the instructions given in the

consent form carefully before they signed and entered the date on the space

provided. He also indicated that there were totally five sections and explained the

purpose of each section. All respondents were requested to be as sincere as

possible in their responses. Finally, he requested them to respond within two weeks’

time.

The researcher politely reminded the respondents by Whatsapp on the

fifteenth day to complete the questionnaire. Seven of them responded within one

week after the friendly reminder. The remaining three respondents were busy

attending various workshops. The researcher sent a friendly reminder again to all of

them through Whatsapp as well as through personal message and waited for one

more week. Eventually, the remaining participants also responded. All lecturers from

ICT cohort in the sample participated in the survey.

108

The researcher gave the questionnaires simultaneously to lecturers in EE and

ICT. However, lecturers in EE took more time to respond. Finally, out of four

respondents in the sample, only two lecturers responded within two days. The

researcher waited for two weeks and made a friendly reminder through Whatsapp

and personal message to the remaining respondents who haven’t responded. He

made several voice calls to the lecturers to remind them again after a week’s time.

Eventually, the remaining participants also responded. All lecturers from EE cohort in

the sample participated in the survey. Therefore, the response rate from lecturers

(ICT cohort and EE cohort) was 100%.

The researcher himself was the interviewer and stressed that the interview

was totally for study purposes and it would not upset anybody in anyway. He also

explained all the instructions even though it was described in the consent form (See

Appendix F5). He prompted them to sign at the bottom of the consent form with date

where the space was provided. Data was collected through interviews from five

lecturers (3 ICT lecturers and 2 EE lecturers).

3.12.3 Students

Before all lecturers started administering the questionnaire, the researcher

visited the classroom and remained there for two minutes to explain slowly and

clearly about the consent form and research. The researcher introduced himself and

described about the purpose of the study, potential risks and benefits. He reminded

that they were free to withdraw at any time of the survey if they did not feel

comfortable with any words or sentences or for any other reasons and it would not

affect their test marks in anyway. He did not forget to mention that the participation

was completely voluntary and no incentives or compensation would be provided for

the participation. He also indicated that he would take all measures to protect the

participants’ anonymity. The students were informed not to write their names

anywhere in the questionnaire as it was essential that the questionnaires must be

anonymous for the purpose of confidentiality. The respondents were assured that the

research was purely for academic purposes. He exhorted all the students to read the

instructions on the consent form (See Appendix F3) very carefully, sign and enter the

date if they wished to participate. All respondents were requested to be as sincere in

109

their responses as possible. The respective lecturers who were in charge of

administering had taken over and the researcher left the classroom to make himself

an outsider. A researcher being an outsider might produce more benefits than being

an insider (Thapar-Bj¨orkert & Henry, 2004).

All the students (109 from ICT cohort and 46 from EE cohort) who participated

in this study returned the filled questionnaire to the lecturers who administrated the

questionnaire. All the respondents completed before the specified time indicated on

the questionnaire. All students in the sample participated in the survey. Therefore,

the response rate was 100%.

The researcher organised his office itself as the venue to conduct the

interview for the students. The researcher himself was the interviewer and stressed

that the interview was totally for study purposes and it would not trouble anybody in

anyways. He also explained all the instructions even though it was described in the

consent form (See Appendix F4). He prompted them to sign at the bottom of the

consent form with date where the space was provided. Data was collected through

interview from 14 ICT students (3, 4 and 7 from year levels 2, 3 and 4 respectively)

and four EE students (2, 2 from year levels 2 and 3 respectively). Therefore, totally

18 students were interviewed from ICT cohort and EE cohort. The next section

summarises this chapter.

3.13 Summary

The methodology adopted by the research was discussed in this chapter

under many sub-headings that started with the introduction. The research paradigm

followed was post-positivism that directed the focus of the study. The mixed method

approach that was adopted was discussed along with its features, advantages and

disadvantages. The research design that was used was described in detail. This

chapter also discussed about the population, sample selection and sample size by

clearly justifying the reasons for choosing them all in this study. The instruments

used for the data collection were expounded with the advantages and

disadvantages. This chapter also outlined negotiation of access to participants, pilot

study and how data was collected in pilot study. Validity, reliability and data

110

trustworthiness of the study were discussed. The ethical compliances were also

discussed in this chapter. This chapter also described how data was collected in the

main study. The chapter concluded with a brief summary of the chapter. The next

chapter presents the findings from the data collected and analysed.

111

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

The research methodology which was used in this study was broadly

discussed and warranted in the previous chapter. The researcher described the

research paradigm, approach and design. The population and sample used in the

study were also discussed. The instruments that were used for the data collection

such as closed-ended questionnaire and interview were also explained. Data

collection procedures, analysis method, issues such as validity and reliability were

also highlighted. The researcher clearly described the different ethical measures that

were considered and used in this study. The aim of this chapter is to analyse and

present the data collected for the following sub-research questions:

(a) How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the


(b) How do lecturers and managers differ in their views on the effectiveness of tablet

use for teaching in university classrooms?

(c) How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the advantages

and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching?

(d) What feasible framework can be developed to enhance the use of tablets for


To address these questions, interviews were conducted and surveys were

distributed in the form of closed-ended questionnaire to the participants in a

university located in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. The sample of this

study consisted of three types of participants such as students, lecturers and

managers. Furthermore, closed-ended questionnaires and interviews were also used

to collect the data from all types of participants.

The thematic approach was used with interview to analyse and triangulate to

confirm the findings. The data collected was analysed using some major themes and

112

sub-themes from the responses given by the participants to understand in depth

knowledge on the use of tablets for learning and teaching in classroom.

This chapter begins with the demographic information of the participants. This

information was used to assist the researcher in finding the elementary details of the

participants. All the participants gave comprehensive information to the best of their

knowledge with an awareness that the study was completely for the academic

purpose. Thereafter, this chapter discusses about the views of all stakeholders on

the effectiveness of tablet use for learning, views of lecturers and managers on the

effectiveness of tablet use for teaching, views of all stakeholders on the advantages

and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching. While descriptive

analysis and inferential analysis were used to analyse the quantitative data, thematic

analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data.

The descriptive and demographic data were put into tables to compare

responses of students, lecturers and managers. Data collected from this study were

presented, analysed, triangulated and interpreted by assimilating both quantitative

and qualitative methods to corroborate the results (Marshall & Rossman, 2016).

4.2 Demographic data

The researcher collected personal information of the participants’ based on

the category of stakeholders. The stakeholders of this study included students,

lecturers and managers.

4.2.1 Students’ Demographic data

4.2.1.1 Survey

TABLE 4.1: Students’ gender

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 89 57.4 57.4 57.4

Female 66 42.6 42.6 100.0

Total 155 100.0 100.0

113

Table 4.1 indicates that there were about 57% male respondents and about

43% female respondents. Having more male respondents than females was not

intentional but indicated those who were willing to participate in this research.

TABLE 4.2: Students’ age group

Age Group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

17- 25 136 87.7 87.7 87.7

26 – 30 18 11.6 11.6 99.4

31 – 40 1 0.6 0.6 100.0

Total 155 100.0 100.0

From Table 4.2, it emerged that majority (88%) of the students were in the

age group of 17-25. A total of 12% of the students were in the age group of 26-30.

Only one student was in an age group of 31-40.

TABLE 4.3: Students’ national diploma

National Diploma Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

ICT 109 70.3 70.3 70.3

EE 46 29.7 29.7 100.0

Total 155 100.0 100.0

Table 4.3 depicts that majority (70%) of the students who participated in the

study were registered for National Diploma: ICT and the remaining 30% of the

students in the study were registered for National Diploma: EE.

TABLE 4.4: Students’ level of study

Level of study Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Year 1 34 21.9 21.9 21.9

Year 2 65 41.9 41.9 63.9

Year 3 41 26.5 26.5 90.3

Year 4 and above 15 9.7 9.7 100.0

Total 155 100.0 100.0

114

A total of 22% of the students who responded in the survey were from year 1.

The majority (42%) of the students were from year 2 while about 27% of the students

were from year 3. Yet from year 4, only 10% responded.

4.2.1.2 Demographic characteristics of each student participated in the

interview

Table 4.5 displays the characteristics of each student who participated in the

interview according to their gender, age group, national diploma, branch and level of

study. Students were coded as StuInter 1 to StuInter 18.

TABLE 4.5: Demographic characteristics of each student participated in the

interview

Student Gender Age group National

diploma

Branch Level of

study

StuInter 1 Female 17-25 ICT BA Year 3

StuInter 2 Female 17-25 ICT BA Year 3

StuInter 3 Male 26-30 ICT BA Year 4

StuInter 4 Male 17-25 ICT CN Year 4




StuInter 8 Male 17-25 EE NA (Extended) Year 2

StuInter 9 Male 17-25 EE NA (Extended) Year 2

StuInter 10 Male 26-30 EE HC Year 3

StuInter 11 Male 17-25 EE HC Year 3

StuInter 12 Female 17-25 ICT NA (Extended) Year 2

StuInter 13 Female 17-25 ICT NA (Extended) Year 2

StuInter 14 Male 17-25 ICT NA (Extended) Year 2

StuInter 15 Female 17-25 ICT SD Year 3



StuInter 18 Male 17-25 ICT SD Year 4

115

Table 4.5 shows that except for two students of the age group of 26-30, all

students who participated in the interview were in the age group of 17-25. Moreover,

majority of the respondents were male. Similarly, the number of students from ICT

were more than the students from EE. Gathering data of students from various

branches of two departments enabled the researcher to understand deeply their

views of using tablets.

4.2.2 Lecturers’ demographic data

4.2.2.1 Survey

TABLE 4.6: Lecturers’ gender


Male 9 64.3 64.3 64.3

Female 5 35.7 35.7 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.6 indicates that there were about 64% male respondents and about

36% female respondents. Having more male respondents than females was not

intentional but indicated those who were willing to participate in this research.

TABLE 4.7: Lecturers’ age group

Age group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

21- 30 1 7.1 7.1 7.1

31 – 40 10 71.4 71.4 78.6

41 – 50 3 21.4 21.4 100

Total 14 100 100

From Table 4.7, it emerged that majority (71.4%) of the lecturers were in the

age group of 31 - 40. About 21% of the lecturers were in the age group of 41 - 50. A

minor group of about 7.1% of the lecturers were in the age group of 21 – 30.

116

TABLE 4.8: Lecturers’ highest qualification

Highest

qualification Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

B Tech 3 21.4 21.4 21.4

Honours 4 28.6 28.6 50

Masters 7 50 50 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.8 depicts that half (50%) of the total lecturers who participated in the

study were qualified with Masters. A total of 29% of the lecturers were Honours

holders and about 21% were B Tech holders.

TABLE 4.9: Lecturers’ department

Department Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

ICT 10 71.4 71.4 71.4

EE 4 28.6 28.6 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.9 depicts that majority (71%) of the lecturers who participated in the

study were working in the department of ICT. Yet from the department of EE, only

29% responded.

TABLE 4.10: Lecturers’ lecturing experience

Lecturing

experience Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

4<years>=2 2 14.3 14.3 14.3

6<years>=4 5 35.7 35.7 50

years>6 7 50 50 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.10 depicts that half (50%) of the total lecturers who participated in the

study had more than 6 years of experience in lecturing. A total of 36% of the

117

lecturers had a lecturing experience in the range of four to six years. About 14% of

the lecturers had an experience in between two and four years.

TABLE 4.11: Lecturers’ lecturing experience using tablet

Tablet


year<1 5 35.7 35.7 35.7

2<years>=1 3 21.4 21.4 57.1

4<years>=2 6 42.9 42.9 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.11 depicts that 43% of the lecturers who participated in the study had

lecturing experience using tablet in the range of two to four years. About 36% of the

lecturers had lecturing experience below one year. A total of 21% of the lecturers

had experience in the range of one to two years.

4.2.2.2 Demographic characteristics of each lecturer participated in the

interview

Table 4.12 displays the characteristics of each lecturer who participated in the

interview according to their gender, age group, highest qualification, department

where they were working, lecturing experience and lecturing experience using

tablets. Lecturers were coded as LectInter 1 to LectInter 5.

TABLE 4.12: Demographic characteristics of each lecturer participated in the

interview

Lecturer Gender Age

group

Highest

qualification

Department Lecturi

ng

Experie

nce

Lecturing

Experience

using

tablets

LectInter 1 Male 21-30 BTech EE 5 years 2 years

LectInter 2 Male 41-50 BTech EE 10 years 3 years

LectInter 3 Female 31-40 BTech ICT 5 years 2 years

118

LectInter 4 Male 31-40 Honours ICT 13 years Less than 1

year

LectInter 5 Male 31-40 Masters ICT 5 years 3 years

Table 4.12 shows that the age group of three lecturers were between 31 - 40.

The other two lecturers were in the age group of 21-30 and 41-50 respectively.

Moreover, except one lecturer, all other lecturers were male. Similarly, the highest

qualification of three lecturers was B Tech and the other two lecturers had Honours

and Masters respectively. Two lecturers from EE and three lecturers from ICT

department participated in the interview. Among all lecturers, three of them had a

lecturing experience of 5 years and the other two lecturers had it in the range of 10

to 13 years respectively. However, the tablet experience in classroom for two

lecturers were two years and other two lecturers had three years of experience. The

remaining lecturer had less than one year of experience in using tablets in

classroom.

4.2.3 Managers’ demographic data

4.2.3.1 Survey

TABLE 4.13: Managers’ gender


Male 11 68.8 68.8 68.8

Female 5 31.3 31.3 100

Total 14 100 100

Table 4.13 indicates that there were about 69% male respondents and 31%

female respondents who participated in the interview. Having more male

respondents than females was not intentional but indicated those who were willing to

participate in this research.

TABLE 4.14: Managers’ age group

Age group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

21- 30 1 6.3 6.3 6.3

119

31 – 40 7 43.8 43.8 50.0

41 – 50 1 6.3 6.3 56.3

Above 50 7 43.8 43.8 100

Total 16 100 100

From Table 4.14, it emerged that the maximum number of managers who

participated in the survey were in the age groups of 31 – 40 and above 50. About

44% of the managers who participated were from each of the aforementioned age

group. Similarly, about 6% of the managers, each from the two age groups of 21 –

30 and 41 – 50, participated in the survey.

TABLE 4.15: Managers’ highest qualification

Highest

qualification Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

B Tech 4 25.0 25.0 25.0

Honours 3 18.8 43.8 43.8

Masters 9 56.3 56.3 100

Total 16 100 100

Table 4.15 depicts that more than half (56%) of the total managers who

participated in the study were qualified with Masters. About 44% of the managers

were Honours holders and 25% were B Tech holders.

TABLE 4.16: Managers’ designation

Designation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Dean 4 25.0 25.0 25.0

HOD 7 43.8 43.8 63.8

Ex PCO 4 25.0 25.0 93.8

e-learning

specialist 1 6.3 6.3 100

Total 16 100 100

120

Table 4.16 depicts that majority (44%) of the managers who participated in

the study were heads of the various departments. While 25% of managers were

deans another 25% were working as Ex PCOs. About 6% of the managers were

working as e-Learning specialists.

TABLE 4.17: Managers’ managing experience

Managing


year<1 2 12.5 12.5 12.5

4<years>=2 4 25.0 25.0 37.5

6<years>=4 4 25.0 25.0 62.5

years>6 6 37.5 37.5 100

Total 16 100 100

Table 4.17 depicts that majority (38%) of the managers who participated in

the study had more than 6 years of managing experience. A total of 25% of the

managers each from two to four years and four to six years of managing experience

participated in the survey. About 13% of the managers had managing experience of

below a year.

4.2.3.2 Demographic characteristics of each manager participated in the

interview

Table 4.18 displays the characteristics of each manager who participated in

the interview according to their gender, age group, highest qualification, designation

and managing experience. Managers were coded as ManInter 1 to ManInter 9.

TABLE 4.18: Demographic characteristics of each manager participated in the

interview

Managers Gender Age

group

Highest

qualification

Designation Managing

Experience

ManInter 1 Male 41-50 Masters Dean Exp>10 years

ManInter 2 Male 41-50 B Tech Ex PCO 4 years

121

ManInter 3 Male 41-50 Masters HOD 2 years

ManInter 4 Male 31-40 Honours HOD 2>=Exp<4

ManInter 5 Female Age>50 Masters HOD Exp>10

ManInter 6 Male Age>50 Masters HOD 10 years

ManInter 7 Female 31-40 B Tech e learning

administrator

2 years

ManInter 8 Male 31-40 Masters Ex PCO 1 year

ManInter 9 Female 31-40 Masters Institutional

Head of Ex

PCO

2 years

Table 4.18 shows that the age group of three managers were in between 41-

50 and four managers were in between 31-40. The other two managers were above

50 years of age. Moreover, except three managers, all other managers were male.

Similarly, the highest qualification of one of the managers was Honours and the

other two managers were holding B Tech. The highest qualification of all other

managers was Masters. Managers were the designated officials who were involved

in the implementation of tablet programme. These officials included one Dean, four

HODs, two Ex PCOs, an eLearning administrator and an Institutional Head of

Extended programme co-ordinator. Among all managers, three of them had a

managing experience of 10 plus years. Four managers had two and more than two

years of experience. The remaining two managers had one and four years of

experience respectively.

Descriptive analyses for demographic data for all stakeholders were carried

out only to give a broad profile of the sample, although there was no direct nexus

with the sub-research questions.

4.3 Data Presentation and Analysis

Data analysis can be defined as a process of bringing order, structure and

meaning of large thick description of collected data that consumes a high period of

time (De Vos, 2007). The quantitative data analysis involves a process of data

cleaning and data entry. The researcher of this study manually coded and entered

122

into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 24) programme.

Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. Responses from interviews

were sorted and grouped together based on similar themes. Themes are cyclical

patterns, views and concepts that might generate from the analysis of data (Bailey,

2007). This type of analysis is called thematic analysis where the researcher

searches for themes that address the sub-research questions and finds the

relationship among them. This enabled the researcher to understand the strengths

and weaknesses of using tablets in university classrooms from a holistic and

inclusive perspective of respondents. Data were merged by comparing thoroughly

the responses received through quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative results

were compared and discussed with qualitative results (Lincon & Guba, 1985;

Silverman, 2004). The data from both qualitative and quantitative methods were

interpreted to determine the meaning and overall findings of the study.

Surveys that were used for the main study included 30 (see Appendix A2 to

Appendix A5), 31 (see Appendix B2 to Appendix B5) and 8 (see Appendix C2) Likert

scale items in students’, lecturers’ and managers’ questionnaire respectively.

Furthermore, all items in the questionnaires were not answered by all stakeholders

of this study. However, almost all the items in the questionnaires were answered by

the stakeholders. The researcher had also collected eight responses from each

student (see Appendix D1), 14 responses from each lecturer (see Appendix D2) and

13 responses from each manager (see Appendix D3) in the form of interview.

Data were presented and analysed using tables that were structured on the

basis of each sub-research question of this study. Some of the items in each

questionnaire of the stakeholders were common for the purpose of triangulation. As

such, all the responses collected from the common items by all stakeholders for

each sub-research question were triangulated. Finally, the findings were briefly

discussed by comparing and reviewing with the previous literature.

Each sub-research question was answered on the basis of the mixture of

survey items from students, lecturers and managers. The first sub-research question

123

was used to understand the effectiveness of the use of tablets for the purpose of

learning in university classrooms.

4.3.1 Sample responses on the effectiveness of tablet use for learning in

university classrooms

The researcher highlighted the percentage and the total number of responses

received for each item from the Likert-scale.

4.3.1.1 Descriptive analysis of students’ survey responses for learning

Table 4.19 reflects Likert-score responses of students on the use of tablets for

learning in classroom pertaining to survey items from item C1 to item C7.

TABLE 4.19: Likert Responses of Students for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.1

No DIS NO AGR N NA

C1 34

(22.3%)

18

(11.8%)

100

(65.8%)

152

(98.1%)

3

(1.9%)

C2 20

(12.9%)

13

(8.4%)

121

(78.5%)

154

(99.4%)

1

(0.6%)

C3 22

(14.7%)

22

(14.7%)

106

(70.6%)

150

(96.8%)

5

(3.2%)

C4 20

(13.3%)

15

(9.9%)

116

(76.8%)

151

(97.4%)

4

(2.6%)

C5 19

(12.4%)

20

(13.1%)

114

(74.5%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.3%)

C6 23

(15%)

29

(19%)

101

(66%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.3%)

C7 20

(13.1%)

17

(11.1%)

116

(75.9%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.3%)

where No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered and NA = No

Answer. Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from the questionnaire were

collapsed into disagree (DIS). Similarly, Agree and Strongly Agree responses from

the questionnaire were collapsed into agree (AGR).

124

When the SD and D columns were collapsed into disagree, the percentage of

student responses for the item C1 was 22.3%, item C2 was 12.9%, item C3 was

14.7%, item C4 was 13.3%, item C5 was 12.4%, item C6 was 15% and item C7 was

13.1%. It was observed that most of the students agreed on all seven items. The

percentage of students agreed for the item C1 was 65.8%, item C2 was 78.5%, item

C3 was 70.6%, item C4 was 76.8%, item C5 was 74.5%, item C6 was 66% and item

C7 was 75.9%. From table 4.19, it was clear that, above 70% of the students agreed

on the items from item C2 to item C5 and item C7. Moreover, above 65% of the

students agreed on item C1 and item C6. Five students did not attend item C3, four

students did not attend item C4 and three students did not attend item C1. Item C5,

item C6 and item C7 were not answered by two students and item C2 was not

answered by one student.

4.3.1.2 Descriptive analysis of managers’ survey responses for learning

Table 4.20 shown below describes the Likert-score response from managers

on their view on the students’ use of tablets for learning in classroom referring to

survey item B4.

TABLE 4.20: Likert Responses of Managers on students’ tablet use for Sub-

Research Question 1.3.2.1

No DIS NO AGR N NA

B2 0

(0%)

7

(43.75%)

9

(56.2%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

where No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered and NA = No

Answer. From table 4.20, Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from

questionnaire were condensed into disagree (DIS). Similarly Agree and Strongly

Agree responses from the questionnaire were condensed into agree (AGR).

More than 55% of the managers agreed that the academic results of students

had improved after incorporating tablets into education. This showed that tablet use

125

among students made a positive impact in their learning. Although all managers

answered and had no disagreements, 43.75% of the managers were uncertain.

4.3.1.3 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students and lecturers survey

responses for learning through engagement and collaboration

Students’ responses pertained to survey items item D1, item D2, item D3,

item D5, item D6, item D7 and item D8 and Lecturers responses pertained to survey

items item C1, item C2, item C3, item C4, item C6, item C7 and item C8.


Question 1.3.2.1

P No DIS NO AGR N NA

S D1 41

(27%)

28

(18.4%)

83

(54.7%)

152

(98.1%)

3

(1.9%)

L C1

5

(35.7%)

3

(21.4%)

6

(42.8%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S D2 53

(34.2%)

29

(18.7%)

73

(47.1%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L C2 3

(21.4%)

1

(7.14%)

10

(71.4%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S D3 41

(26.4%)

30

(19.4%)

84

(54.2%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L C3 2

(14.2%)

4

(28.5%)

8

(57.1%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S D5 21

(13.6%)

8

(5.2%)

125

(81.1%)

154

(99.4%)

1

(0.6%)

L C4 1

(7.6%)

4

(30.7%)

8

(61.4%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.2%)

S D6 39

(25.3%)

34

(22.1%)

81

(52.6%)

154

(99.4%)

1

(0.6%)

L C6 2

(14.2%)

5

(35.7%)

7

(50%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

126

S D7 11

(7.1%)

8

(5.2%)

136

(87.7%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L C7 0

(0%)

4

(28.5%)

10

(71.3%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S D8 13

(8.4%)

6

(3.9%)

136

(87.8%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L C8 1

(7.1%)

4

(28.5%)

9

(64.2%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

where P = Participant (Possible values for “P” participant are S = Student and

L = Lecturer), No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered and NA = No

Answer. Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from the questionnaire were

collapsed into Disagree (DIS). Similarly, Agree and Strongly Agree responses from

the questionnaire were collapsed into Agree (AGR).

Item C2 of lecturer and item D2 of students pertained to the same statement

as to whether tablets helped students to participate more in class during the tablet

activities than during activities that did not use tablet. The percentage of lecturers

agreed for the item C2 was 71.4%. However, students who agreed for item D2 were

only 47.1%. It was observed that 54.7% of students and 42.8% of lecturers had

agreed to item D1 of students and item C1 of lecturers that the tablet activities

motivated students to learn the course material more than the class activities that did

not use tablet. The percentage of agreeing for the students’ item D3 and lecturers’

item C3 were almost in the same range which were 54.2% and 57.1% respectively.

Similarly, item D6 of students and item C6 of lecturers agreed (AGR) with the

percentage around 50% that the tablet activities helped students to participate in

quiz as a team. 81.1% of the students and 61.4% of the lecturers agreed that tablets

made it easier for students to understand the topics when they learned in a group

which came under item D5 of students and item C4 of lecturers. Additionally, item D7

of students and item C7 of lecturers revealed that 87.7% of students and 71.3% of

lecturers agreed that tablets helped students to gather information for the group

project work. Likewise, 87.8% (item D8) of the students and 64.2% (item C8) of the

lecturers supported to the fact that tablets helped students in group discussion.

127

4.3.1.4 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students’ and lecturers’ survey

responses for learning

An Independent Samples t-test was used by the researcher to compare the

scores of the mean on some continuous variables for two different groups of

participants. From the results, if the significance level of Levene’s test is larger than

0.05, then it indicates that the data support the assumption of equal variance. On

other hand, if the Sig. value is 0.05 or less, then it shows that variances of two

groups are not the same and hence data violate the assumption of equal variance.

The following tables explore the views of different stakeholders such as

students and lecturers in learning using tablet technology. The two variables used in

this test were stakeholders (categorical, independent variable) and the total score

that participants have recorded for items related to learning (continuous, dependent

variable). This test determines whether there is a statistically significant difference in

the mean scores of two categorical groups such as students and lecturers in terms of

their total scores.

TABLE 4.22: Group Statistics of Learning score

Group Statistics

STAKEHOLDERS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Learning

Score

Student 155 25.12 4.926 .396

Lecturer 14 24.36 3.835 1.025

128

TABLE 4.23: Independent Samples t-test for Learning

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differ

ence

Std.

Error

Differ

ence

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Learni

ng

Score

Equal

variances

assumed

.588 .444 .56

6

167 .572 .765 1.353 -1.907 3.437

Equal

variances

not

assumed

.69

7

17.

130

.495 .765 1.099 -1.551 3.082

An Independent Samples t-test was conducted to compare the views of

students and lecturers in learning at a 5% level of significance (ie. ά = 0.05). The

results showed that there was no significant difference (t (167) = 0.566; p (2-tailed)

=0.572) in the views of students (M=25.12; SD=4.926) and lecturers (M=24.36;

SD=3.835). The differences in the means was 0.765 with 95% CI: -1.907 to 3.437.

Therefore, the results showed that the views of students and lecturers were same on

the effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms and it had an

equal effect over all participants.

The analysis of interview is captured through categorising the factors that

emerged as themes during the process of coding and theme analysis.

Table 4.24 reflects the theme and sub themes that were extracted from the

responses of students for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.1.

129

TABLE 4.24: Themes and sub-themes regarding the students’ responses of

tablet use for learning

THEME SUB THEME ISSUES RAISED

Effectiveness of tablet use

for learning

Enhancement of skills The respondents indicated

that tablet use had

enhanced their skills and

learning capabilities with

the help of WI-FI

connection.

Engagement and

Collaboration with lecturer

Majority of the

respondents have stated

that tablets were very

good tool to engage with

their lecturers.

Engagement and

Collaboration with

classmates

Students engaged and

collaborated with their

classmates by making use

of different social

networking application for

the learning purpose.

4.3.1.5 Students’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills

Majority of the respondents had a positive experience as it had enhanced

their skills and learning capabilities.

StuInter 4: “I start learning how to connect to Wi-Fis, I start learning to access

other applications through the internet. So I think I do learn something when you get

those tablets”.

Other students such as StuInter 2, StuInter 5, StuInter 6, StuInter 7, StuInter

10 and StuInter 16 were corroborating to the view of StuInter 4, as they were also

enhanced in learning using tablets with the help of internet getting through WI-FI.

StuInter 3 was fond of reading notes on tablets. However, StuInter 8 and StuInter 18

130

had a negative impression on tablets. StuInter 8 averred that as tablets did not have

sim card slots, it was difficult to access internet all the time. Moreover, StuInter 18

preferred to follow the old method of hard copies to read notes.

4.3.1.6 Students’ interview responses: Engagement and collaboration with

lecturer

Most of the respondents such as StuInter 4, StuInter 5, StuInter 6 and StuInter

17 alluded to the fact that they collaborated with the lecturers through emails and

Wiseup (An online learning and teaching application installed in university for the

need of students and lecturers).

StuInter 1: “Here at school there is an app called Wiseup. That’s.. That’s is

where we collaborate with our lecturer and taking notes.. and assignments and

putting our research or something”.

Conversely, StuInter 2, StuInter 11 and StuInter 14 contradicted the others’

responses as they had a negative impression on collaboration with the lecturers.

4.3.1.7 Students’ interview responses: Engagement and Collaboration with

classmates

StuInter 1, StuInter 3, StuInter 6 and StuInter 17 stated that they

communicated and collaborated with their classmates only when they could access

WI-FI or internet. Even though, they were in group discussions, most of them had

issues as they could not access internet due to the unavailability of the sim card

facility on their tablets. Internet or WI-FI was accessible to them only when they were

in the campus.

StuInter 11: “We are discussing some topics that we have been given by the

lecturer, so that we will be getting some new things from one another with the help of

tablets”.

StuInter 2, StuInter 5 and StuInter 18 contradicted with others responses as

they believed that collaboration was not active between classmates.

131

The following table shows the theme and sub themes that were extracted

from the responses of lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.1.

TABLE 4.25: Themes and sub-themes regarding the lecturers’ responses of

the use of tablets for learning



for learning

Curriculum change for

tablets

The contents in the

curriculum was not

needed to be changed for

tablets.

Students’ tablet activities Students used tablets for

various learning purposes

and the use depends on

the topic that they are

learning in class.

Enhancement of skills Students had enhanced

their skills in learning after

the adoption of tablets.

Engagement and

Collaboration between

students

All the respondents had

the same view that tablets

were making an

engagement and

collaboration among

students.

4.3.1.8 Lecturers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets

On the aspect of curriculum, most of the respondents suggested that changes

must be made in the way topics were delivered using tablets in class but not in the

curriculum.

LectInter 3: “No. No need to make changes in the curriculum. Whatever we

are using that must be in line with the Technology”.

132

LectInter 1: “It is a tool that is not changing the content. So if needs for the

content to be changed, then it should be for the other reasons but not for tablets”.

On the other hand, LectInter 2 had a different view that the curriculum needed

to be changed for the tablets.

4.3.1.9 Lecturers’ interview responses: Students’ tablet activities

Students used tablets in classroom for different learning activities based on

the module they learn at that particular point of time. LectInter 3 and LectInter 4

noticed that their students were in the internet to do group discussion and share

information. LectInter 1 noticed that his students were using eBooks to read in class

using tablets.

LectInter 5: “I ask students to do presentations so it is nice to see them having

the tablet and they look smart”.

However, LectInter 2 preferred the old method of paper and pencil to draw

schematics and layouts than using tablets just to view it. “Tablet will only show you

the schematics whereas if you do it by hand it will go into your brains”.

4.3.1.10 Lecturers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills

All the lecturers had the same opinion that tablets had enhanced their learning

capabilities and developed their skills.

LectInter 1: “they can do the assignments in their comfort zone”.

LectInter 3 corroborated with the view of LectInter 1 by mentioning that “since

they are having the black board or in other words Wiseup, so its easy for them to

access their assignment and they can respond”.

133

While LectInter 4 stated that students had started reading eBooks using

tablets, LectInter 2 emphasized that tablet was a tool that had not only advantages

but also disadvantages.

4.3.1.11 Lecturers’ interview responses: Engagement and Collaboration

between students

Tablets helped students to engage and collaborate with their classmates for

the purpose of learning. LectInter 1 indicated that students created a Whatsapp

group for their class and even if they were not in campus premises, students could

still communicate between each other and share the handouts in Whatsapp.

LectInter 2 substantiated that if the lecturer gave a task to one student to pass to

others, then they would share and discuss with others through Whatsapp using

tablets and later meet physically as a group.

The theme and sub themes that were obtained from the responses of

managers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.1 are shown below in Table 4.26.

TABLE 4.26: Themes and sub-themes regarding the managers’ responses of

the use of tablets for learning



for learning

Pass rate Managers indicated that

the pass rate of the

students for the past three

years had improved after

the adoption of tablets.

Tablet Training Training was offered to the

students on how to use

the tablets and it was

effective.

Enhancement of skills Managers had a positive

response on the

enhancement of students’

134

skills.


tablets

Majority of the

respondents were of the

view that curriculum did

not need to be changed

but the change should be

in the way the curriculum

was delivered.

4.3.1.12 Managers’ interview responses: Pass rate

Since 2013, the pass rate of the students had been improving in many

departments after the implementation of tablets. The response of ManInter 9

coincided with the ManInter 1 and ManInter 7. ManInter 9 indicated that:

We are under the impression that it has improved in terms of data that we are getting from the Departments. It seems to have improved. When we look at the data, we have high pass rate in extended program as a whole and they have been increasing as well in the past 3 years because we have been implementing for 3 years since 2013.

ManInter 2 and ManInter 3 pointed out that pass rate had improved but they

did not completely believe that it was mainly due to the tablets. However, they

agreed that tablet also had a vital role in the improvement of pass rate of students.

4.3.1.13 Managers’ interview responses: Tablet Training

Students had received training from the CLTD and overall the training was

very effective.

ManInter 5: “Yeah they went for the training. I think it was effective. They

check wiseup using tablets. They check their marks and also use it for internet”.

ManInter 2 concurred with the ManInter 5 and indicated that “CLTD has given

the training to the students on the very same day that they have issued the tablet”.

4.3.1.14 Managers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills

All the respondents had a positive response that the use of tablets had

improved the learning capabilities of students.

135

ManInter 3: “I would like to think that it has enhanced student’s skills. Because

it has also shown the throughput rate has improved. So it should have definitely

improved students skill”.

Consistent to the earlier response, ManInter 4 responded that:

I think it has given them another way in which they can improve their learning. For example, they have access not just the library at which is a traditional tool or a learning tool but they also have the access to the internet which has wealth of information. So they have increased their learning skills a lot.

ManInter 6 also supported to the view of ManInter 3 and ManInter 4.

4.3.1.15 Managers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets

Curriculum is based on the outcome of any particular subject. Majority of the

respondents held the view that it was not necessary to change the curriculum for the

sake of tablets. ManInter 4 indicated that:

I don't think that curriculum needs to be changed. Because I think the curriculum has its own learning outcomes. I think what needs to change is the way that the curriculum is delivered and also the way it is accessed.

ManInter 3 also had a similar view “I don't think curriculum needs to be

changed but because tablet is just a tool to learn just like a book which you have lot

textbooks or a reading material”.

Conversely two respondents: ManInter 5 and ManInter 8 had a different view

that curriculum needed to be slightly modified.

4.3.1.16 Triangulation of interview responses of stakeholders for learning

Table 4.27 shows the comparison of interview responses collected from

students and lecturers on students’ engagement and collaboration in classroom.

Both the participants articulated to the fact that tablets made a positive impact

among students in developing the communication, engagement and collaboration.

136

TABLE 4.27: Triangulation: Engagement and Collaboration

SUB THEME STUDENTS LECTURERS

Engagement and

Collaboration

Students engaged and

collaborated with their

classmates by the use of

different social networking

applications for the learning

purpose.

All the respondents had the

same view that tablets made

an engagement and

collaboration among

students.


lecturers and managers on the curriculum for learning and teaching. Lecturers and

managers were of the same view that the tablet was a tool which was used to

enhance learning and teaching of the topics that were in the curriculum and it need

not be changed for the sake of tablets.

TABLE 4.28: Triangulation: Curriculum change for tablets

SUB THEME LECTURERS MANAGERS

Curriculum

change for

tablets

The contents in the

curriculum need not to be

changed for tablets.

Majority of the respondents

were of the view that

curriculum need not to be

changed but the change

should be in the way the

curriculum was delivered.


students, lecturers and managers on enhancing students’ skills. All the stakeholders

had a mutual response that tablets had enhanced the students learning skills and

capabilities. It has also helped students to learn the content in various styles.

137

TABLE 4.29: Triangulation: Enhancement of skills

SUB THEME STUDENTS LECTURERS MANAGERS

Enhancement of

skills

The respondents

indicated that

tablet use had

enhanced

student’s skills

and learning

capabilities with

the help of WI-FI

connection.

Students had

enhanced their

skills in learning

after the

adoption of

tablets.

Managers had a

positive response on

the enhancement of

students’ skills.

4.3.2 Sample responses on the effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in

university classrooms

Closed ended responses were collected from lecturers and managers to seek

the effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms. As students did

not have any role in the area of teaching using tablet, they were excluded from the

survey for sub-research question 1.3.2.2. The researcher highlighted the percentage

and the total number of responses received for each item from the Likert-scale.

4.3.2.1 Descriptive analysis of lecturers’ survey responses for teaching

Tables 4.30 reflects Likert-score responses of lecturers on the use of tablets

for teaching in classroom that pertain to survey items from item E1 to item E10.

TABLE 4.30: Likert Responses of Lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.2

No DIS NO AGR N NA

E1 9

(81.2%)

0

(0%)

2

(18.1%)

11

(78.5%)

3

(21.4%)

E2 1

(8.3%)

3

(25%)

8

(66.6%)

12

(85.7%)

2

(14.2%)

E3 3

(23%)

3

(23%)

7

(53.7%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

138

E4 1

(7.6%)

4

(30.7%)

8

(61.4%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

E5 1

(7%)

4

(28.5%)

9

(64.2%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

E6 4

(28.5%)

3

(21.4%)

7

(50%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

E7 3

(21.4%)

3

(21.4%)

8

(57.1%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

E8 2

(14.2%)

7

(50%)

5

(35.6%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

E9 1

(7.1%)

5

(35.7%)

8

(57.1%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

E10 3

(21.3%)

6

(42.8%)

5

(35.6%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

where No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered, NA = No

Answer, Disagree (DIS) and Agree (AGR).

When Strongly Disagree and Disagree columns in the questionnaire were

collapsed into Disagree (DIS), the percentage of lecturers’ responses was 81.2%

(Item E1), 8.3% (Item E2), 23% (Item E3), 7.6% (Item E4), 7% (Item E5), 28.5%

(Item E6), 21.4% (Item E7), 14.2% (Item E8), 7.1% (Item E9) and 21.3% (Item E10).

It was observed that a majority agreed (AGR) on nine items and they were Item E2

(66.6%), Item E3 (53.7%), Item E4 (61.4%), Item E5 (64.2%), Item E6 (50%), Item

E7 (57.1%), Item E8 (35.6%), Item E9 (57.1%) and Item E10 (35.6%). As can be

seen from Table 4.30, above 61% of students agreed on item E2, item E4 and item

E5. About 57.1% of students agreed on item E7 and item E9. While 53.7% of

students agreed on item E3, only 50% agreed on item E6. Furthermore, 35.6% of the

students agreed on item E8 and item E10. However, 81.2% of the students

disagreed with item E1. While three students did not answer item E1 and two

students did not answer item E2, one student did not answer item E3 and item E4.

139

4.3.2.2 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of lecturers and managers’ survey

responses for teaching

Likert scale responses collected from lecturers and managers on lecturers’

use of tablets for teaching is as shown below in table 4.31. Lecturers’ responses

pertained to survey items item E4, item E5 and item E9 and manager’s responses

pertained to survey items item B3, item B4 and item B1.

TABLE 4.31: Likert Responses of Lecturers and Managers for Sub-Research

Question 1.3.2.2


L E4

1

(7.6%)

4

(30.7%)

8

(61.4%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

M B3 3

(18.7%)

9

(56.2%)

4

(25%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

L E5

1

(7%)

4

(28.5%)

9

(64.2)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

M B4 1

(6.2%)

1

(6.2%)

14

(87.4%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

L E9

1

(7.1%)

5

(35.7%)

8

(57.1%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

M B1 2

(12.4%)

5

(31.2%)

9

(56.2%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

where P = Participant (Possible values for “P” participant are L = Lecturer and

M = Manager), No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered and NA =

No Answer. Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from the questionnaire were

collapsed into Disagree (DIS). Similarly, Agree and Strongly Agree responses from

the questionnaire were collapsed into agree (AGR).

It was observed that 61.4% of lecturers and a minor group of 25% of

managers had agreed to item E4 of lecturers and item B3 of managers that the use

140

of tablet helped the lecturers to complete the curriculum on time. Majority (56.2%) of

managers were in neutral for this statement as they did not want to state any

opinions. Item E5 of lecturer and item B4 of managers were about the same

statement as to whether there was any need for the current curriculum to be adapted

or not for effective use of tablet. The percentage of lecturers agreed for item E5 was

64.2%. However, managers agreed for the item B4 was only 87.4%. Furthermore,

the percentage of lecturers agreed for item E9 and managers agreed for item B1

were almost in the same range which were 57.1% and 56.2% respectively. Both

parties supported the statement that the tablet activities helped lecturers to develop

their skills that applied to their academic career. Overall, Table 4.31 indicates that

majority of both lecturers and managers agreed on the statements “Current

curriculum should be adapted for effective use of tablet” (Lecturer: item E5 and

Manager: item B4) and “Tablet helped the lecturers to develop skills that apply to

their academic career” (Lecturer: item E9 and Manager: item B1). Despite lecturers

(item E4) agreed that they were able to complete the curriculum on time or fast using

tablets, majority of the managers (item B3) indicated a neutral stance on the same.

4.3.2.3 Triangulation of inferential analysis of lecturers and managers survey

responses for teaching

The tables shown below explore the views of different stakeholders such as

lecturers and managers in teaching using tablet technology. The two variables used

in this test were stakeholders (categorical, independent variable) and the total score

that participants recorded for items related to teaching (continuous, dependent

variable). This tests whether the variation of the scores for the two groups (lecturers

and managers) in the categorical variable are same or not.

TABLE 4.32: Group Statistics of Teaching score

Group Statistics

STAKEHOLDERS N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TEACHING

SCORE

Lecturer 14 10.64 2.170 .580

Manager 16 10.75 2.113 .528

141

TABLE 4.33: Independent Samples Test for Teaching


Levene's

Test for

Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differe

nce

Std.

Error

Differe

nce

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

TEACH

ING

SCORE

Equal

variances

assumed

.069 .794 -.137 28 .892 -.107 .783 -1.711 1.497

Equal

variances

not

assumed

-.137 27.

260

.892 -.107 .785 -1.716 1.502

An independent-samples t-test was performed to compare the views of

stakeholders (lecturers and managers) with their scores on teaching. There was no

significant difference in the scores of students (M=10.64, SD=2.17) and lecturers

(M=10.75, SD=2.113); t (28) =-0.137, p (2-tailed) = 0.892 which was much greater

than 0.05. 95% confidence interval around difference between the group mean was -

1.711 and 1.497 and mean difference was -.107. Hence the results indicated that

there were no differences in the views of lecturers and managers on the

effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms.

The researcher had collected interview responses from lecturers and

managers and major themes were developed based on sub-research question

1.3.2.2. Sub-themes were formulated from these major themes. Under each sub-

theme, interview responses were discussed and interpreted.

142

Table 4.34 reflects the theme and sub themes that are extracted from the

responses of lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.2.

TABLE 4.34: Themes and sub-themes regarding the lecturers’ responses to

the use of tablets for teaching



for teaching

Tablet Training Reponses received from

respondents were a

mixture of both sides such

as received training and

not received training.

Teaching apps Majority of the

respondents had stated

that they were not using

apps for the teaching

purposes.

Before integrating tablets All mentioned that it had

been challenging during

the earlier days and now it

was easy to teach in the

classroom.

4.3.2.4 Lecturers’ interview responses: Tablet Training

On the aspect of tablet training, the researcher received a mixture of

responses. Some respondents mentioned that they had received training. Other

respondents indicated that they had not received any training for tablet use. One

respondent mentioned that he received training. However, it was not the training that

CLTD were supposed to provide.

LectInter 2: “We did attend a short course. Information about how to operate

and integrate. They were explaining all useful applications that are useful for

teaching and it was effective for me”.

143

LectInter 3’s response was consistent with the response of LectInter 2.

LectInter 3 affirms that “It has helped us how to use the tablet for teaching purpose”.

On the other hand, LectInter 1 and LectInter 5 opined that they had never

received training on how to use the tablets effectively in classroom.

4.3.2.5 Lecturers’ interview responses: Teaching apps

Most of the respondents alluded to the fact that they were not using

pedagogical apps for lecturing. Only one respondent indicated that she used

different apps in the classroom.

LectInter 2: “The newly tablets are coming with the apps but I haven't explored

them yet but I think they're useful”.

LectInter 1 and LectInter 4 stressed that they did not use teaching apps which

were installed in tablets. While LectInter 3 used the pedagogical apps such as Excel,

Word, PowerPoint and Microsoft Publisher, LectInter 5 used tablets only for

Blackboard or Wiseup app for the purpose of effective teaching.

4.3.2.6 Lecturers’ interview responses: Before integrating tablets

Respondents indicated that it was challenging in the olden days and now it is

much easier to teach in classroom.

LectInter 4: “It was challenging in the olden days. We have to print the notes

for them so it was a challenging in the preparation of going to the class”.

LectInter 3: “It was difficult at that time because we need to draw the diagram

on the board”.

The following table shows the theme and sub themes that are extracted from

the responses of managers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.2.

144

TABLE 4.35: Themes and sub-themes regarding the managers’ responses to

the use of tablets for teaching



for teaching

After integrating tablets The lecturers used the

tablets for various

teaching purposes and the

tablet use depends on the

topic that they are

teaching in class.

Tablet Training CLTD had offered an

intensive training to

lecturers and it was highly

effective.

Enhancement of skills All the respondents had

the same view that use of

tablets was improving the

skills of lecturers in

teaching.


tablets

Majority of the

respondents averred that

there was no need to

change the curriculum.

4.3.2.7 Managers’ interview responses: After integrating tablets

All the respondents responded positively due to the tremendous change that

they had witnessed in lecturers’ instructional methodology.

ManInter 1: “I would say that they are more enthusiastic now do use the

tablets for the teaching purpose”.

ManInter 3: “I think the lecturers and the students they all are excited in using

the technology and it is enhancing the teaching and learning and it is improving the

pass rate”.

145

One respondent asserted that it was the blended learning which was taking

place after the integration of tablets in learning and teaching,

4.3.2.8 Managers’ interview responses: Tablet Training

All the respondents had the same response that lecturers had received

training in order to use the tablet effectively in classroom for the purpose of teaching.

ManInter 9 added that from the following year onwards more intensive trainings were

going to be conducted for lecturers.

ManInter 4: “The department itself has not done any training but there was a

training that was offered by CLTD department in order to use the tablets effectively in

the classroom for teaching purpose”.

ManInter 5: “Yes the training itself was a success but I'm not sure about the

implementation”.

4.3.2.9 Managers’ interview responses: Enhancement of skills

Use of tablets in classroom made a positive impact on lecturer’s skill and

instructional methodology. ManInter 3 indicated that:

It has enhanced. It makes teaching and learning a lot easier than rely on just talking and all that. There is a quickly reference, you can quickly reference your talk in class and quickly connect to the Wi-Fi and also downloading books on the tablet and gives us quick reference.

In ManInter 6’s point of view, these tablets must be provided to the other

lecturers also who are lecturing the main stream courses in the university as it had

enhanced the teaching capability of extended stream lecturers.

ManInter 1: “You may not necessarily be in front of the students all the time.

You can give the work even if you are not there physically”.

4.3.2.10 Managers’ interview responses: Curriculum change for tablets

Most of the respondents stated that the way the curriculum was delivered or

the current curriculum plan must change and not changing the curriculum.

146

ManInter 2: “I think we can just integrate the tablet but otherwise changing the

curriculum I don't think so”.

ManInter 9 articulated that rather than changing the curriculum, curriculum

plan must be changed and it had to be done by lecturers in each department. This

would help the CLTD to understand what gadgets were required for each lecturer to

lecture each topic effectively in their curriculum. However, ManInter 6 had a different

view that:

It is really a matter of changing the curriculum. There may be some aspects that we need to be adapted to actually fit with the one that we are using with this electronic device. It is not a whole fail to the change of entire curriculum.

4.3.2.11 Triangulation of interview responses of lecturers and managers on

teaching


lecturers and managers on tablet training.

TABLE 4.36: Triangulation: Tablet Training


Tablet Training Reponses received from

respondents were a mixture

of both sides such as

received training and not

received training.

CLTD had offered an

intensive training to

lecturers and it was highly

effective.

4.3.3 Sample responses on the advantages and disadvantages of using

tablets for learning and teaching

Closed ended responses were collected from students, lecturers and

managers to understand the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for

learning and teaching.

147

4.3.3.1 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students and lecturers survey

responses on students’ activities using tablet

Likert scale responses collected from students and lecturers on students’ use

of tablets in classroom is as shown below in table 4.37. Students’ responses

pertained to survey items from item B1 to item B10 and Lecturers’ responses

pertained to survey items from item B1 to item B10.


Question 1.3.2.3


S B1 60

(39.2%)

0

(0%)

93

(60.7%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.2%)

L B1 0

(0%)

2

(14.2%)

12

(85.6%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B2 88

(58.6%)

0

(0%)

62

(41.3%)

150

(96.7%)

5

(3.2%)

L B2 4

(28.5%)

1

(7.1%)

9

(64.2%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B3 16

(10.4%)

0

(0%)

136

(89.4%)

152

(98%)

3

(1.9%)

L B3 2

(14.2%)

2

(14.2%)

10

(71.3%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B4 7

(4.6%)

0

(0%)

143

(95.3%)

150

(96.7%)

5

(3.2%)

L B4 2

(14.2%)

3

(21.4%)

9

(64.2%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B5 40

(26.3%)

0

(0%)

112

(73.5%)

152

(98%)

3

(1.9%)

L B5 1

(7.1%)

5

(35.7%)

8

(57.1%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B6 11

(7%)

1

(0.6%)

143

(92.2%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

148

L B6 1

(7.1%)

8

(57.1%)

5

(35.6%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B7 9

(5.7%)

3

(1.9%)

143

(92.1%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L B7 4

(28.5%)

5

(35.7%)

5

(35.6%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B8 10

(6.3%)

3

(1.9%)

142

(91.5%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L B8 2

(14.2%)

2

(14.2%)

10

(71.3%)

14

(100%)

0

(0%)

S B9 10

(6.3%)

3

(1.9%)

142

(91.5%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L B9 2

(15.3%)

5

(38.4%)

6

(46%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

S B10 11

(7%)

2

(1.2%)

142

(91.5%)

155

(100%)

0

(0%)

L B10 3

(23%)

1

(7.6%)

9

(69.1%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

where P = Participant (Possible values for “P” participant are S = Student and

L = Lecturer), No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered and NA = No

Answer. While Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from the questionnaire

were collapsed into disagree (DIS), Agree and Strongly Agree were collapsed into

agree (AGR).

It was observed that 89.4% and 71.3% of the students and lecturers

respectively had agreed to the statement (item B3) that they conducted research

after getting tablets. The table 4.37 shows that item B2 was a mixed set of

responses for students and lecturers. 58.6% of students disagreed to the statement

that they started to communicate with the lecturer. However, 64.2% of the lecturers

had a belief that students started to communicate with lecturers. 60.7% of the

students and 85.6% of the lecturers had agreed that students started to read eBooks

which is item B1. Additionally, item B4 revealed that 95.3% of students and 64.2% of

149

lecturers agreed that students used tablets to gather information. Students (73.5%)

agreed that they used tablets to e-learn through Blackboard or Wiseup (item B5)

compared to 72% of lecturers. Majority of the students agreed to the item B7.

However, lecturers indicated a neutral position for all the aforementioned items.

While more than 90% of the students agreed to the items such as item B9, around

40% of the lecturers preferred a neutral stance. Furthermore, 91.5% of the students

and around 70% of the lecturers agreed on item B8 and item B10 that students took

photos of the lecture highlights on white board and submitted their work to the

lecturer through email or file sharing apps.

4.3.3.2 Descriptive analysis of students’ survey responses on tablet use when

compared with personal computer (PC)

Table 4.38 reflects Likert-score responses of students on the use of tablets

when it is compared with the use of PCs that pertains to survey items item E1 and

item E3.

TABLE 4.38: Likert Responses of Students for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.3

No DIS NO AGR N NA

E1 43

(28%)

15

(9.8%)

95

(62%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.2%)

E3 38

(24.7%)

19

(12.4%)

96

(62.7%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.2%)

where No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered, NA = No

Answer, Disagree (DIS) and Agree (AGR).

When Strongly Disagree and Disagree columns from the questionnaire were

collapsed into disagree (DIS), the percentage of student responses for the item E1

was 62% and item E3 was 62.7%. It was observed that when Strongly Agree and

Agree columns from the questionnaire were collapsed into agree (AGR), the

percentage of student responses for item E1 was 28% and item E3 was 24.7%.

From table 4.38, it was clear that, 62% of the students agreed on item E1 and item

E3.

150

4.3.3.3 Triangulation of descriptive analysis of students, lecturers and

managers’ survey responses on tablet use when compared with personal

computer (PC)

Likert scale responses collected from students, lecturers and managers on

students’ use of tablets when compared with PC is as shown below in table 4.39.

Students’ responses pertained to survey items item E2, item E4 and item E5.

Lecturers’ responses pertained to survey items from item D1 to item D3 and

Managers’ responses pertained to survey items item B5 and item B6.

TABLE 4.39: Likert Responses of Students, Lecturers and Managers for Sub-

Research Question 1.3.2.3


L D1 1

(7.6%)

0

(0%)

12

(92.2%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

M B6 14

(87.4%)

1

(6.2%)

1

(6.2%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

S E2 39

(25.4%)

20

(13%)

94

(61.4%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.2%)

L D2 1

(8.3%)

4

(33.3%)

7

(58.3%)

12

(85.7%)

2

(14.2%)

S E4 47

(30.6%)

27

(17.6%)

79

(51.5%)

153

(98.7%)

2

(1.2%)

L D3 0

(0%)

5

(38.4%)

8

(61.4%)

13

(92.8%)

1

(7.1%)

S E5 98

(63.5%)

9

(5.8%)

47

(30.4%)

154

(99.3%)

1

(0.6%)

M B5 9

(56.2%)

2

(12.5%)

5

(31.2%)

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

151

where P = Participant (Possible values for “P” participant are S = Student, L =

Lecturer, M = Manager), No = item number, NO = No opinion, N = Total Answered

and NA = No Answer. Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses from the

questionnaire were collapsed into disagree (DIS). Similarly, Agree and Strongly

Agree responses from the questionnaire were collapsed into agree (AGR).

Item E2 of students and item D2 of lecturers pertained to the same statement

as to whether tablet assisted students to search for more information than through

PC. Percentage of students and lecturers agreeing for this statement were almost in

the same range of 61.4% and 58.3% respectively. Similarly, item E4 of students and

item D3 of lecturers agreed with the percentage of 51.5% and 61.4% respectively

that the tablets did not help them in developing programs but they managed to do so

using PC. Finally, 63.5% of the students on item E5 and 56.2% of the managers on

item B5 did not believe that tablet was a good learning tool when compared with PC.

4.3.3.4 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students and lecturers survey

responses on tablet's advantages and disadvantages for learning and teaching

An Independent Samples t-test was performed by the researcher to compare

the views of different stakeholders (categorical, independent variable) with their

scores on the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and

teaching. The different groups in the factor stakeholders were students and lecturers.

Continuous, dependent variable were the total score that participants who had

responded for items related to advantages and disadvantages. This test finds

whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of students

and lecturers in terms of their total scores.

152

TABLE 4.40: Group Statistics of advantages and disadvantages score

(Students and Lecturers)

Group Statistics

STAKEHOLDERS N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

SCORE

Students 155 46.88 6.916 .556

Lecturers 14 41.93 7.011 1.874

TABLE 4.41: Independent Samples Test of tablet's advantages and

disadvantages for learning and teaching (Students and Lecturers)


Levene's

Test for

Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differ

ence

Std.

Error

Differ

ence

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

ADVAN

TAGES

DISAD

VANTA

GES

SCOR

E

Equal

variances

assumed

.010 .922 2.565 167 .011 4.955 1.932 1.141 8.770

Equal

variances

not

assumed

2.536 15.

376

.023 4.955 1.954 .799 9.112

As predicted, results from an Independent Samples t-test indicated that

students (M = 46.88, SD = 6.916, N = 155) scored much higher (i.e., less logically

153

consistent) than lecturers (M = 41.93, SD = 7.011, N = 14), t (167) = 2.565, p < .05,

two-tailed. The differences in the means was 4.955 with 95% CI: 1.141 to 8.770. The

results showed that stakeholders such as students and lecturers had different views

on the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching. The

researcher observed that this could be due to new students or new lecturers who

might not know to use the tablets or understand the advantages of using tablets.

This attitude would change as they start using tablets and advance in the

programme.

4.3.3.5 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students and managers survey

responses on tablet's advantages and disadvantages for learning and teaching

The following tables explore the views of different stakeholders such as

students and managers using Independent Samples Test to obtain tablet’s

advantages and disadvantages. The two variables used in this test were

stakeholders (categorical, independent variable) and the total score participants had

responded for items related to advantages and disadvantages (continuous,

dependent variable). This test enables whether there is a statistically significant

difference in the mean scores of two categorical groups such as students and

managers in terms of their total scores.

TABLE 4.42: Group Statistics of advantages and disadvantages score

(Students and Managers)

Group Statistics

STAKEHOLDERS N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

SCORE

STUDENTS 154 2.53 1.483 .119

MANAGERS 16 2.63 1.258 .315

154

TABLE 4.43: Independent Samples Test of tablet's advantages and

disadvantages for learning and teaching (Students and Managers)


Levene's

Test for

Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differ

ence

Std.

Error

Differ

ence

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

ADVA

NTAG

ES

DISAD

VANTA

GES

SCOR

E

Equal

variances

assumed

1.498 .223 -.241 168 .810 -.093 .385 -.852 .667

Equal

variances

not

assumed

-.275 19.

600

.786 -.093 .337 -.795 .610

An Independent Sample t-test was conducted at a 5% level of significance (ie.

ά = 0.05) to compare the views of students and managers on the advantages and

disadvantages of using tablets in classroom. The results showed that there was no

significant difference (t (168) = -0.241; p (2-tailed) = 0.81) in the views of students

(M=2.53; SD=1.483) and managers (M=2.63; SD=1.258). The differences in the

means was -0.093 with 95% CI: -0.852 to 0.667. Consequently after comparison,

results showed that students and managers shared the same views on the

advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching.

155

4.3.3.6 Triangulation of inferential analysis of students, lecturers and

managers survey responses on the convenience of using tablets when

compared with personal computer (PC)

A one-way between groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to

explore the views of all stakeholders such as students, lecturers and managers on

the convenience of using tablets in classroom when compared with PC. Participants

were divided into three groups: 1) students 2) lecturers 3) managers. The dependent

variable was the total score of different items that related to the comparison of using

tablet with PC in terms of its convenience. Since the Sig. value in Levene’s test is

less than 0.05, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated and would

consider Welch’s test F(2, 25.436) = 33.025, p < 0.001, indicating that not all

stakeholders had the same views on the convenience of using tablets for learning

and teaching. Post-hoc comparisons using the turkey HSD test indicated that the

mean score of managers (M=1.88, SD=0.806) was significantly different from

students (M=3.44, SD=1.347) and lecturers (M=4.23, SD=0.832). However, lecturers

were not significantly different from students.

TABLE 4.44: Descriptive statistics: Comparison of tablet and PC score

Descriptive

TABLET Vs PC SCORE

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimu

m

Maxim

um

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Students 153 3.44 1.347 .109 3.23 3.66 1 5

Lecturers 13 4.23 .832 .231 3.73 4.73 2 5

Managers 16 1.88 .806 .202 1.45 2.30 1 4

Total 182 3.36 1.371 .102 3.16 3.56 1 5

156

TABLE 4.45: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene

Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

TABLETS Vs

PC SCORE

Based on Mean 9.814 2 179 .000

Based on Median 3.269 2 179 .040

Based on Median and

with adjusted df

3.269 2 169.227 .040

Based on trimmed

mean

8.275 2 179 .000

TABLE 4.46: ANOVA

ANOVA

TABLETS Vs PC SCORE

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 46.230 2 23.115 14.081 .000

Within Groups 293.835 179 1.642

Total 340.066 181

TABLE 4.47: Welch test

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

TABLETS Vs PC SCORE

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 33.025 2 25.436 .000

Brown-Forsythe 30.319 2 39.798 .000

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

157

TABLE 4.48: Post-Hoc test

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: TABLETS Vs PC SCORE

Tukey HSD

(I)

STAKEHOLDERS

(J)

STAKEHOLDERS

Mean

Differenc

e (I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Students Lecturers -.786 .370 .088 -1.66 .09

Managers 1.569* .337 .000 .77 2.37

Lecturers Students .786 .370 .088 -.09 1.66

Managers 2.356* .478 .000 1.23 3.49

Managers Students -1.569* .337 .000 -2.37 -.77

Lecturers -2.356* .478 .000 -3.49 -1.23

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

The interview responses that was collected from students, lecturers and

managers were analysed using themes by separating them into different categories.

The major themes were developed based on sub-research question 1.3.2.3. From

these major themes, sub-themes were formulated. Under each sub-theme, interview

responses collected from students, lecturers and managers were discussed and

interpreted to understand the advantages and disadvantages of tablet use in

classroom for learning and teaching in university classrooms.

Table 4.49 reflects the theme and sub themes that were extracted from the

responses of lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.3.

158

TABLE 4.49: Theme and sub-themes concerning the students’ responses on

the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets in classroom

THEME SUB THEMES ISSUES RAISED

Advantages

and

disadvantages

Non learning

activities in

class

Reponses received from 80% of the respondents

were that they did not use it for activities that were

not part of learning during class hours.

Non learning

activities

outside class

Almost all of the respondents used tablets for

getting into social networking sites or apps for

time pass.

Benefits as a

learning tool

All respondents mentioned that it was highly

beneficial for them as a learning tool.

Drawbacks as

a learning tool

Majority of the respondents agreed that tablets

had some drawbacks.

4.3.3.7 Students’ interview responses: Non learning activities in class

Majority of the respondents expressed that they used tablet during the lecture

hours only for the purpose of learning.

StuInter 5: “I don’t use it for those kind of any activities”.

StuInter 6: “No. I do use the tablets only for leaning activities like searching

about the topics”.

On the other hand, three respondents have concurred that they used for non-

learning activities. StuInter 12, StuInter 16 and StuInter 17 used tablets to chat with

friends in social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp.

4.3.3.8 Students’ interview responses: Non learning activities outside class

StuInter 5 states that:

I usually use it for social networks when I am around the campus when I connected to the Wi-Fi and I sometimes play some games when I having spare time just to cool off my mind.

StuInter 2 and StuInter 3 used tablets not only to play games but also to

download eBooks and to work on assignments after class hours.

159

StuInter 15: “yes I use it for group chat”.

4.3.3.9 Students’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool

All the respondents equally agreed that tablet was a learning tool that had

high benefits and it had changed the way they learned.

StuInter 1: “It has enhanced my learning capability and I also got easy access

to my school work on wiseup, then I can browse in the internet to browse more

details”.

The response of StuInter 7 and StuInter 13 corroborated with the response of

StuInter 1. StuInter 18 argued that he benefited with the use of tablet only for once:

Once I have I lost all my notes and took pictures of somebody's notes and I tried to read that soft copies but it was very difficult and but I did make it because I passed it.

4.3.3.10 Students’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool

StuInter 1, StuInter 2 and StuInter 9 did not find any drawbacks except that

some applications were not compatible with the tablets. For example, some of the

programming courses such as C++ or code blocks failed to install in their tablets.

StuInter 5 raised the concern that WI-FI connections in the university premises were

very poor and speed was low which did not help to use tablets effectively as it had

only WI-FI facility and did not have sim card facility. The responses of StuInter7 and

StuInter10 were substantiated with the response of StuInter 5.

The following table shows the theme and sub themes that were extracted

from the responses of lecturers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.3.

160

TABLE 4.50: Theme and sub-themes concerning the lecturers’ responses on



Advantages and

disadvantages

Benefits as a

teaching tool

Most of the respondents obtained many

benefits from the use of tablet as a teaching

tool.

Drawbacks as

a teaching tool

Majority of the respondents have pointed out

some drawbacks that they had faced while

using tablet as a teaching tool.

Student’s non

learning

activities in

class

The issue of students accessing social media

during lecture time.

Benefits as a

learning tool

Students received different kinds of benefits in

using tablet as a learning tool.

Drawbacks as

a learning tool

Majority of the respondents agreed that tablets

had some drawbacks.

4.3.3.11 Lecturers’ interview responses: Benefits as a teaching tool

LectInter 2 states that:

Well on assignments yeah. It assist .because if you give them assignments. Instead of computers because we know we have problems with computer. Then they can be able to use the tablets to search for those assignments. Students are exploring by going to the internet by using the tablet.

LectInter 3 obtained benefit in the case of sending notes to students through

Wiseup.

LectInter 5: “The same thing whatever I am doing or whatever I am using in

laptops all those benefits I was getting even in the tablets”.

4.3.3.12 Lecturers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a teaching tool

LectInter 2 highlighted the plagiarism issues that arose due to the use of

tablets in classroom. When LectInter 2 posted some assignment question in Wiseup

161

for students to do, they just copied and pasted the answer they found from the

internet without using their competitive skills.

LectInter 3: “Students cannot rely on Wi-Fi. They cannot access any email if

they're outside the campus. They don't have the SIM card provision there tablets

have only Wi-Fi facility”.

However, one respondent mentioned that he did not see any drawbacks.

4.3.3.13 Lecturers’ interview responses: Students’ non learning activities in

class

Social networking was done actively by students while the lecturer lectured in

the class. LectInter 1 stressed that students were very tricky as they could switch

very fast between Facebook and eBook in tablets during the class hours.

LectInter 2: “They are very Addicted in using the tablets to do something that

are not related to learning even when the lecture goes on”.

LectInter 3: “Each and every time they send WhatsApp they are laughing. We

don't know why they're laughing. Maybe because of Twitter they are using.

Somehow we need to draw a line”.

LectInter 5’s response was consistent with the response of LectInter 3

4.3.3.14 Lecturers’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool

LectInter 1: “Yes. In terms of accessing the information... in terms of

Engagement with the lecturer. Yes there is improvement”.

LectInter 2 remarked that tablets delivered to students was a great help and

benefit for them as each student had a tablet and they could be used just like they do

on their computer such as going to google and gather information.

162

LectInter 3: “There are benefits. They do online chats, they create

brainstorming sessions through the tablet”.

4.3.3.15 Lecturers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool

LectInter 3: “If network is down they cannot download anything”.

LectInter 2 avers that:

The normal activity of the student has come down because most of the time they are looking at the tablets they're not working there most of the time they're sitting down they're not walking up and down for

healthy.

LectInter 4 states that:

Drawbacks for them I think are the disruption that the tablets have brought into their learning even though they are using it for the beneficial purposes of the activities for learning inside and outside the class.

The theme and sub themes that were obtained from the responses of

managers for Sub-Research Question 1.3.2.3 are shown below.

TABLE 4.51: Theme and sub-themes concerning the managers’ responses on



Advantages

and

disadvantages

Benefits as a

learning tool

All the respondents indicated that students had

different types of benefits in using tablets as a

learning tool.

Benefits as a

teaching tool

Lecturers had positive attitude in terms of using

tablets for teaching and they were benefitting from

the use of tablets.

Drawbacks as

a learning tool

Majority of the participants agreed that there were

some drawbacks.

Drawbacks as

a teaching tool

Most of the respondents did not see any

drawbacks in tablets as a teaching tool.

4.3.3.16 Managers’ interview responses: Benefits as a learning tool

Students changed the way they had been learning after the implementation of

tablets in classroom. ManInter 9 suggested that tablets motivated students to aim for

163

high marks, helped to communicate between each other in sharing notes and this

made them to read notes quickly. ManInter 1 stated that it was more convenient for

the students to learn their courses by being from anywhere. ManInter 3 indicated that

students:

can do quick reference and it is a tablet that can holder so many files instead of carrying bag of so many books. Tablets becomes handy for quick reference and they can download eBooks as well.

4.3.3.17 Managers’ interview responses: Benefits as a teaching tool

Respondents emphasized that lecturers were utilizing the benefits that they

obtained from the use of tablets.

ManInter 6: “it is easy to change the material as it is in the electronic format”.

ManInter 2 avers that “It makes environment the class environment conducive

to learning and teaching because the information is at their fingertip”.

ManInter 8 stressed that overall he could find only positive things about the

use of tablet and it was an effective tool for teaching.

4.3.3.18 Managers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a learning tool

Even though tablets had a vast number of benefits, majority of the managers

agreed that there were a few drawbacks in tablets as well.

ManInter 3 affirms that:

The only drawback is that they tend to abuse the tablet they use it for other things other than for learning purposes and they are not doing it for the things that they are intended to use it for.

ManInter 9: “Its very easy for the students to use it for social networking such

as Whatsapp and Facebook it Twitter video downloading so I think that's an another

drawback”.

ManInter 4 corroborates with the views of ManInter 3 and ManInter 9.

However, ManInter 5 and ManInter 7 declare that they did not notice any drawbacks

in the tablet use of students.

164

4.3.3.19 Managers’ interview responses: Drawbacks as a teaching tool

Majority of the respondents responded that they did not see any drawbacks in

tablet as a teaching tool.

ManInter 6: “No I'm not aware of any that kind of thing”.

ManInter 3: “Not really significant other than the tablets are working very well

for the teaching and learning”.

ManInter 1, ManInter 5 and ManInter 7 also substantiated the views of earlier

respondents.

4.3.3.20 Triangulation of interview responses of stakeholders on the

advantages and disadvantages of tablet use

Table 4.52 shows the comparison of students’ and lecturers’ responses on the

learning activities of students in class. Both the participants had a similar response

that students were using tablets during the class hours not for the purpose of

learning but for the non-educational activities such as checking social networking

platforms namely Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp.

TABLE 4.52: Triangulation: Students’ non learning activities in class

SUB THEME STUDENTS LECTURERS

Student’s

non learning

activities in

class

Reponses received from 80% of

the respondents were that they did

not use it for activities that were not

part of learning during class hours.

Students accessing social

media during lecture time

was a common issue that all

respondents highlighted.

Table 4.53 shows the comparison of students’, lecturers’ and managers’

responses on the benefits of using tablets in classroom. All the respondents equally

believed that students had acquired numerous benefits in using tablet as a learning

tool.

165

TABLE 4.53: Triangulation: Benefits as a learning tool

SUB

THEME

STUDENTS LECTURERS MANAGERS

Benefits

as a

learning

tool

All respondents

mentioned that it

was highly

beneficial for them

as a learning tool.

Students had

different kinds of

benefits in using

tablet as a learning

tool.

All the respondents

indicated that students

received different types of

benefits in using tablets

as a learning tool.

Table 4.54 shows the comparison of students’, lecturers’ and managers’

responses on the drawbacks of using tablets in classroom. Apart from the benefits

obtained, all types of participants equally believed that tablets had some drawbacks

as a learning tool.

TABLE 4.54: Triangulation: Drawbacks as a learning tool

SUB

THEME

STUDENTS LECTURERS MANAGERS

Drawback

s as a

learning

tool

Majority of the

respondents

agreed that

tablets had some

drawbacks.

Majority of the respondents

agreed that tablets had

caused many drawbacks

among students.

Majority of the

participants agreed

that there were some

drawbacks.

Table 4.55 shows the comparison of lecturers’ and managers’ responses on

the benefits of using tablets in classroom. The results showed that tablets provided

many benefits to the lecturers as a teaching tool.

166

TABLE 4.55: Triangulation: Benefits as a teaching tool


Benefits as a

teaching tool

Most of the respondents

obtained several benefits

from the use of tablet as a

teaching tool.

Lecturers had a positive attitude in

terms of using tablets for teaching

and they benefitted from the use of

tablets.

Table 4.56 shows the comparison of lecturers’ and managers’ responses on

the drawbacks of using tablets in classroom. The results collected from both parties

were mixed responses. While lecturers admitted that they found a few drawbacks in

using tablets as a teaching device, managers aver that tablet was a teaching gadget

that had no drawbacks.

TABLE 4.56: Triangulation: Drawbacks as a teaching tool


Drawbacks as a

teaching tool

Majority of the respondents had

pointed out some drawbacks

that they suffered while using

tablet as a teaching tool.

Most of the respondents

did not see any

drawbacks in tablets as

a teaching tool.

4.4 Discussion of findings

The findings for this research were based on two sources of data that were

comprised of Likert scale responses and interview responses. In this section of the

study, the findings were discussed in the light of the findings of similar studies,

theories and literature.

4.4.1 Effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms

4.4.1.1 Survey responses

The present study showed that majority of the students found the use of

tablets had helped them to learn the course content in the class (item C1). These

corroborate with the findings by Agir (2015), Mango (2015), Rossing, et al. (2012)

and Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012). Agir (2015), Mango (2015), Rossing,

et al. (2012) concur that students in their study also perceived the tablets use to

167

enhance their learning by participating in course activities. Diemer, Fernandez and

Streepey (2012) had also observed that classroom use of iPad tablets have made a

positive effect on students learning. It emerged from the study that students started

to perform their homework more easily after they had received tablets (item C2).

These results were consistent with the findings by Agir (2015) that using the iPad

tablets on the course provided students to perform their homework with no trouble.

Majority of the students believed that they could perform their projects very easily

(item C3) after the adoption of tablets for learning. Mango (2015, p.56) had observed

that “students’ participation in class activities and their interaction with each other

were remarkably enhanced when using the iPads to work on common projects”. Agir

(2015) suggests that use of tablets enabled students to perform their projects easily.

Therefore, findings of the current study substantiate with the views of Mango (2015)

and Agir (2015). The study established that the students obtained multiple learning

styles (item C4) after they had received tablets. Findings of the present study were

consistent with results by Rossing, et al. (2012), McBeth, et al. (2015) and Shen

(2016) who state that tablets facilitated students to learn the contents in multiple

styles. Emphasising this, McBeth, et al. (2015, p.6) state that “the iPads served as

useful tool to engage students with multiple learning styles including text, visual, and

oral communication using a variety of app”. The present study further established

that after receiving tablets, students who participated in the course activity had

enhanced their learning (item C5) which is similar to the finding by Wakefield and

Smith (2012) as they state that learning could be enhanced by using a tool called

tablet. Staff Writers (2012) indicate that iPad tablets enhanced the learning skill of

students. Findings by Rossing, et al. (2012) also show that use of tablets enhanced

students’ learning skill. Therefore, item C5 corroborates with the findings by

Wakefield and Smith (2012), Staff Writers (2012) and Rossing, et al. (2012). Shen

(2016) specify that due to the various learning activities that was facilitated by

tablets, students became more confident in using these devices for the purpose of

learning. Findings by Wakefield and Smith (2012) also support the same. In the

present study, majority of the students indicated that they developed confidence in

the subject area (item C6) after the integration of tablets in classroom. Most of the

students indicated that they focused on the tasks after they had started using tablets

(item C7) which is consistent with the investigations by Rossing, et al. (2012) and

168

Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012) that students’ attention was greater after

using tablets. In the present study, managers reported that academic results of

students had improved after incorporating tablets into education (item B2). This

finding is inconsistent with the finding by Perez, Gonzalez, Pitcher and Golding

(2011) who state that tablets made a negative impact in students’ academic results.

The study revealed that both students (item D1) and lecturers (item C1)

agreed that tablet activities motivated students to learn the course material more

than the class activities that did not use tablet. Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey

(2012), Rossing, et al. (2012) and Singer (2015) indicate that tablets activities

motivated students to learn the course material. Mango (2015) avers that the use of

iPad tablets motivated students to participate in class activities. Agir (2015) and

Chou, Block and Jesness (2014) state that use of tablets increased motivation to

learn. Therefore, findings of the current study were stable with the views of Diemer,

Fernandez and Streepey (2012), Mango (2015), Agir (2015), Chou, Block and

Jesness (2014), Rossing, et al. (2012) and Singer (2015). Most of the students in the

current study felt that tablets helped them to participate more in class during the

tablet activities than during activities that did not use tablet. This is similar to the

results found by Rossing, et al. (2012) and Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012)

who state that tablets helped students to participate more than usual in classroom.

Both students (item D5) and lecturers (item C4) mutually agreed that students’ use of

tablets at home was not as useful as that in the classroom. However Agir’s (2015)

finding shows that iPad use of students had increased the learning time at home.

Therefore, findings of the present study were not parallel with the findings by Agir

(2015). The current research showed that tablets made it easier for students to

understand the topics when they learn in a group. This was agreed by both students

and lecturers unanimously. The findings of this study coincide with the findings by

Rossing, et al. (2012) and Diemer, Fernandez and Miller (2012) who state that

students found it easier to learn in group using tablets. The study found that tablet

activities helped students to participate in quiz as a team which is in line with

investigations by Hahn and Bussell (2012) who affirm that tablets allowed students

for taking online quizzes. Majority of the students (item D7) and lecturers (item C7)

agreed that tablets helped students to gather information for the group project work.

169

Although Agir’s (2015) investigation was similar to the findings of the present study,

Hahn and Bussell’s (2012) finding contradicts with this study. Furthermore, this study

showed that tablets helped students in Group discussion. Rossing, et al. (2012) also

indicate that students’ participation in class discussion and group discussion

increased after the adoption of iPad tablets. Agir (2015) asserts that tablets helped

students to join in discussion. Therefore, the results of current study is stable with

the investigations by Rossing, et al. (2012) and Agir (2015).

4.4.1.2 Interview responses

Students and lecturers reverberate in the same voice that students engaged

and collaborated with their classmates by making use of different social networking

application such as Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp for the purpose of learning. Chou,

Block and Jesness (2014, p.21) concur that “Mobile devices such as iPads increase

student engagement; teachers have commented that the students were 100% on

tasks and engaging in classroom discussions”. McBeth, et al. (2015) indicate that

56% and 63% of the respondents’ concurred with the notion of engagement and

collaboration respectively. Findings of the present study were therefore consistent

with results by Chou, Block and Jesness (2014) and McBeth, et al. (2015). Lecturers

and managers disagreed with the idea of changing the curriculum for the use of

tablets. They stressed that change must be done in the delivery of lecture using

tablets but not in the curriculum and this does not substantiate with the findings by

Agir (2015) who states that current curriculum should be changed for the effective

iPad use. All the stakeholders of this study coincided with the statement that tablets

use had enhanced the skills of students. This finding is consistent with the views by

Rossing, et al. (2012) and Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012) who indicate that

use of tablets enhanced the skills of students.

4.4.2 Effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms


Most of the lecturers in the current study indicated that they did not use

tablets for most of their lecture classes (item E1) which is similar to the results found

by Yeung and Chung (2011) and Lindsey (2011). Findings by Yeung and Chung

(2011) show that out of 30 respondents 50% have never used tablets at all. Lindsey

170

(2011) advocates that only 37% of the academics used tablets for teaching. The

results obtained from the current survey showed that tablet assists lecturers’ tasks

during lectures (item E2) which is consistent with the finding of Agir (2015) who

states that the use of tablets support the task of academics. The current research

showed that lecturers could quickly complete their topics using tablets (item E3)

which is stable with the findings by Agir (2015) who concurs that topics can be easily

completed by using iPad tablets. Despite majority of lecturers agreed that they could

complete the curriculum on time (item E4), managers responded to this by opting a

neutral stand (item B3). Agir (2015, p. 187) states that “Most of the teachers (94%)

think that the teaching curriculum can be completed by using iPads”. Investigation of

the current study showed that the respondents could finish curriculum within the

specified period which concur with the findings by Agir (2015). In the present study,

lecturers (item E5) and managers (item B4) indicated that curriculum should be

adapted for the effective use of tablets. Brand, Kinash, Mathew and Kordyban’s

(2011) findings contradict with the results of the current study. Tablet use made

lecturers work easy while lecturing (item E6) which is similar to the findings by Agir

(2015) who states that “iPad usage facilitates the task of teachers”. Current study

showed that majority of the lecturers stressed that there was much distraction in

class during the lecture hours (item E7). Even though Geist (2011) and Staff Writers

(2012) also found the result similar to the findings of this study, many other

researches (Robinson, 2012; Kinash, Brand & Mathew, 2012; Gong & Wallace,

2012; Wakefield & Smith, 2012; Rossing, et al., 2012; Mango, 2015) highlight that

tablets could be a distraction due to its non-educative use. Gong and Wallace (2012)

advocate that more than 50% of the respondents’ in their study stated that tablets

were useful more for entertainments than learning. The current study found that

lecturers indicated a neutral stance for the statement “Using personal computers

(PC) makes better impact on students than using tablets“(item E8). However, Mang

and Wardley (2012) articulate that tablets should be considered as an extra tool

along with PC. Both lecturers and managers mutually agreed that tablets helped

lecturers to develop the skills that apply to their academic career (item E9) which

substantiates with the findings by Rossing, et al. (2012) and Diemer, Fernandez and

Streepey (2012) who indicate that tablet use has developed the skills that apply to

their professional life. It emerged from the study that a small group of lecturers

171

preferred PC than using tablets (item E10). Most of them opted for a neutral stand

which do not substantiate with the findings by Hill, et al. (2012) and Rossing, et al.

(2012) who state that iPad tablets were more useful compared to a desktop

computer.


The study found that the lecturers were not using apps for the purpose of

teaching. Chou, Block and Jesness (2014) argue that lack of teacher selected apps

was one of the challenges for teaching. Academics in a survey conducted by Yeung

and Chung (2011) stress that apps they wish to use were not available. The finding

of this study was therefore consistent with the views of Chou, Block and Jesness

(2014) and Yeung and Chung (2011). Most of the lecturers mentioned that it was

challenging during the earlier days and now it is easy to lecture after the adoption of

tablets in the classroom and this is in line with the investigations by Agir (2015) who

indicates that use of iPad tablets simplified the task of academics. Moreover,

quantitative data (item E1) corroborated this finding. From the managers’ point of

view, the lecturers were using tablets for various teaching purposes and their tablet

use depended on the topic that they were lecturing in class was comparable with the

findings by Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012). Chou, Block and Jesness

(2014) indicate that academics use apps with updated information in Geography to

engage with students. The results obtained from managers were similar with the

findings by Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey (2012) and Chou, Block and Jesness

(2014). Majority of the managers averred that there was no need to change the

curriculum which is similar to the findings by Agir (2015, p.186) who states that

currently “the curriculum can be finished on time by using iPad”. “A training workshop

for faculty was conducted to kick start the iPad initiative” (Shen, 2016, p.18).

Managers of this study upheld with the findings of Shen (2016). However, it was

mixed responses that were received from lecturers.

172

4.4.3 Advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and

teaching


Majority of the students and lecturers believed that students could read e-

Books (item B1). Agir (2015) declares that a few students read e-Books in his

findings. Therefore, finding of the current study is not consistent with the view of Agir

(2015). This study established that according to the views of students,

communication between students and lecturers using tablet was not that often (item

B2) which is similar to the views of Agir (2015) who specified that students in his

research did not communicate with the lecturer after using tablet. However, lecturers

were against to the views of students (item B2). This study also established that

students conducted research (item B3) after they had received tablets. Agir (2015)

avers that 54% of the students always use iPad tablets to conduct research.

Findings of the present study were therefore consistent with the findings by Agir

(2015). The current study revealed that both students (item B4) and lecturers (item

B4) agreed that tablet activities made students to gather more information. These

findings are stable with the views of McBeth, et al. (2015). The current research

shows that e-learning through Black Board using tablets was effective. This was

unanimously agreed both by students (item B5) and lecturers (item B5). Geist (2011,

p. 174) highlights that “More students used the Blackboard Mobile Learn app with

77% indicating they had used it”. Geist (2011, p. 764) states that “students were

enthusiastic about the use of Blackboard because of the ease of access to material”.

Kinash, Brand and Mathew (2012) indicate that students in their research positively

responded on Blackboard Mobile Learning. Therefore, findings of Brand, Kinash,

Mathew and Kordyban (2011), Geist (2011) and Kinash, Brand and Mathew (2012)

coincide with the investigations of the present study. Majority of the students (item

B6) agreed that they obtained multiple learning styles due to the use of tablets. Most

of the lecturers took a neutral stance. Many other researchers such as Rossing, et

al. (2012), McBeth, et al. (2015) and Shen (2016) also agree to the views of students

who stated that use of tablets engaged students to learn in different ways. It was

observed that mixed responses were received for the statement “After getting tablet,

I started to have a negative impact on students’ handwriting skills”. Students

indicated a negative impression that it had affected their handwriting. However,

173

lecturers took a neutral position. Findings by Agir (2015) indicates that 46% of the

respondents disagreed and 41% of them agreed to the statement. The results

obtained from the current study showed that above 90% of the students and 70% of

the lecturers’ agreed that students took photos of the lecture highlights on white

board to avoid copying by hand. This result is in line with many studies (Alyahya &

Gall, 2012; Hahn & Bussell, 2012; Mang & Wardley, 2012) as they indicate that

tablet was a useful device to take notes, highlight texts or take pictures. While

lecturers took a neutral position for the statement “used tablets during the lecture for

taking notes”, students agreed that they used tablets during the lecture for taking

notes. Kinash, Brand and Mathew (2012), Hahn and Bussell (2012), Mang and

Wardley (2012) and Alyahya and Gall (2012) concur that tablets enabled students to

take lecture notes in class. Consequently, the findings of present study corroborate

with the findings of many studies (Kinash, Brand & Mathew, 2012; Hahn & Bussell,

2012; Mang & Wardley, 2012; Alyahya & Gall, 2012). Furthermore, the present study

showed that, tablet activity helped students to submit their work to the lecturer

through email or file sharing apps (item B10). Rossing, et al. (2012, p. 5) concur that

“students submitted their work to the instructor through email or a file sharing

application such as Dropbox”. Geist (2011), Alyahya and Gall (2012), Mang and

Wardley (2012), Hahn and Bussell (2012) and Kinash, Brand and Mathew (2012)

agree that students submit assignments using apps in tablet. Shen (2016, p. 21)

indicates that “the use of iPad added convenience in completing course assignment”.

The findings of the current study is therefore similar to the findings of a number of

researches (Geist, 2011; Kinash, Brand & Mathew, 2012; Rossing, et al., 2012;

Alyahya & Gall, 2012; Mang & Wardley, 2012; Hahn & Bussell, 2012; Shen, 2016).

In the present study, it showed that majority of the students agreed that tablets were

more convenient to use when compared with personal computer (PC) (item E1)

which corroborated with the findings by Rossing, et al. (2012) who state that iPad

tablets were convenient than desktop computer and laptops. It emerged from the

study that tablets assisted students to participate more actively in discussions than

using PC (item E3). “I believe the iPad will assist (assisted) me to participate more

actively in discussions than traditional learning methods” (Mang & Wardley, 2013,

p.10). Agir (2015) indicate that majority of the students join in discussions after the

adoption of tablets. The results of the present study are similar to the finding by

174

Mang and Wardley (2013) and Agir (2015). A student response from the findings by

Rossing, et al. (2012, p. 11) aver that interaction and sharing of documents during

class discussion was high. Therefore, findings of the present study relate with the

findings by Rossing, et al. (2012). The study obtained a negative impression from

managers on the statement “tablets are better than personal computer (PC) for

lecturers” (item B6). Conversely, tablets were more convenient to use for lecturers

when compared with personal computer (PC). Moreover, Rossing, et al. (2012)

support to the view of lecturers that iPad tablets are more convenient than desktop

computers. Most of the students indicated that tablet assisted students to search for

more information than through PC (item E2) which is consistent with the

investigations by Mang and Wardley (2013). The study revealed that both students

and managers disagreed that tablet was a good tool to learn when compared with

PC. Findings by Mang and Wardley (2013) state that the respondents had a positive

attitude towards tablet as a learning tool.


Almost all the students used tablets for getting into social networking sites or

apps to pass time which is comparable with the results by Hahn and Bussell (2012,

p. 45) who state that “the most highly reported non-class use of the iPad was to

check e-mail and social networking”. The most common non learning activities

students generally did during lecture hours were to check emails and do social

networking. Listening to music, browsing internet and watching videos were some of

the other non-learning activities of students outside the classroom. Reponses

received from 80% of the students were that they did not use it for non-learning

activities during class hours. However, lecturers opined that students were involved

more with social media than on the lecture. Consequently, this concurs with the

findings by Mang and Wardley (2013) who indicate that checking personnel emails

and social networking in class declined students from focussing on the lecture. All

the stakeholders had a common opinion that tablet was a learning tool that offered

plenty of benefits. Mang and Wardley (2013) aver that majority of the students

believed that tablets is an innovative tool for learning. Finding of the current study is

therefore consistent with views of Mang and Wardley (2013). Despite the fact that

students found it useful to take notes using iPad 2, the gadget did not suit well for

175

extensive thorough research and typing (Hahn & Bussell, 2012). The responses

received from all the stakeholders were the same on this and corroborate with the

result of Hahn and Bussell (2012). The quantitative data (item B9) corroborated the

finding of taking notes. Both lecturers and managers observed that tablets offered

numerous benefits as a teaching tool. Chou, Block and Jesness (2012) found that

academics spent more time in assisting students in practical work and less time to

lecture. Consequently, the result of present study is consistent with the findings of

Chou, Block and Jesness (2012). As no device was perfect, so were tablets. Most of

the lecturers indicated the various drawbacks of tablets as a teaching tool from their

experiences in the classroom. Conversely, most of the managers did not see any

drawbacks in tablets as a teaching tool. However, Chou, Block and Jesness’s (2012)

results were similar to the responses of lecturers that there are a few drawbacks.

4.5 Summary

Chapter Four started with a summary of demographical data. Thereafter the

results obtained from the collection of data were presented for each sub-research

question. This chapter focussed mainly on the presentation and analysis of data to

seek the differences in the views of students, lecturers and managers on the use of

tablets for learning and teaching at a university in the Eastern Cape province of

South Africa. This chapter also strived to find out the benefits and drawbacks of

using tablets in classroom from the point of view of all the stakeholders. Responses

collected from the quantitative closed-ended questions were discussed. Major

themes and sub themes were developed from the responses obtained from

qualitative interviews. Both quantitative and qualitative responses were analysed,

interpreted and triangulated among all stakeholders. Ultimately, the responses from

this study were discussed along with similar studies and previous literature. In the

next chapter, summary of the findings, conclusions and limitations will be discussed.

Furthermore, recommendations to the management or institution that are planning to

implement tablets in their classrooms are also highlighted in Chapter Five.

176

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented the data, analysed, interpreted, triangulated

and discussed. In this chapter, summary of the findings and conclusions of the study

are discussed. This chapter concluded by explaining the limitations of the study and

proposing recommendations to the management or institution that are planning to

implement tablets in their classrooms. The chapter commenced by reaffirming the

sub-research questions.

5.2 Reaffirming the research questions

The main research question addressed in this study was:

Based on stakeholders’ views, what are the strengths and weaknesses of using

tablets for learning and teaching?

The study also addressed the following sub-research questions:

(a) How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the


(b) How do lecturers and managers differ in their views on the effectiveness of tablet

use for teaching in university classrooms?

(c) How do students, lecturers and managers differ in their views on the advantages

and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching?

(d) What feasible framework can be developed to enhance the use of tablets for


5.3 Summary of Major Findings

This section of the chapter shaped the summary of the findings based on

each sub-research question.

177

5.3.1 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of

tablet use for learning in university classrooms

The views of students, lecturers and managers were identical on the use of

tablet technology for the purpose of learning in classroom. The use of tablets helped

students to learn the course content in multiple ways and perform homework and

projects easily. Tablets enabled students to focus on the tasks and boost their level

of confidence in the subject which led them to involve in different learning activities

that enhanced their learning. Managers compared and observed the improvements

in academic results after the integration of tablets into education. Both students and

lecturers unanimously agreed on students’ motivation level for learning the course

materials. Tablets not only assisted students to gather information for group work,

but also to participate in group discussion. This gadget boosted students’

participation in class during the tablets activities with and without their classmates

after the adoption of tablets. Both lecturers and students indicated that students’

tablet use in classroom was better than at home. Both parties agreed that tablets

contributed to students’ better understanding of the topics in group learning as well

as in quiz activities (See section 4.4.1.1).

Tablets enabled students to engage and collaborate with the lecturers as well

as to perform various educational and learning activities. The tablet training which

was offered to students by the CLTD department helped them to improve the pass

rate. Students used social networking sites such as Facebook not only for non-

learning activities but also for learning activities such as creating forums to discuss

and communicate between classmates to get clarity on the topics lectured in class.

Both lecturers and managers unanimously agreed that rather than changing the

curriculum for tablets, the change should be effected in the way lecturers deliver the

lecture using tablets. Tablets enhanced students’ skill and learning capabilities

tremendously. After scrutinising each source of data, the researcher of this study

concluded that all the stakeholders held positive views on the use of tablet computer

for learning (See section 4.4.1.2).

178

5.3.2 Views of lecturers and managers on the effectiveness of tablet use for

teaching in university classrooms

Lecturers and managers shared almost the same views on the use of tablets

for teaching purpose. Even though lecturers used tablets only for certain classes,

they believed that tablets can be used to complete the topics quickly, thereby

completing the curriculum on time. Lecturing using tablets made their work easy.

However, it should be noted that the use of tablets in class also led to various

distractions. Tablets helped lecturers to develop their skills in terms of their academic

career and enhance tasks during lectures. They believed that tablets were better

than PCs for students in terms of educational purposes. Therefore, in overall,

lecturers’ preferred tablets than PCs (See section 4.4.2.1).

Despite the lecturers stated that lecturing was easier compared to the earlier

days, they failed to use teaching apps for lecturing. Lecturers used tablets for

multiple purposes depending on the topic. Use of tablets enhanced lecturing skills.

Managers highlighted that there was no need to change the curriculum to

accommodate the use of tablets and pointed out that tablet training was offered to

lecturers who taught ES courses and that it was found to be effective. However, a

few lecturers claimed that they did not receive any training and they were exploring

tablets themselves (See section 4.4.2.2).

.

5.3.3 Views of students, lecturers and managers on the advantages and

disadvantages of using tablets for learning and teaching

The views of all students and lecturers on the advantages and disadvantages

of using tablets for learning and teaching were dissimilar. There was a tremendous

difference academically among students after they had started using tablets.

Students began to read eBooks, conduct research and gather information with the

integration of tablets. It is significant to indicate that their e-Learning through

Blackboard had improved greatly. Students took photos of the lecture that were

highlighted on the white board, they finished and submitted their works to the lecturer

through email or file sharing apps. Students started to join in discussions, brought

ideas from different fields during class discussions and developed projects.

However, the use of tablets had affected students’ handwriting negatively. Managers’

179

responses contradicted with the views of students and lecturers and they indicated

that tablets were more convenient for students to use when compared with PC.

Tablets assisted students more than PC to participate actively in discussions.

Students’ use of PC decreased after the introduction of tablets. Even though tablets

had enabled them to search for information better than PC, they could not develop

programs using tablets as they could with PC. Moreover, both students and

managers believed PC was a better learning tool than tablets (See section 4.4.3.1).

Although majority of the students’ concurred that they did not use tablets for

non-learning activities during lecture hours, lecturers contradicted with this

statement. All the stakeholders’ averred that there were many benefits of using tablet

as a learning tool in classroom. While lecturers agreed that there were a few

drawbacks in considering tablet as a teaching tool despite its numerous benefits,

most of the managers did not find any drawbacks at all. (See section 4.4.3.2).

5.3.4 Proposed Framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and

teaching

Based on the conclusions from each data set and discussions that followed, it

was possible to respond to objective 1.5.4. The major elements in the framework in

order to enhance the use of tablets for learning and teaching include:

- Students using tablet computers;

- Tablet training and educational apps;

- Facilitator;

- Tablet computers;

- Constructivism;

- Interaction;

- Team work;

- Collaboration;

- TPACK;

- TCK;

- PCK; and,

- TPK.

180

These are incorporated in the framework below in Fig 5.1. The single

directional arrows show one way relationship and double directional arrows indicate

feedback and revision in a dynamic interaction.

Fig 5.1: A Proposed Framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and

teaching

Researcher-constructed framework

5.4 Conclusion

5.4.1 Effectiveness of tablet use for learning in university classrooms

It could be concluded from the findings that all stakeholders in this study

(students, lecturers and managers) showed positive attitude about students’ use of

tablet for learning in classroom. Students’ confidence and motivation level of learning

boosted after the adoption of tablets. Currently, students could learn the contents in

different styles using tablet which made an improvement in academic results. This

181

gadget enabled students to be active in classroom. Students began to communicate

actively for learning with their peers and lecturers, both inside and outside the

classroom. Overall, the engagement and collaboration among the students and with

the lecturers enhanced significantly after the implementation of the tablet technology.

5.4.2 Effectiveness of tablet use for teaching in university classrooms

The evidence from this study underscored that both lecturers and managers

viewed that tablets were an effective teaching tool in the university classrooms.

However, in order to realize this, the necessary apps must be installed. Skills of the

lecturers were enhanced due to the use of tablets and it made completion of their

work faster than without tablets. Lecturers believed that tablets were more effective

than PC for students. They also believed that tablet was a tool for teaching the

existing curriculum which was not needed to be changed. It is important to provide

training or workshops to the lecturers for the effective use of tablets for teaching. Half

of the lecturers claimed that the training provided by CLTD, which they attended was

effective. However, the remaining lecturers indicated that they did not receive

training and they were exploring tablets by themselves.

Even though mobile devices such as e-reader and smart phones are used all

over the globe, an assumption cannot be made that all lecturers know how to use

tablets without proper guidance. In the researcher’s view, CLTD must track out the

lecturers who did not receive training and offer them training for the effective use of

tablets in teaching.

5.4.3 Advantages and disadvantages of using tablets for learning and

teaching

Like any other technology, tablet computers also have advantages as well as

disadvantages. In this study, the researcher found that tablets had more advantages

than disadvantages. After the adoption of tablets, students could engage in learning

activities with little dependence on lecturers. They understood the different styles of

learning and actively participated in group discussions. Gathering information,

downloading and reading eBooks, researching and its user-friendliness made the

device more attractive for students. Students used tablets by understanding the

182

benefits of the technology and not just for a trend to be with the booming technology

in the market.

It is significant to note that students had considered tablet as an effective

learning tool. However, when it was compared with PC, they preferred PC as a

better learning tool than tablets. As students could do most of their learning activities

on tablets, it had seriously affected their handwriting. As there was a lack of training

offered and apps installed to students and lecturers, they were not able to explore

and experience the full potential of that technology. Students checking social

networking sites during lecture hours was a common and serious issue for all

lecturers. Poor internet connection of Wi-Fi made users unable to use the device

when required as most tablets had only Wi-Fi facility and did not have sim card

facility.

5.4.4 Conclusion of overall study

All sub-research questions were answered and all objectives were achieved in

the foregoing section. The researcher described the experiences and views of

students, lecturers and managers regarding the integration of tablets in university

classrooms. Like any other product, tablet also had its strengths and weaknesses.

The views of all stakeholders such as students, lecturers and managers were almost

identical on the use of tablet technology for learning and teaching. The responses of

the stakeholders showed that tablets had more strengths than weaknesses.

Students’ engagement and collaboration for the purpose of learning had

developed tremendously. Students used tablets not only for a trend to be with the

latest technology in the market but also they found it useful. However, simply using

the tablet for personal work was highly distracting the students and causing

underutilization of the device for learning. Students’ use of social networking such as

Facebook and Whatsapp during class hours was causing distractions to the lecturers

and other students. It is important to note that social networking sites had a provision

of creating forums where the students discussed the educational matters with their

classmates which was alluded by one of the lecturers during the interview.

Therefore, being in the social networking sites did not always mean that students

183

were socializing. Students should avoid using social networking sites during the

class hours to avoid the distractions for themselves and others.

The researcher found that tablets were useful depending on the area of

course of study and that too only by implementing the items mentioned in the

recommendations. In addition, tablets were unsuitable for a course like programming

as ICT students gave focus more on developing the code. In such cases, laptops or

PCs were better choices to strengthen students’ learning and engagement with

classroom activities facilitating students’ collaboration between each other and their

participation in classroom activities.

Overall, this study indicated that all stakeholders who were cited in this

research showed positive attitude towards the tablets’ educational capabilities.

Tablets were a motivating tool for learning and teaching not only for students but

also for lecturers. Instead of a teacher-centred approach, blended learning was

followed in the classrooms. A key lesson from this study was that proper guidelines

regarding tablet use, both at university and residence, were necessary in order to

reduce distractions and to improve the effectiveness.

5.5 Limitations of the study

This study was not without its limitations. The students and lecturers in the

study were from the department of ICT and EE. Thus, it would be beneficial to

conduct a similar case study with groups of students from other departments in the

same university to evaluate the difference in the results. A comparative study

between the same departments in different campuses would also help to understand

the variance in the ways lecturers implement the use of computers in their respective

instructional methods. The next limitation was the sample size of the lecturers and

managers. The sample consisted of only 14 lecturers and 16 managers and this

could also be a limitation.

5.6 Recommendations from the study

The researcher made 10 recommendations to the management or institution

that are planning to implement tablets in their classrooms:

184

(a) Before making a bulk order to purchase, analyse thoroughly and find out what the

needs of students in each stream are and how you can address those needs with

and without technology.

(b) Purchase tablets ONLY if the student’s level or course really demands it.

(c) Purchase tablets that have both Wi-Fi facility and sim card facility in order for the

students and lecturers to use tablets even when the internet connection is poor.

(d) Wi-Fi routers should be fixed at all places in campus and campus residences in

order for the students to access internet any time.

(e) Increase the strength of Wi-Fi router at all points in campus premises.

(f) Proper training must be offered to all lecturers and students on how to use the

tablet for learning and teaching.

(g) Proper training must be offered to all lecturers and students on the necessary

apps and how to use it.

(h) All necessary apps must be installed prior to the commencement of class.

(i) Lecturer must explain the Do’s and Don’ts on the first day itself to all the students.

Lecturer must also have a clear understanding on how to use the tablets in

classroom.

(j) Prevent students from visiting unwanted and restricted sites by keeping a network

based tracker and blocker software application manged by ICT technical staff.

5.7 Suggestions for future research

The researcher made three suggestions to the people who are planning to

conduct a future research:

(a) Further study with students and lecturers as respondents from the departments

other than ICT and EE may yield interesting results.

(b) This study could also be carried out with learners, teachers and managers in

schools that uses tablets for learning and teaching to gather new views and observe

if different contexts would give different findings.

(c) A comparative study using triangulation between the school and university on

their use of tablets for learning and teaching.

185

5.8 Summary

Chapter Five started by reaffirming the main and sub-research questions.

Conclusion for each sub-research question was presented and explained. Each of

the pre-set objectives was achieved. A summary of the major findings was

discussed. The main research question was: ‘Based on stakeholders’ views, what

are the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets for learning and teaching?’

Through the answers to the sub-research question and achievement of objectives,

the study provided the strengths and weaknesses in the various use, attitudes and

operations involving tablet use. As such the main research question was answered.

A Proposed Framework to enhance the use of tablets for learning and teaching was

formulated and included in this chapter. Furthermore, the chapter provided perceived

limitations of the study and recommendations emanating from the study.

186

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abdulwahed, M., Jaworski, B. and Crawford, A. R., 2012. Innovative approaches to

teaching mathematics in higher education: a review and critique. Nordic

Studies in Mathematics Education, 17(2), pp. 49-68.

Adam, N. P., 2010. Investigation of factors that influence practices of parental

involvement in the development of children’s literacy at senior phase school

level. MEd. University of Fort Hare.

Aghaee, N., 2015. The Usefulness of ICT Support Systems for Thesis Courses

Learners’ Perspectives at Bachelor and Master Level. Ph.D. Stockholm

University.

Agir, A., 2015. iPad at School: A Holistic Evaluation of the Opinions of Students,

Teachers and Parents Concerning iPad Use. International Journal of

Education, 7(3), pp. 175-193.

Ahmada, S. Z., Bakarb, A. R. A., Ahmadc, N., 2018. An evaluation of teaching

methods of entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism programs. The

international Journal of Management Education, 16, pp. 14-25.

Ajibade, B. A., 2016. Implementation of school- based continuing professional

teacher development programmes in high schools in the fort beaufort

education district, eastern cape province, south africa: towards a teacher

development model. Ph.D. University of Fort Hare.

Aklilu, 2016. Whats the difference between a teacher and a lecturer? Answers.

Yahoo blog, [blog], available at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/

index?qid=20070315155923AATlODI

Al-Bataineh, A., Anderson, S., Toledo, C. and Wellinski, S., 2008. A study of

technology integration in the classroom. International Journal of Instructional

Media, 35(4), pp.381-387.

Alexander, B., 2014. Higher Education in 2024: Glimpsing the Future. [online]

EDUCAUSE Review. Available at:<http://er.educause.edu/ articles/2014/9/

higher-education-in-2024-glimpsing-the-future> [Accessed 15 September

2014].

Alhassan, R., 2016. Mobile learning as a method of ubiquitous Learning: Students'

attitudes, readiness, and possible barriers to implementation in higher

education. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), pp.176-189.

https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=EN3YEYOP23POMFIICMN2LZLS3Q&t=g

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070315155923AATlODI

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070315155923AATlODI

187

Ally, M. and Blazquez-Prieto, J., 2014. What is the future of mobile learning in

education? Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 11(1),

pp.140-151.

Alsufi, D., 2014. Evolution of classroom technology, the new way of teaching, using

tablets in schools. Master of Education. Bowling Green State University.

Alyahya, S. and Gall, J. E., 2012. tablets in education: A qualitative study of

students’ attitudes and experiences. In: T. Amiel and B. Wilson, eds.

2012 Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,

Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, pp.1266-

1271.

Anderson, V., 2009. Research methods in human resource management. 2nd ed.

London: CIPD Publishers.

Antifaiff, G., 2000. Integration of technology into the curriculum. University of

Saskatchewan.

Apple Inc, 2008. Apple classrooms of tomorrow—today. Learning in the 21st century.

[online] Available at: <http://www/education.apple.com/acot2/global/files/

ACOT2_Background.pdf>

Apple Inc, 2011. Now. [online] Available at: <http://www.apple.com/ca/tablet/videos/#

play-guieded-tours-ads>

Apple Inc, 2012. The tablet. [online] Available at: <http://www.apple.com/tablet/

features/> [Accessed 15 June 2012]

Apple Inc, 2013a. tablet. [online] Available at: <http://www.apple.com/tablet/>

[Accessed 25 June 2013]

Apple Inc, 2013b. Apple in Education. [online] Available at: <http://www.apple.com/

education/tablet/#classroom> [Accessed 25 June 2013]

Attard, C. and Northcote, M., 2011. Teaching technology: Mathematics on the move:

Using mobile technologies to support student learning. Australian Primary

Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), pp.29-31.

Avalos, B., 2011. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher

education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), pp.10-20.

Babbie, E., 1990. Survey Research Methods. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

publishing.

Babbie, E., 2001. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

http://www.apple.com/tablet/%20features/

http://www.apple.com/tablet/%20features/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

188

Babbie, E. and Mourton, J., 2005. The Practice of social Research. Cape Town:

Oxford University Press

Babbie, E., 2008. Introduction to Social Research, 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J., 2009. The Practice of Social Research. Cape Town:

Oxford University Press.

Babbie, E., 2010. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Backhouse, A., Wilson, I. and Mackley, D., 2014. Enhancing the formative

assessment environment through the use of mobile technologies. PRACTICE

G, 24.

Backhouse, A., Wilson, I. and Mackley, D., 2014. Enhancing the formative

assessment environment through the use of mobile technologies.

Bailey, K.D., 2007. Methods of social research. New York: The free press.

Banas, J. R., 2010. Teachers' attitudes toward technology: Considerations for

designing preservice and practicing teacher instruction. Community & Junior

College Libraries, 16(2), pp.114-127.

Barone, D. and Wright, T.E., 2009. Literacy instruction with digital and media

technologies. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), pp.292-302.

Barrows, H. S., 2000. Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical Education.

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Baya'a, N. and Daher, W., 2009. Learning mathematics in an authentic mobile

environment: the perceptions of students. International Journal of Interactive

Mobile Technologies, 3, 6-14.

Beal V., 2015. Laptop computer. webopedia [online]. Available at:

<http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/laptop_computer.html> [Accessed 23

April 2015].

Beach, R. and O’Brien, D., 2013. Fostering Student Writing-to-Learn through App

Affordances. In: K. E. Pytash, R. E. Ferdig and V. R. Timothy, eds. Exploring

technology for writing and writing instruction. Pittsburg, PA: ETC Press.

Beckerle, A.L., 2013. A Mixed Method Study Measuring the Perceptions of

Administrators, Classroom Teachers and Professional Staff on the Use of

tablets in a Midwest School District. Ph. D. Lindenwood University.

Ben-Ari, M., 1998. Constructivism in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE

Bulletin, 30(1), pp.257-261.

http://www.webopedia.com/author/Vangie-Beal

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=274308&CFID=1012843368&CFTOKEN=64657355

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=274308&CFID=1012843368&CFTOKEN=64657355

189

Bernard, H.R., Wutich, A. and Ryan, G.W., 2010. Analysing Qualitative data:

Systematic Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Berk, R. A., 2010. How do you leverage the latest technologies, including web 2.0

tools, in your classroom?. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and

Learning, 6(1), pp.1-13.

Best, W.J. and Khan, V.W., 2003. Research in education.7th ed. Allyn and Becon:

Boston.

Bennett, J. E., 2014. A case study of the integration of technology and instruction in

a rural midwestern school district. Ph.D. University of Missouri.

Bhardwaj, A., 2016. Importance of Education in Human Life: a Holistic Approach.

International Journal of Science and Consciousness, 2(2), pp.23-28.

Blanche, T. M. and Durrheim, K., 1999. Histories of the Present: Social Science

Research in Context. In M. Terre Blanche and K. Durrheim, (1993) eds.

Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. Cape Town:

UCT Press, pp. 1-16.

Blazar, D. and Kraft, M. A., 2017. Teacher and teaching effects on students‟

attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1),

pp.146-170.

Bonner, S. E., 1999. Choosing Teaching Methods Based on Learning Objectives: An

Integrative Framework. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(1), pp. 11-39.

Bouterse, B., Corn, J.O. and Halstead, E.O., 2009. Choosing the perfect tools for

one-toone. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(1), pp.14-17.

Bowers, C. A. and Flinders, D. J., 1990. Responsive teaching: an ecological

approach to classroom patterns of language, culture, and thought. New York,

Teachers College Press.

Brand, J., Kinash, S., Mathew, T. and Kordyban, R., 2011. iWant does not equal

iWill: correlates of mobile learning with iPads, e-textbooks, BlackBoard Mobile

Learn and a blended learning experience.

Briggs, A.R.J. and Coleman, M., 2002. Research methods in educational leadership

and Management. London: SAGE Publications LTD.

Brooks-Young, S., 2007. Digital-age literacy for teachers: applying technology

standards to everyday practice. [online] Available at:

<http://www.iste.org/docs/ excerpts/DALITT-excerpt.pdf>.

http://www.iste.org/docs/excerpts/DALITT-excerpt.pdf

190

Brown, B., and Schulze, S., 2007. Teacher migration to Botswana: Causes and

implications for human resources management in education. African

Education Review, 4(2), pp. 1-25.

Brown, J. S., 2002. Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and

the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2).

Brown, M., Castellano, J., Hughes, E. and Worth, A., 2012. Integration of tablets into

a Japanese university English language curriculum. The Jalt Call Journal,

8(3), pp.197-209.

Brown, M., 2015. Six Trajectories for digital technology in higher education. [online]

EDUCAUSE Review. Available at: < http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/six

-trajectories-for-digital-technology-in-higher-education> [Accessed 22 June

2015].

Bruner, J., 1963. The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bryman, A., 2001. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research methods. 2nd ed. United States: Oxford University

Press.

Brzycki, D. and Dudt, K., 2005. Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher

preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4),

pp.619-641.

Buabeng-Andoh, C., 2012. Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of

information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the

literature. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(1),

pp.136-135.

Buchanan, M. 2010. Official: iPad launching here april 3, Pre-orders March 12.

[online]. Available at: < https://gizmodo.com/5486444/official-ipad-launching-

here-april-3-pre-orders-march-12> [Accessed 03 May 2010].

BuddeComm, 2011. Global mobile communications – Insights into worldwide

developments. [online] Available at: <http://www.budde.com.au/Research/

Global-Mobile-CommunicationsInsights-into-Worldwide-Developments.html>.

BuddeComm, 2012. Australia – Mobile communications – Subscriber statistics.

[online] Available at: <http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Australia-Mobile-

Communications-SubscriberStatistics.html>.

http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Global-Mobile-CommunicationsInsights-into-Worldwide-Developments.html

http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Global-Mobile-CommunicationsInsights-into-Worldwide-Developments.html

http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Australia-Mobile-Communications-SubscriberStatistics.html

http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Australia-Mobile-Communications-SubscriberStatistics.html

191

Business Wire, 2011. Xirrus and Logical Choice Technologies Partner to Improve

Application Performance for Tablets and Smartphones Across Schools,

Colleges, and Universities Business and Economics. [online] Available at:

<http://search.proquest.com/docview/893684848?accountid=45049>

[Accessed 31 May 2013].

Cano, F., 2007. Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school

students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22 (2), pp. 131-151.

Carlson, S., 2010. The missing link in educational technology: Trained teachers.

[online] Available at: <http://www.techknowlogia.com/TKL_Articles/PDF/435.

pdf>

Carr, T. and Prater, T., 2013. Transitioning to the common core: Incorporating tablets

into reading / English language arts. Proceedings of Society for Information

Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., López-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-Díaz, M. T. and

Yñiguez, R., 2017. To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is

the question. Elsevier, 68, pp. 326-333.

Castle, S. and McGuire, C., 2010. An analysis of student self-assessment of online,

blended, and face to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable

education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), pp.36-40.

Cavenaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T. and Soto, M., 2013. Substitution to

augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education.

Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), pp. 270-284.

Caverly, D., Peterson, C. and Mandeville, T., 1997. A generational model for

professional development. Educational Leadership, 55(3), pp.56-59.

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. and Ertmer, P., 2010. Technology integration for meaningful

classroom use: A standards-based approach. Belmont, CA: Cengage

Learning.

Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., Tsai, C. and Tan, L.L.W., 2011. Modelling primary school

pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

or meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT).

Computers & Education, 57(1), pp. 1184–1193.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/893684848?accountid=45049

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/M_Castro-Nuno

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lourdes_Lopez-Valpuesta

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216307580#!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216307580#!

192

Chen, G., Wei, F., Wang, C. and Li, L., 2007. Ubiquitous discussion forum:

Introducing mobile phones and voice discussion into web discussion forum.

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(2), pp.125-140.

Chen, H.R., 2012. Design of Mobile Learning-Recommendation Services

Supporting Small-Screen Display Interfaces. In: A. Xie and X. Huang, eds.

Advances in Computer Science and Education. Advances in Intelligent and

Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Chou, C.C., Block, L. and Jesness, R., 2012. A case study of mobile learning pilot

project in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and

Exchange, 5(2), pp. 11-26.

Chou, C.C., Block, L. and Jesness, R., 2014. Strategies and challenges in iPad

initiative. IADIS International Journal, 12(2), pp. 85-101.

Chukwuemeka, E.J. and Iscioglu, E., 2016. An Examination of Lecturers’

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Perceptions at the Faculty of

Education in EMU in Cyprus. Croatian Journal of Education, 18 (4), pp.999-

1034.

Clark, W. and Luckin, R., 2013. What the research says. Tablets in the classroom.

London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education University of London.

Clarkson, G., 2018. Evaluating the potential of iPads to actively engage

paramedicine students in an authentic learning experience. Australasian

Journal of Paramedicine, 15(1), pp. 1-9.

Cobcroft, R. S., Towers, S.J., Smith, J.E. and Bruns, A., 2006. Mobile learning in

review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institution.

In: Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006. Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L., 2001. Beyond certainty: taking an inquiry stance

on practice. In: A. Lieberman and L. Miller, eds. teachers caught in the action:

professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press,

pp.45–58.

Cochrane, T., 2012. Secrets of M-learning failures: Confronting reality. Research in

Learning Technology, 20.

javascript:void(0)

javascript:void(0)

javascript:void(0)

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Cobcroft,_Rachel.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Towers,_Stephen.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Smith,_Judith.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Bruns,_Axel.html

193

Cochrane, T., Narayan, V. and OldField, J., 2013. tabletagogy: Appropriating the

tablet within pedagogical contexts. International Journal of Mobile

Learning and Organisation, 7(1), pp.48–65.

Coetzee, H., 2017. Reform-based approaches in the learning and teaching for

conceptual understanding of calculus for diploma studies at a South African

university. PhD. University of fort hare.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2000. Research Methods in Education.5th

ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

Cohen, C., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th

ed. London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2011. Research methods in education, 7th

ed. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, S., 2012. Apps meet the common core state standards in writing. Teacher

Librarian, 40(2), pp.32-39.

Cometto, T., 2008. Implementing Constructivism in Mathematics Classrooms.

Available at: <http://docslide.us/documents/implementing-constructivism-in-

mathematics-classrooms-tomas-cometto-20-march.html>

ComScore, 2014. U.S. smartphone subscriber market share. [online] Available at:

<https://www.comscore.com/Insights/PressReleases/2014/4/comScore-

Reports-February-2014-USSmartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share>

Conn, C., 2012. Managing and maximizing a class set of tablets. Learning and

Leading with Technology, 39(8), pp.32-33.

Coolican, H., 2004. Research methods and statistics in psychology. 5th ed. New

York: Routledge.

Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S., 2006. Business Research Method. 11th ed.

Boston: McGraw-Hill International edition.

Cottel, P.G. and Millis, B.J., 1994. Complex Cooperative Learning Structures for

College and University Courses. To Improve the Academy. 8(1), pp. 40–60.

Creswell, J. W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J., 2007. Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

http://docslide.us/documents/implementing-constructivism-in-mathematics-classrooms-tomas-cometto-20-march.html

http://docslide.us/documents/implementing-constructivism-in-mathematics-classrooms-tomas-cometto-20-march.html

https://www.comscore.com/Insights/PressReleases/2014/4/comScore-Reports-February-2014-USSmartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share

https://www.comscore.com/Insights/PressReleases/2014/4/comScore-Reports-February-2014-USSmartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share

194

Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., 2008a. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill

Education.

Creswell, J. W., 2008b. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. et al., 2010. First steps in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.


Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dahlberg, L. and McCaig, C., 2010. Practical Research and Evaluation. London:

SAGE Publishers.

Daniels, T. and Pethel, M., 2005. Computer mediated communications. In: M. Orey,

eds. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Baratz-Snowden, J., 2005. A good teacher in every

classroom: preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dart, B. C., 1997. Adult learners’ metacognitive behaviour in higher education. In: P.

Sutherland, ed. Adult learning: A reader. London: Kogan Page.

David, M. and Sutton, C.D., 2004. Social research. London: SAGE Publications.

Davis, R., Maher, C., Noddings, N., 1990. Introduction: Constructivist views on the

teaching and learning of mathematics. In: R. Davis, C. Maher and N.

Noddings, eds. Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of

mathematics. Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. pp.7-

18.

Debele, M. and Plevyak, L., 2012. Conditions for successful use of technology in

social studies classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 29(3), pp.285-299.

De Clercq and Celine, K., 2015. Digitally Enhanced Classrooms: Understanding the

Effect of Individualized Technology on Language Arts Instruction in

Elementary Schools. University Honors Theses. Portland State University.

195

Dede, C., 1989. The evolution of information technology: Implications for curriculum.

Educational Leadership, 47(1), pp.23-26.

Delport C.S.L. and De Vos A.S., 2005. Professional research and professional

practice. In: De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L., eds.

2005.Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service

professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp 44‒55.

Denscombe, M., 2002. Ground Rules for Good Research: A 10 Point Guide for

Social Researchers. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Denzin, N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications, Inc.

Department of Basic Education, 2011. Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement

(CAPS). Pretoria: Government Printer.

De Vos, A.S. et al., 1998. Research at grass roots: A primer for the caring

professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

De Vos, A.S., 2007. Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In: De Vos, A.S.,

Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L., eds. Research at grassroots: For

the social sciences and human service professions.

De Wet, C., 2007. Educator’s perceptions and observations of learner-on-learner

Violence-related behaviour. African Education Review. 4(2), pp. 75-93.

Dewey, J., 1933. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to

the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J., 1897. My pedagogic creed. School. 54, pp.77-80.

Dhir, A., Gahwaji, N. M. and Nyman, G., 2013. The role of the tablet in the hands of

the learner. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(5), pp.706-727.

Diemer, T.T., Fernandez, E. and Streepey, J. W., 2012. Student perceptions of

classroom engagement and learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and

Learning with Technology, 1 (2), pp. 13-25.

Dockstader, J., 1999. Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of

technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), pp.73-74.

Dogan, B. and Almus, K., 2014. School Administrators’ Use of tablets: Impact of

Training and Attitudes toward School Use. Computers in the Schools, 31(3),

pp.233-250.

196

Donnelly, K., 2014. Chalk and talk teaching might be the best way after all. [online]

the conversation. Available at: <http://theconversation.com/chalk-and-talk-

teaching-might-be-the-best-way-after-all-34478> [Accessed 23 November

2014].

Donovan, L., Green, T. and Hartley, K., 2010. An examination of one-to-one

computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased

student engagement?. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4),

pp.423-441.

Doyle, H. and Reading, C., 2013. Resistance to advocacy: Pre-service teachers

recognising the potential of curriculum-based virtual worlds for TPACK-framed

science teaching. Australian Education Computing, 27(3), pp. 101-108.

Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L. and Hosp, J. L., 2008. Designing and Conducting

Research in Education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Duhaney, D. and Zemel, P., 2000. Technology and the educational process:

Transforming classroom activities. International Journal of Instructional Media,

27(1), pp.67-72.

Dyer, C., 2013. Examining College Students' Perceptions of tablet Use on

Motivation, Organization, and Cognitive Skills. Master of Education (MEd).

Bowling Green State University.

Education Commission of the States, 2015. Professional development. Available

at:<http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=129&subIssueID=64>

El-Mowafy, A., Kuhn, M. and Snow, T., 2013. Blended learning in higher education:

Current and future challenges in surveying education, Issues in Educational

Research, 23(2), pp.132-150.

Engel, G. and Green, T., 2011. Cell Phones in the Classroom: Are we Dialing up

Disaster?. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,

55(2), pp.39–45.

Enriquez, A. 2010. Enhancing student performance using tablet computers. College

Teaching, 58(3), pp.77–84.

Eppard, J., Nasser, O. and Reddy, P., 2016. The Next Generation of Technology:

Mobile Apps in the English Language Classroom. International Journal of

Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(4), pp. 21-27.

http://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-donnelly-118593

http://link.springer.com/journal/11528/55/2/page/1

197

Ernest, P., 1995. The one and the many. In: L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, eds.

Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.

459-486.

Evoh, C.J. 2007. ICTs, Secondary Education, and the Knowledge Economy:

Exploring the Roles of the Private Sector in Post-Apartheid South Africa.

Journal of Education for International Development. 1(3).

Falloon, G., 2013. Young students using tablets: App design and content influences

on their learning pathways. Computers & Education.; 68, pp.505–521.

Figueiredo, A.D., Afonso, A.P., 2005. Context and learning: A philosophical

approach. In: A. D. Figueiredo and A. P. Afonso, eds. Managing learning in

virtual settings: The role of context. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, pp.1–22.

Finley, L. and Hartman, D., 2004. Institutional change and resistance: teacher

preparatory faculty and technology integration. Journal of Technology and

Teacher Education, 12(3), pp.319-337.

Fischman, J. and Keller, J., 2011. College Tech Goes Mobile. Chronicle of Higher

Education. [online]. Available at: <http://www.chronicle.com/article/College-

Tech-Goes-Mobile/128614/> [Accessed 21 August 2011].

Flanagan, 2016. The Effects of a One-to-One tablet Initiative: A Case Study.

Ph.D.University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Foresman, C., 2010. The tablet goes to college this fall. cnn. [online] Available at:

<http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/07/26/tablet.university.ars/index.ht

ml> [Accessed 27 July 2010].

Fosnot, C. T. and Dolk, M., 2005. Mathematics or Mathematizing in Constructivism:

Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Fountain, J. E., 2002. Information, Institutions and Governance. Cambridge: Harvard

University.

Fox, C., 2009. More than machines. T.H.E. Journal, 36(6), pp.23-26.

Franklin, T., 2011. Mobile learning: At the tipping point. The Turkish Online Journal

of Educational Technology, 10(4), pp. 261-275.

Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M. and

Volkmann, M. J., 2009. Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/07/26/ipad.university.ars/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/07/26/ipad.university.ars/index.html

198

teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program.

Journal of research in science teaching, 46(4), pp. 357-383.

Ganser, T., 2000. An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers.

National Association of Secondary school principals, 84(618), pp.6-12.

Garrett, B., 2012. Monadnock school district will try out electronic tablets in some

classes. [online] sentinelsource. Available at: <http://www.sentinelsource.

com/news/ local/monadnock-school-district-will-try-out-electronic-tablets-in-

some/ article_c50a9bf7-162e-57c6-af3d-8e5334d102ca.html> [Accessed 18

July 2012].

Gawelek, M., Spataro, M. and Komarny, P., 2011. Mobile Perspectives: On tablets--

Why Mobile? EDUCAUSE Review, 46(2), pp.28–32.

Geer, D., 2012. Computing trends, today and tomorrow. UniversityBuisness.com pp.

42-44.

Geist, E., 2011. The Game Changer: Using tablets in College Teacher Education

Classes. College student journal, 45(4), pp.758-768.

Gentile, M., 2012. The importance of managing iPads in the classroom. Education

Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 78(3), pp. 11-13.

Geringer, J., 2003. Reflections of professional development: Toward high-quality

teaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), pp.373-380.

Glicken, M. D., 2003. Social Research: A Simple Guide. Boston: Pearson Education

Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H. and Britton, B. K., 1991. A constructive view of learning

science. In: S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany and B. K. Britton, eds. The Psychology

of Learning Science. Hilldale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.

3-19.

Good, C. V. and Merkel, W. R., 1959. Dictionary of Education, 3rd ed. New York: Mc

Graw-Hill.

Google and Ipsos, 2012. Our mobile planet: Australia. Understanding the mobile

consumer. [online] Available at: <http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/

our_mobile_planet_australia_en.pdf> [Accessed 01 May 2012].

Gong, Z., 2012. A Comparative Analysis of tablet and Other M-learning

Technologies: Exploring Students’ View of Adoption, Potentials, and

Challenges. Journal of Literacy and Technology. 13(1), pp. 46-49.

http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/%20our_mobile_planet_australia_en.pdf

http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/%20our_mobile_planet_australia_en.pdf

199

Gong, Z. and Wallace, J. D., 2012. A Comparative Analysis of iPad and Other M-

learning Technologies: Exploring Students’ View of Adoption, Potentials, and

Challenges. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 13(1).

Goral, T., 2011. Take II Tablets. [online] University Business. Available at:

<https://www.universitybusiness.com/article/take-ii-tablets > [Accessed 01

January 2011].

Gordon, A., Jackson, J. and Usher, J., 2014. Learning across contexts-mobile for

fieldwork in environmental sciences. Mobile learning: How mobile

technologies can enhance the learning experience.

Gorman, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. 2000. Case Study Method. Sage

Publications: London.

Gray, J., 2004. An illusion with a future. Daedalus, 133(3), pp. 10-17.

Gray, D. E., 2009. Doing Research in the Real World. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Green, T., 2005. Using technology to help English language students develop

language skills: A home and school connection. Multicultural Education,

13(2), pp.56–59.

Greenhow, C. and Robelia, B., 2009. Old communication, new literacies: Social

Network sites as Social Learning resources. Journal of computer-mediated

communication, 14(4), pp. 1130-1161.

Gross, R., 2012. The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 6th ed. Hachette: HODDER

EDUCATION

Grudin, J., 1994. Computer – supported cooperative work: history and focus.

Computer, 27(5), pp.19-26.

Guskey, T. R., 1986. Staff development and the process of teacher change.

Educational Researcher, 15(5), pp.5-12.

Guskey, T. R., 2002. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), pp.381-391.

Hahn, J. and Bussell, H., 2012. Curricular use of the tablet 2 by a first-year

undergraduate learning community. In: R. K. Miller, C. Meier and H.

Moorefield-Lang, eds. Library Technology Reports, pp.42-47.

Hammer, R., Ronen, M., Sharon, A., Lankry, T., Huberman, Y. and Zamtsov, V.,

2010. Mobile culture in college lectures: Instructors’ and students’

https://www.bookdepository.com/publishers/HODDER-EDUCATION

https://www.bookdepository.com/publishers/HODDER-EDUCATION

200

perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objectives,

pp. 293-304.

Hammersley, M., 2000. Taking Sides in Social Research. Essays on Partisanship

and Bias. London: Routledge.

Hargis, J. H., Cavanaugh, C., Kamali, T. and Soto, M., 2014. A federal higher

education iPad mobile learning initiative: Triangulation of data to determine

early effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education, 39(2), pp. 45-57.

Harris, J., Mishra, P. and Koehler, M., 2009. Teachers’ technological pedagogical

content knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on

Technology Education, 41(1), pp. 393-416.

Hart, D., 2000. Satellite Communication. [online] Available at: <http://www.cs.wustl.

edu/jain/cis788-97/ftp/satellitenets.pdf>.

Haydn, T. 2014. How do you get pre-service teachers to become ‘good at ICT’ in

their subject teaching? The views of expert practitioners. Technology,

Pedagogy and Education, 23(4), pp. 455-469.

Hechter, R.P. and Vermette, L.A., 2013. Technology integration in K-12 science

classrooms: An analysis of barriers and implications. Themes in Science and

Technology Education, 6(2), pp. 73-90.

Henderson, M., Selwyn, N. and Aston, R., 2017. What works and why? Student

perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning.

Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), pp. 1567–1579.

Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W. V. and Smit, B. 2004. Finding your way in the

qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Henrik, V., 2011. Introducing the tablet in A Norwegian High School How do students

and teachers react to this technology?. Master of Science in Computer

Science. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Henríquez-Ritchie, P. and Organista-Sandoval, J., 2012. Propuesta metodol_ogica

para la caracterizaci_on de actividades de m-learning realizadas por

estudiantes de una universidad pública. Revista Iberoamericana para la

Investigaci_on y el Desarrollo Educativo. Available at:<http://www.ride.org.mx/

1-11/index.php/ RIDESECUNDARIO/article/download/39/39>.

http://www.ride.org.mx/%201-

http://www.ride.org.mx/%201-

201

Hesser, T. L. and Schwartz, P. M., 2013. Tablets in the science laboratory:

Experience in Designing and implementing a paperless chemistry laboratory

course. Journal of STEM Education, 14(2), pp.5-9.

Hochberg, E. D. and Desimone, L. M., 2010. Professional development in the

accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational

Psychologist, 45(2), pp.89-106.

Hopkins, D., 2008. A teacher guide to classroom research. 4th ed. London: Open

University Press.

Hossain, D., M., 2011. Qualitative Research Process, in Postmodern Openings, 7(2),

pp. 143-156.

Hu, W., 2011. Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the tablet. The New York Times.

[online] Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education

/05tablets.html? pagewanted=all> [Accessed 04 January 2011].

Huda, M., Maseleno, A., Atmotiyoso, P., Siregar, M., Ahmad, R., Jasmi, K. A. and

Muhamad, N. H. N, 2018. Big Data Emerging Technology: Insights into

Innovative environment for Online Learning Resources. International journal of

emerging technologies in learning, 13 (1), pp. 23-36.

Hunter, N. and Storksdieck, M., 2017. Understanding the Use of Tablet Technology

as a Mechanism for Improving Teaching and Learning in the Corvallis School

District. Technical Report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

Husseini, S. M. and Safa, L., 2009. Factors Affecting the Use of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) by Iranian Agricultural Faculty Members.

World Applied Sciences Journal, 6(8), pp.1123-1127.

Hussey, J. and Hussey, R., 1997. Business research: A practical guide for under

graduate and postgraduate students. Palgrave. New York.

Hyatt, G. W., 2011. The tablet: A cool communicator on the go. Perspectives on

Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), pp.24 – 27.

IAB [Interactive Advertising Bureau] Australia, 2012. Nielsen Australian online

consumer report 2011-2012. [online] Available at: <http://www.iabaustralia.

com.au/ index.php?/news/story/nielsen_australian_online_consumer_report_2

011-201202> [Accessed 5 March 2012].

Ivankova, N., Creswell, J. and Clark, V. 2007. Foundations and approaches to mixed

methods research. Van Schaik Publishers: Pretoria, South Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html?%20pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html?%20pagewanted=all

http://www.iabaustralia.com.au/%20index.php?/news/story/%20nielsen_australian_online_consumer_report_2%20011-201202



202

Jane, M., 2011. The advantages of tablets and tablets in a business. [online].

Available at: <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-tablets-tablets

business-22551.html> [Accessed 09 September 2011].

Jang, S. J., 2010. Integrating the IWB and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of

secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), pp. 1744-1751.

Jang, S.J. and Tsai, M.F., 2012. Exploring the TPACK of Taiwa - nese Elementary

Mathematics and Science Teachers with Respect to Use of Interactive

Whiteboards. Computers & Education, 597, pp. 327-338.

Jankowicz, A., 2000. Business research projects. 3rd ed. Australia: Thomson

Publishers.

Jean-Louis, M., 2011. Final report: Engagement process for an Ontario Online

Institute.

Jethro, O. O., Grace, A., M. and Thomas, A.K., 2012. E-Learning and Its Effects on

Teaching and Learning in a Global Age. International Journal of Academic

Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), pp.203-210.

John, S., Poh, A. C. C., Lim, T. C. C., Chan, E. H. Y. and Chong L. R., 2012. The

iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing

discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. Journal of digital imaging, 25, 628–634.

Johnson, B. and Turner, L.A., 2003. Data collection strategies in mixed methods

research. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Handbook of mixed methods

in social and behavioural research.pp. 297-319.

Johnson, L., Adams, S. and Cummins, M., 2012. Mobile apps. The NMC horizon

report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium.

Jonassen, D. H., 1994. Thinking technology. Educational Technology, 34(4), pp. 34-

37.

Joppe, M. 2000. The research process. Available at: <http://www.ryerson.ca/

~mjoppe/rp.htm> [Accessed 13 May 2004].

Jurewitsch, B., 2012. A mixed-methods systematic review of online versus face-to-

face problem-based learning. The Journal of Distance Education, 26(2).

Karch, M., 2018. A Beginner's Guide to Apps. [online] Available at:

<https://www.lifewire.com/what-are-apps-1616114>

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-ipads-tablets-business-22551.html

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-ipads-tablets-business-22551.html

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10278-012-9485-3



http://www.ryerson.ca/%20~mjoppe/rp.htm

http://www.ryerson.ca/%20~mjoppe/rp.htm

203

Karsenti, T. and Fievez, A., 2013. The tablet in education: uses, benefits, and

challenges – A survey of 6,057 students and 302 teachers in Quebec,

Canada. Montreal, QC: CRIFP.

Kasenga, A., 2007. An Investigation into the implementation of senior agriculture in

the Caprivi region of Namibia. An Unpublished Dissertation. Rhodes

University.

Keane, T., Lang, C. and Pilgrim, C., 2012. Pedagogy! tabletology! Netbookology!

Learning with mobile devices. Australian Educational Computing, 27(2),

pp.29–33.

Keating, A., 2013. Educating tomorrow’s citizens: what role can schools play?. In:

Keynote Lecture at the Annual School Leadership Conference for Head

teachers in Slovenia, Organised by the Ministry of Education and National

School for Leadership in Education. Slovenia.

Kent, R., 2007. Marketing research. London: Thomson Learning.

Kerrigan, M., Blackburn, R., Force, S., Amin, Z., James, K., Yorke, J., and Scott-

Jones, E., 2014. The student experience of using tablets to enhance

undergraduate laboratory teaching. UCISA (2014) Good Practice Guide.

Mobile Learning: How mobile technologies can enhance the learning

experience, 31-38.

Khaddage, F., Lattemann, C. and Bray, E., 2011. Mobile Apps Integration for

Teaching and Learning Are Teachers Ready to Re-blend?. In: SITE 2011:

Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

international conference. AACE, Chesapeake, Va., pp.2545-2552.

Khan, M. S. H., Hasan, M. and Clement, C. K., 2012. Barriers to the introduction of

ICT into education in developing countries: the example of Bangladesh.

International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), pp. 61-80.

Khim, M. C. B., 2003. Harnessing technology for cooperative learning. Educational

Technology Division Ministry of Education, pp.1-16.

Kiger, D., Herro, D. and Prunty, D., 2012. Examining the influence of a mobile

learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research

on Technology in Education, 45(1), pp.61-82.

204

Kim, S. H., Mims, C. and Holmes, K. P., 2006. An introduction to current trends and

benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. Association for

the Advancement of Computing in Education, 14(1), pp. 77-100.

Kim, Hea-Suk., 2013. Emerging mobile apps to improve English listening skills.

Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 16(2), pp.11-30.

Kim, D. K.., Jeong, D., Lu, L., Debnath, D. and Ming, H., 2015. Opinions on

computing education in Korean K-12 system: Higher education perspective.

Computer science education, 25(4), pp. 371-389.

Kim, B., Tan, L. and Bielaczyc, K., 2015. Learner-generated designs in participatory

culture: what they are and how they are shaping learning, Interactive Learning

Environments, 23(5), pp.545–555.

Kinash, S., Brand, J. and Mathew, T., 2012. Challenging mobile learning discourse

through research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and

tablets. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), pp. 639-655.

Klegeris, A., and Hurren, H., 2011. Impact of problem-based learning in a large

classroom setting: Student perception and problem-solving skills. Advances in

Physiology Education, 35(4), pp.408-415.

Knezek, G., Christenson, R., Tyler-Wood, T., 2009. Addressing the Need of Digital

Age Learners. [Video online] Available at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=3pCUAh2uD7w> [Accessed 12 November 2010].

Koehler, M. and Mishra, P., 2009. What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher, 9(1),

pp. 13–20.

Koehler, M., Mishra, P. and Cain, W., 2013. What is technological pedagogical

content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), pp. 14-19.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M. and Rosenberg, J. M., 2013. The

technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for teachers and

teacher educators.

Kopelman L.M. and De Ville K.A., 2001. The Contemporary Debate Over

Physician-Assisted Suicide. In: Kopelman L.M., De Ville K.A., eds.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues?. Philosophy and

Medicine. Dordrecht: Springer.

205

Krauss, S. E., 2005. Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer. The

Qualitative Report, 10(4), pp. 758-770.

Kumar, R., 2005. Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 2nd

ed., Australia: Pearson Education

Kuze. M., W., 2009. An investigation into the formative assessment practises of

teachers in selected Eastern Cape schools. Digital Dissertation. University of

Fort Hare.

Kvale, S., 1995. The social construction of validity' in Qualitative Inquiry. 1(1). pp. 19-

40.

Kyzym O. H., Petukhova I. I., 2017. Modern trends in teaching analytical chemistry.

In: international scientific and practical conference of young scientists and

student, 20 April 2017.

Labbo, L. D. and Place, K., 2010. Fresh perspectives on new literacies and

technology integration. Voices from the Middle, 17(3), pp.9-18.

Lambert, C., Erickson, L., Alhramelah, A., Rhoton, D., Lindbeck, R. and Sammons,

D., 2014. Technology and Adult Students In Higher Education: A Review of

the Literature. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 2(1), pp.1-19.

Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., 2007. A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted

learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning &

Technology, 11 (3), pp.130–151

Lee, M. S., Johanson, R. E. and Tsai, C. C., 2008. Exploring Taiwanese high school

students’ conceptions and approaches to learning science through a structural

equation modelling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), pp. 191-220.

Piaget, J., 1963. Origins of intelligence. New York: Norton.

Leech, N. L., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2009. A typology of mixed methods research

designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, pp. 265-75.

Leendertz, V., Blignaut, A. S., Nieuwoudt, H. D., Els, C. J. and Ellis, S. M., 2013.

Technological pedagogical content knowledge in South African mathematics

classrooms: A secondary analysis of SITES 2006 data. Pythagoras, 34(2), pp.

232-240.

LeFevre, A.T., 2004. Technology alone has not improved education. In: L. Egendorf

ed., The information revolution: Opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI:

Greenhaven Press, pp.78-82.

206

Lemke, C., Coughlin, E. and Reifsneider, D., 2009. Technology in Schools: what the

research says: an update. Culver City, CA: commissioned by Cisco Systems.

Lin, T., Tsai, C., Chai, C. and Lee, M., 2013. Identifying science teachers'

perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK).

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), pp. 325-336.

Lin, Y. T. and Lin, Y. C., 2016. Effects of mental process integrated nursing training

using mobile device on students' cognitive load, learning attitudes,

acceptance, and achievements. Computers in Human Behaviour, 55,

pp.1213-1221.

Lincon, Y.S. and Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lind, D. A., Marchal, W. G. and Wathen, S. A., 2008. Statistical Techniques in

Business & Economics. 13th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lindsey, J. L., 2011. Leading change: “going green” with tablets. International

Journal of Business, Humanities & Technology, 1(2), pp.10–16.

Liu, C., Tao, S. and Nee, J., 2008. Bridging the gap between students and

computers: supporting activity awareness for network collaborative learning

with GSM network. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(2), pp. 127-137.

Liu, C.C. and Chen, I.J., 2010. Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary Issues in

Education Research (CIER), 3(4), pp. 63-66.

Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Tsai, M. J. and Paas, F, 2012. Split-attention and redundancy

effects in mobile learning in physical environments, Computers & Education,

56(2), pp.172–180.

Liu, X. and Wei, R., 2014. Maintaining social connectedness in a fast-changing

world: Examining the effects of mobile phone uses on loneliness among teens

in Tibet. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(3), pp.318-334.

Long, T., Liang, W. and Yu, S., 2013. A study of the tablet computer’s application in

K-12 schools in China. International Journal of Education and Development

using Information and Communication Technology, 9(3), pp.61-70.

Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M. and Morrison, G. M., 2003. When each one has one: The

influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in

the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3),

pp.23-44.

207

Ludwig, L., and Mayrberger, K., 2012. Next generation learning? Learning with

tablets as an example for the implementation digital media in schools. In: T.

Amiel and B. Wilson, eds.Proceedings of the World Conference on

Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Denver, CO,

pp.2179-2187.

Lutz, S. and Huitt, W., 2004. Connecting cognitive development and constructivism:

Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the

Human Sciences, 9(1), pp. 67-90.

Lynch, D. N., 2010. Student-Centered Learning: The Approach That Better Benefits

Students. Virginia Wesleyaan Collage.

Macmillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. 2010. Research in education: evidence-based

inquiry. New Jersey: Pearson education Inc.

Maizura, H., Masilamani, R. and Aris, T., 2009. Reliability (Internal Consistency) of

the Job Content Questionnaire on Job Stress Among Office Workers of a

Mulitinatinal Company in Kuala Lampur. Public Journal of PublicHealth, 21,

p.219.

Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D., 2007. Marketing research: an applied approach.

London: Pearson Publishers.

Manakil, J. and George, R., 2017. Mobile learning practices and preferences a way

forward in enhancing dental education learning experience. European Journal

of General Dentistry, 6(1), pp.22-28.

Mang C. F. and Wardley L. J., 2012. Effective Adoption of Tablets in Post-Secondary

Education: Recommendations Based on a Trial of tablets in University

Classes. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, pp.301-317.

Mang, C. F. and Wardley, L. J., 2013. Student perceptions of using tablet technology

in post-secondary classes. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,

39(4), pp. 1-16.

Mango, O., 2015. iPad Use and Student Engagement in the Classroom. Turkish

Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), pp. 53-57.

Manuguerra, M. and Petocz, P., 2011. Promoting student engagement by integrating

new technology into tertiary education: The role of the tablet. Asian Social

Science, 7(11), pp.61–65.

Maree, K., 2007. First Steps in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

208

Maree, J. G., 2013. Latest developments in career counselling in South Africa:

Towards a positive approach. South African Journal of Psychology, 43(4). pp.

409-421.

Martin, F. and Ertzberger, J., 2013. Here and now mobile learning: An experimental

study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, pp.76–85.

Mason, J., 1996. Qualitative researching. London: SAGE Publications.

Maxwell, J. A., 1998. Designing a qualitative Study. In: L. Bickman and D. J. Roj,

eds. Handbook of Applied Social Science research methods. Thousand Oaks:

Sage, pp. 214-253.

Maxwell, J. A. and Loomis, D. M., 2003. Mixed methods design: an alternative

approach. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publishers.

Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R., 1994. Beginning qualitative research. Routledge

Falmer. London.

Mayisela, T., 2013. The potential use of mobile technology: enhancing accessibility

and communication in a blended learning course. South African Journal of

Education, 33(1), pp.1-18.

Maylor, H. and Blackmon, K., 2005. Researching Business and Management.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

McBeth, M. K., Turley-Ames, K., Youngs, Y., Ahola-Young, L. and Brumfield, A.,

2015. The iPad Pilot Project: A Faculty Driven Effort to Use Mobile

Technology in the Reinvention of the Liberal Arts. Journal of Teaching and

Learning with Technology, 4(1), pp. 1-21.

McBurney, D.H., 1990. Research methods. California: Books / Coll Publishing

Company.

McCarthy, J., 2016. A Jaworskian analysis of four senior class primary teachers

endeavouring to teach mathematics from a constructivist compatible

perspective. PhD, University College Cork.

McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E. and Tate, S., 2012.

A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an tablet facilitated reading

improvement. Tech Trends, 56(3), pp.20–28.

209

McGee, D. and VanderNoor, J., 2013. Tablet Computer Adoption Programs in High

Schools. [PowerPoint presentation]. Available at: <http://slideplayer.com/slide/

9192610/> [Accessed 24 June 2013].

McMillan, J. H. and Schumacher, S., 2010. Research in education: Evidence-based

inquiry. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson.

McNabb, D., 2004. Research methods for political science: Quantitative and

qualitative methods. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

McNaughton, D. and Light, J., 2013. The tablet and Mobile Technology Revolution:

Benefits and Challenges for Individuals who require Augmentative and

Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,

29(2), pp.107–116.

McQuail, D., 2005. Media structures and institution, In: F. E. Dardis, F. R.

Baumgartner, A. E. Boydstun, S. De Boef and F. Shen, eds. Mass

communication and society. London: Routledge.

Means, B. and Olson, K., 1997. Technology and education reform: Studies of

education reform. Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Mele, D., 2012. Management Ethics: Placing Ethics at the Core of Good

Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Melhuish, K. and Falloon, G., 2010. Looking to the future: M-learning with the

tablet. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading,

Technology. 22(3), pp.1–16.

Menkhoff, T. and Bengtsson, M., 2012. Engaging Students in Higher Education

Through Mobile Learning: Lessons Learnt in a Chinese Entrepreneurship

Course. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11, pp.225-242.

Merriam, S., 1988. Case study research in education: A qualitative research. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.

Meurant, R. C., 2010. Tablet computing to foster Korean EFL digital literacy.

International Journal of u-and e- Service, Science, and Technology, 3(4),

pp.49-62.

Mifsud, L., 2002. Alternative Learning Arenas — Pedagogical Challenges to Mobile

Learning Technology in Education. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless

and Mobile Technologies in Education.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=Basingstoke+United+Kingdom&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LSz9U3MDUyNY83VuIEsQ0rs3MMtLSyk63084vSE_MyqxJLMvPzUDhWGamJKYWliUUlqUXFACx572lFAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIi76xurfbAhVpJMAKHWfEA6oQmxMI3gEoATAQ

210

Miller, W., 2012, iTeaching and Learning Collegiate Instruction Incorporating Mobile

Tablets. In: R. K. Miller, C. Meier and H. Moorfield-Lang, eds. Rethinking

Reference and Instruction with Tablets, ALA TechSource, Library Technology

Reports.

Milks, J. and Bloxham, M., 2010. A play date with the tablet: Real people experience

the tablet. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Minocha, S. Tudor, A. D. and Tilling, S., 2017. Technological Affordances of Virtual

Reality and their role in Learning and Teaching. Telematics and

Informatics 34(8). pp.1-10.

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. J., 2006. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge:

A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp.

1017-1054.

Mohamed, E. and Lashire, S., 2003. Accounting knowledge and skills and the

challenges of a global business environment. Managerial Finance, 29(7),

pp.3-16.

Mokhele, M.L., 2011. Teachers’ perspectives on continuing professional

development: a case study of the Mpumalanga secondary science initiative

(mssi) project. Ph.D. UNISA.

Moon, B., 2002. Globalization, digital societies and school reform: realising the

potential of new technologies to enhance the knowledge, understanding and

dignity of teachers. In: 2nd European conference on information technologies

in education and citizenship: a critical insight, Barcelona, Spain, 26 June

2002.

Morse, J. M. and Field, P. A., 1995. Qualitative research methods for health

professionals. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mosenson, A. B., and Johnson, J. M., 2010. Instructional strategies and resources:

Exploring the use of technology. In: P. M. Erickson, W. S Fox and D. Stewart,

eds.National standards for teachers of family and consumer sciences:

Research, implementation, and resources. National Association of Teacher

Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. pp.176-194.

Motiwalla, L. F., 2007. Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers &

Education, 49(3), pp. 581-596.

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0736-5853_Telematics_and_Informatics

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0736-5853_Telematics_and_Informatics

211

Motteram, G., 2011.Developing language-learning materials with technology. In: B.

Tomlinson, ed. Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303-327.

Mouton, J., 1996. Understanding social research. Van Schaik. Pretoria.

Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S.Y. and Hu, L., 2014.

Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of pre-

service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).

Computers & Education, 71, pp.206-221.

Muniandy, B., Mohammad, R. and Fong, S. F., 2007. Synergizing pedagogy,

learning theory and technology in instruction: How can it be done? US-China

Education Review, 4(9), pp. 46-53.

Murphy, G. D., 2011. Post-PC devices: A summary of early tablet technology

adoption in tertiary environments. E-Journal of Business Education &

Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1), pp.18-32.

Nancarrow, C., Pallister, J. and Brace, I., 2001. A new research medium, new

research populations and seven deadly sins for internet researchers.

Qualitative Market Research, 4 (3), pp. 136-49.

Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H. and Brown, L. M., 2010. An inclusive framework for

conceptualising mixed methods typologies. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie,

eds. The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

National Center for Educational Statistics, 2010. Fast facts: educational technology.

[online]. Available at :< https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46>

National Research Council, 1999. Being fluent with information technology literacy.

Computer science and telecommunications board commission on physical

sciences, mathematics, and applications. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Nasseh, B., 2009. A Brief History of Distance Education.

Naveen, 2015. Whats the difference between a teacher and a lecturer? Answers.

Yahoo blog, [blog], Available at: < https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?

qid=20070315155923AATlODI>

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?%20qid=20070315155923AATlODI

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?%20qid=20070315155923AATlODI

212

Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M. and Nguyen, L. T., 2015. iPads in higher education—

Hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), pp.190–

203.

Niemeijer, D., Donnellan, A. and Robledo, J., 2012. Taking the pulse of

augmentative and alternative communication on iOS. [online] Assistiveware.

Available at: <http://www.assistiveware.com/taking-pulse-augmentative-and-

alternative-communication-ios > [Accessed 16 April 2012].

Nieuwenhuis, J., 2007. Qualitative research design and data gathering techniques.

In: Maree, K., ed. 2007. First steps in research. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp 70–

92.

Norris, C. and Soloway, E., 2012. Want increased student achievement using

tablets? [online] District administration. Available at:

<https://www.districtadministration.com/article/want-increased-student-

achievement-using-tablets> [Accessed 24 July 2012].

Oblinger, D., 2003. Boomers & gen-xers millennials understanding the new students.

EDUCAUSE, 38(4), pp.36-47.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009. Creating

effective teaching and learning environments. First results from TALIS.

O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J.P., Taylor, J., Sharples, M., Lefrere, P., Lonsdale,

P., Naismith, L. and Waycott, J., 2005. Guidelines for

learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment.

Ooms A., Linsey, Webb and Panayiotidis, 2008. The in-classroom use of mobile

technologies to support diagnostic and formative assessment and feedback.

7th London International Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Conference.

Kingston University, London, U.K.

Öz, H. 2015. Assessing pre-service English as a foreign language teachers'

technological pedagogical content knowledge. International Education

Studies; 8(5), pp. 119-130.

Page, M. S., 2002. Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low

socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

34(4), pp.389-409.

Parafloo, K., 1994. Questionnaire, use, value and limitations. Market Research

Society, 35(1), pp. 79-89.

https://www.districtadministration.com/article/want-increased-student-achievement-using-ipads

https://www.districtadministration.com/article/want-increased-student-achievement-using-ipads

213

Parajuli, K. P., 2016. Mobile Learning Practice in Higher Education in Nepal. Open

Praxis, 8(1), pp. 41-54.

Pattinasarany, R. R. D. and Juwono, I. D., 2016. Analyzing the Use of E-Learning by

Indonesian Lecturers using TPACK Framework. Asian Education Technology

Conference, pp.93-107.

Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Payne, G. and Payne, J., 2004. Distance Education for Teacher Training. London:

Routledge.

Pegrum, M., Howitt, C. and Striepe, M., 2013. Learning to take the tablet: How pre-

service teachers use tablets to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 29(4), pp.464-479.

Pelgrum, W. J., 2001. Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a

worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education. 37, pp.163–178.

Percival, J. and Claydon, T., 2015. A Study of Student and Instructor Perceptions of

Tablet PCs in Higher Education Contexts. In: Higher Education in

Transformation Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 31 May - 01 April 2015.

Perez, O. A., Gonzalez, V., Pitcher, M. T. and Golding, P., 2011. Work in progress:

analysis of mobile technology impact on STEM based courses; specifically

introduction to engineering in the era of the iPad. Paper presented at the

118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Petridou, E. and Spathis, C., 2001. Designing training interventions: human or

technical skills training?. International Journal of Training and Development,

5(3), pp.185-195.

Pew Research Center Global attitudes and trends, 2015. Internet Seen as Positive

Influence on Education but Negative on Morality in Emerging and Developing

Nations. Pewglobal. [online]. Available at: <http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/

19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-

on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/> [Accessed 19 March

2015].

Pierson, J. and Thomas, M., 2010. Dictionary of social work: the definitive A to Z of

social work and social care. New York: McGraw Hill Open University Press.

Pisapia, J., 1994. Teaching with technology: Roles and styles. Richmond, VA.

javascript:void(0)

javascript:void(0)

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/%2019/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/%3e



214

Polit, D. F., 2010. Statistics and data analysis for nursing research. 2nd ed. Upper

Saddle River: Pearson.

Poore, D. M., 2015. Professional Development for the Use of iPads in Instruction,

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Walden University.

Popović, O., Marković, D. S. and Popović, R., 2016. mTester—Mobile learning

system. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(3), pp. 412-420.

Pownell, D. and Bailey, G., 2001. Getting a Handle on Handhelds: What to Consider

before You Introduce Handheld Computers in Your Schools. American School

Board Journal, 188(6), pp.18-21.

Prensky, M., 2001a. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1-6.

Prensky, M., 2001b. Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), pp.1-9.

Prensky, M., 2005. What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything!.

Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(5), pp.1-8.

Prensky, M., 2006. Listen to the Natives, Educational Leadership, 63(4), pp. 8-13.

Prensky, M., 2007. Changing paradigms. Educational Technology, 47(4), pp.1-3.

Prensky, M., 2010. Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Prince, M. J. and Felder, R. M., 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods:

Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering

Education, 95(2), pp.123-138.

Prinsloo, E., Vorster and Sibaya., 1996. Teaching with confidence. Kagiso. Pretoria.

Punch, K.F., 1998. Introduction to Social Research. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Rafiki, M., 2015. Pedagogical integration of the ipad to enhance teaching and

learning of grade 10 life sciences. Masters of education. University of the

Witwatersrand.

Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S. and Cox, K. E., 2006. The influence of teachers’

technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, (38)4, pp. 409-424.

Rajasingham, L., 2011. Will mobile learning bring a paradigm shift in higher

education? Educational Research International, pp. 1-10.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.21719/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.21719/full

215

Rauscher, L. and Greenfield, B. H., 2009. Advancements in contemporary physical

therapy research: Use of mixed methods research. Physical Therapy, 89(1),

pp. 91–100.

Reed, A. R., 2017. Perceptions on the effectiveness of tablet integration in vocational

college classrooms: a mixed-methods study. Ph.D. Northwest Nazarene

University.

Reyes, V. C. J., Reading, C., Doyle, H. and Gregory, S., 2017. Integrating ICT into

teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring

perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115, pp.1–19.

Richards, J. C., 2014. Foreword. In: J. D. D. M. Agudo, ed. English as a foreign

language teacher education: Current perspectives and challenges.

Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 1-3.

Richardson, W., 2013. Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70(6), pp.10-

14.

Richie, S.M. and Rigano, D.C., 2001. Evaluation Positivism against Interpretivism:

Post Positivist Approaches to Research. Available at:

<http:www.ukessays.com> ukessays> essays> sociology. Qualitative Social

Research. www.qualitative-research.net/..414>

Rideout, V., 2011. Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco,

CA: Common Sense Media.

Ridenour, C. S. and Newman, I., 2008. Mixed methods research: exploring the

interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: South Illinois University Press.

Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S., 2013. The effects of online professional

development on teachers' beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation

and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, pp.122-131.

Roberson, J. H. and Hagevik, R. A., 2008. Cell Phones for Education. Meridian

Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 11(2). pp. 234-241.

Robson, C., 2005. Real world research: A resource for social-scientists and

practitioner- researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Robinson, R., 2012. Experiential Learning in a New Millennium: The Implications of

iPad Technology in Instructional Settings. In: P. Resta, ed. Proceedings of

SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

216

International Conference. Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 1242-1248.

Rolfe, G., 2006. Validity, trustworthiness and rigor: Quality and the idea of qualitative

research. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 16. pp. 304–310.

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G.,Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M. and

Claro, S., 2010a. Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld

technology: impact on students' mathematics learning. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 58(4), pp.399–419.

Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S. and

Gallagher, L. P., 2010b. Integration of technology, curriculum, and

professional development for advancing middle school mathematics three

large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), pp.833-

878.

Rossing, J. P., 2012. Mobile technology and liberal education. Liberal Education,

98(1), pp.68-71.

Rossing, P. J., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K. and Stamper, S. E., 2012. iLearning: The

future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile

tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), pp.1–26.

Roters, B. and Trautmann, M., 2014. Professionalitat von Fremdsprachenlehrenden:

Theoretiche Zugange und empirische Befunde. FLuL, 43(1), pp.51-65.

Rule, D. and John, V. 2011. Your Guide to Case Study Research. Pretoria: Van

Schaik Publishers.

Rummel-Hudson, R., 2011. A revolution at their fingertips. Perspectives on

Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), pp.19 – 23.

Ryan, A. B., 2006. Post-Positivist Approaches to Research. In: Researching and

Writing your thesis: A guide for postgraduate students. MACE: Maynooth

Adult and Community Education.

Sadler, K., Robertson, T., Kan, K. and Hagen, P., 2006. Balancing work, life and

other concerns: a study of mobile technology use by Australian

freelancers. In: Mørch, Anders and Morgan, Konrad and Bratteteig,

Tone and Ghosh, Gautam and Svanaes, Dag, eds. Proceedings of the 4th

Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction changing roles. ACM

217

International Conference Proceeding Series. Association for Computing

Machinery, New York, pp. 413-416.

Saine, P., 2012. iPods, tablets, and the SMARTBoard: Transformingliteracy

instruction and student learning. New England Reading Association Journal,

47(2), pp.4–81.

Salvatori, P., 2000. Implementing a problem-based learning curriculum in

occupational therapy: A conceptual model. Australian Occupational Therapy

Journal, 47(3), pp.119-133.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 1997. Research methods for business

students. England: Prentice Hall.

Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. and Lewis, P., 2003. Research methods for business

students. England: Pearson Education.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2007. Research methods for business

students. 4th ed. England: Pearson.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business

students. 5th ed. England: Pearson.

Schachter, R. and D'Orio, W., 2011. Kid2kid Connections: How to Use Technology to

Connect Your Students to a Larger World. Instructor, 120(5), pp.46-52.

Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. and Shin, T.S.,

2009. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The

development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service

teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), pp. 123-

149.

Schmidt, W.H., Cogan, L. and Houang, R., 2011. The role of opportunity to learn in

teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education,

62, pp. 138–153.

Schuler, G., 2012. At your own risk: Narratives of Zimbabwean migrant sex workers

in hill brow and discourses of vulnerability, agency, and power. MA thesis.

University of Witwatersrand.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R., 2010. Research methods for business. 5th ed. London:

John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

218

Serin, O., 2011. The Effects of the Computer-Based Instruction on the Achievement

and Problem Solving Skills of the Science and Technology Students. The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), pp.183-201.

Shah, T., Patel, M. A. and Shah, H., 2017. A Comparative Study on the Teaching

Effectiveness of Chalk & Talk Versus Microsoft Powerpoint PresentationAn

Institution Based Pilot Study of Physiotherapy Students. International Journal

of Current Research and Review, 9(11), pp. 40-43.

Shanker, D., 2008. ICT and Tourism: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Conference

on Tourism in India – Challenges Ahead. 15-17 May 2008.

Sharon, J., 2016. What is the difference between a school, college and university in

the USA? Studyusa [online]. Available at <https://www.studyusa.com/en/a/

107/what-is-the-difference-between-a-school-college-and-university-in-the-

usa>. [Accessed 07 September 2016].

Shen, Y. W., 2016. An evaluation of the impact of using tablets in teacher education.

The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6(4), pp.18-25.

Sheppard, D., 2011. Reading with tablets – the difference makes a difference.

[online] Education Today. Available at: <http://www.educationtoday.com.au/

article/ Reading-with-tablets--344 > [Accessed 24 July 2012].

Shuler, C., 2009. Pockets of potential: using mobile technologies to promote

children’s learning. [online] New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at

Sesame Workshop. Available at: < http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/03/pockets_of_potential_1_.pdf>.

Shuler, C., 2012. iLearn II. An Analysis of the Education Category of the iTunes App

Store. [online] New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame

Workshop. Available at: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/01/ ilearnii.pdf. [Accessed January 2012].

Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, pp. 4-14.

Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International

Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), pp. 3-10.

Singer, J., 2015. The effects of iPad devices on elementary school students’

mathematics achievement and attitudes. Ph.D., North-eastern University.

Silverman, D., 2004. Qualitative data: Theory, Methods and Practice. London: Sage.

https://www.studyusa.com/en/a/107/what-is-the-difference-between-a-school-college-and-university-in-the-usa



http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pockets_of_potential_1_.pdf

http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pockets_of_potential_1_.pdf

http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/%20ilearnii.pdf

http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/%20ilearnii.pdf

219

Silverman, D., 2011. Interpreting Qualitative Data. 4th ed. London: Sage

Siu, K. W. M. and García, G. J. C., 2017. Disruptive technologies and education: Is

there any disruption after all? In Educational leadership and administration:

Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Staff Writers, 2012. 18 enlightening iPad experiments in education [online]. Available

at:<http://www.onlineuniversities.com/18-enlighteni-ipad-experiments-in

education> [Accessed 08 February 2012].

Spathis, C., 2004. Use of Information Technologies and Communication by Business

Studies Students. Proceedings of the 4th Conference in UTIC, Athens’

University. Athens. 29Sept-03Oct. Greece.

Spires, H.A., Wiebe, E., Young, C.A., Hollebrands, K. and Lee, J.K., 2012. Toward a

new learning ecology: Professional development for teachers in 1:1 learning

environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

12(2).

Spronken-Smith, R. and Walker, R., 2010. Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the

links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher

Education, 35(6), pp.723-740.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. and Suthers, D., 2006. Computer-supported collaborative

learning: an historical perspective, In: R.K. Sawyer, ed. Cambridge Handbook

of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.409–

426.

Stošić, L., 2015. The importance of educational technology in teaching. International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 3(1).

Strydom H., 2005. Ethical aspects of research in the social sciences and human

service professions. In: De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. and Delport,

C.S.L. eds. Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human

service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp. 56‒70.

Strydom, H., 2007. Ethical aspects of research in the social sciences and human

service professions. In De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. and Delport,

C.S.L., eds. Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human

service professions.

Strydom, H., 2011. Sampling in the quantitative paradigm. In: De Vos, A.S.,

Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. and Delport, C.S.L., eds. Research at grass roots:

http://www.onlineuniversities.com/18-enlighteni-ipad-experiments-in-education

http://www.onlineuniversities.com/18-enlighteni-ipad-experiments-in-education

220

for the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik,

pp. 222-235.

Sugar, W., 2005. Instructional technologist as a coach: impact of a situated

professional development program on teachers' technology use. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), pp.547-571.

Swan, K. and Mitrani, M., 1993. The changing nature of teaching and learning in

computer-based classrooms. Journal of Research on computing in Education,

26(1), pp.40-55.

Taborn, T. W., 2011. Tower School’s 1:1 program brings the tablet 2 to the

elementary classroom. THE Journal. [online] Available at: <https://thejournal.

com/articles/2011/08/03/tower-schools-11-program-brings-the-tablet2-to-the-

elementary-classroom.aspx > [Accessed 08 March 2011].

Talibian, S., Hamid, M. M. and Ahmed R., 2014. Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) in Higher Education: Advantages, Disadvantages,

Conveniences and Limitations of Applying Elearning to Agricultural Students

in Iran. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 152, pp.300-305.

Tanaka, P. P., Hawrylyshyn, K. A. and Macario, A., 2012. Use of tablet (tablet®) as a

tool for teaching anesthesiology in an orthopedic rotation. Revista Brasileira

de Anestesiologia, 62(2), pp. 214-222.

Tapscott, D., 2008. Net Geners Come of Age.[online] Available at: <http://www.

bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-11-03/net-geners-come-ofagebusinessweek

business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice> [Accessed 12 December

2015]

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and

Behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research:

Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and

behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, L. M., Casto, D. J. and Walls, R. T., 2007. Learning with versus without

technology in elementary and secondary school. Computers in Human

Behaviour, 23(1), pp.798-811.

221

Thapar-Bj¨orkert, S. and Henry, M., 2004. Reassessing the research relationship:

location, position and power in fieldwork accounts. International Journal of

Social Research Methodology, 7 (5), pp. 363–81.

Thuthukile, J., 2016. Pre-service teachers’ competences for teaching science

through information and communication technologies during teaching practice.

PhD, University of the Free State.

Timmermann, P., 2010, Is my tablet in my backpack?. Journal of Digital Research &

Publishing.

Tomassini, J., 2012. Apple Unveils E-textbook Strategy for K-12. Education Week,

[online] Available at :< http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/20/18apple.

html> [Accessed 20 January 2012].

Torkelson, G.M., 1972. Technology: New goals for individualization. Educational

Leadership, 29(4), pp.315-318.

Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M., 1991. Relating approaches to study and quality of

learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 61, pp. 265– 275.

Trochim, W. M. K., 2006. The qualitative debate. The research methods knowledge

base. [online]. Available at: < http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/>

Tuckman, B. 1999. Conducting educational research. 5th ed. Harvest Brace:

Orlando FI.

Turkle, S. and Papert, S., 1991. Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the

concrete. In I. Harel and S. Papert, eds. Constructionism: Research reports

and essays. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.161–191.

Unisa, 2018. Extended Science Pathway. [online] Available at: <http://www.unisa.

ac.za/static/corporate_web/Content/Register%20to%20study%20through%20

Unisa%20in%202016/UGH/Docs/Extended-Science-Pathway-Unisa.pdf>

Villegas-Reimers, E., 2003. Teacher professional development; an international

review of the literature. International institute for educational planning.

Vogt, P. W., 2007. Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Vu, P., McIntyre, J. and Cepero, J., 2014. Teachers' Use of the tablet in Classrooms

and Their Attitudes toward Using It. Journal of Global Literacies,

Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 2(2), pp. 58-76.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/20/18apple.html

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/20/18apple.html

222

Vuorikari, R., V. Garoia and Balanskat, A., 2011. Introducing Netbook Pedagogies in

Schools. Acer European School net Educational Netbook Pilot. Brussels:

European Schoolnet.

Vygotsky, L. S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, J. D., 2008. Computer-mediated communication research. In P. Zaphiris &

C. S. Ang (Eds.). Human Computer Interaction: Concepts, Methodologies,

Tools and Applications Hersey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp.299-

315.

Walliman, N. 2006. Social Research Methods. London: Sage publications.

Briggs, A. R.J. and Coleman M., 2007. Research Methods in Educational Leadership

and Management. 2nd ed. Sage Publications: London.

Walling, B. and Lewis, M., 2000. Development of professional identity among

professional development school pre-service teachers; longitudinal and

comparative analysis. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), pp.63-72.

Wakefield, J. and Smith, D., 2012. From Socrates to Satellites: iPad Learning in an

Undergraduate Course. Creative Education, 3(5), pp.643-648.

Wakefield J., Frawley J.K., Tyler J. and Dyson L.E., 2018. The impact of an iPad

supported annotation and sharing technology on university students' learning.

Computers & Education, , 122, pp.243-259.

Walczak, S. and Taylor, N. G., 2018. Geography learning in primary school:

Comparing face-to-face versus tablet-based instruction methods. Computers

& Education.117, pp. 188-198.

Wang, L., Ertmer, P.A. and Newby, T.J., 2004. Increasing preservice teachers’ self-

efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 36(3), pp.231–250.

Warren, C., 2011. 5 ways to take advantage of the tablet for business. [online].

Available at: < http://mashable.com/2011/07/20/tabletbusiness/#jp_OEKFS

NEqS> [Accessed 20 July 2011].

Weider, B., 2011. Tablets could hinder teaching, professors say. Chronicle of Higher

Education. [online]. Available at: <http://chronicle.com/article/tablets-for-

College-Classrooms-/126681/> [Accessed 13 March 2011].

223

Welman, C., Mitchel, B. and Kruger, F., 2005. Research methodology. 3rd ed. Cape

Town: Oxford University Press.

Werth, E. P. and Werth, L., 2011. Effective training for millennial students. Adult

Learning, 22(3), pp. 12-19.

Willis, J. W. and Mehlinger, H. D., 1996. Information technology and teacher

education. In: J. Sikula, T. Butterly, and E, Guyton, eds. Handbook of

research on teacher education. New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 978-1029.

Williams, C., 2007. Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research.

5, pp.65-72.

Willis, J. W., 2007. Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wilkins, K. and Woodgate, R., 2008. Designing a Mixed Methods Study in Pediatric

Oncology Nursing Research. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 25(1),

pp. 24–33.

Wilson, B. and Cole, P., 1991. A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 39(4), pp. 47-64.

Wilson, N. and McLean, S., 1994. Questionnaire Design: A Practical Introduction.

Newtown Abbey, Co. Antrim: University of Ulster Press.

World bank, 2012. Mobile Phone Access Reaches Three Quarters of Planet's

Population. [online] Available at: <http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-

release/2012/07/17/mobile-phone-access-reaches-three-quarters-planets-

population> [Accessed 17 July 2012].

Wu, Y.T., 2013. Research Trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected

journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3),

pp. 73-76.

Wu, B., Hu, Y., Gu, X. and Lim, C.P., 2015. Professional Development of New

Higher Education Teachers with Information and Communication Technology

in Shanghai: A Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Approach, Journal of computing

evaluation research, 54(4), pp.531-562.

Yeung, M. and Chung, H., 2011. iPEP talk: pedagogical conversations from The

iPad Exploration Project.

224

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study research, Design and methods. 3rd Edition. Sage

publications: London.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed. Los Angeles:

Sage Publications.

Zelkowski, J., Gleason, J., Cox, D.C. and Bismarck, S., 2013. Developing and

validating a reliable TPACK instrument for secondary mathematics pre-service

teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), pp. 173-

206.

Zhang, Q. and Kou, Q., 2012. The Course Research for the Software Program

Based on the Constructivism Teaching Theories. Physics Procedia, 25(22),

pp. 2294-2297.

Zhang, Z. and Martinovic, D., 2008. ICT in teacher education: Examining needs,

expectations and attitudes. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,

34(2). pp. 149-166.

Zidney, J. and Warner, Z., 2016. Mobile apps for science learning: Review of

research. Computers and Education, 94, pp.1-17.

Zikmund, W., 2000. Business research methods. Orlando, USA: Harcourt Inc.

Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. A. and Baybourdiani, P., 2012. Teacher-centred and/or

Student-centred learning: English Language in Iran. English Language and

Literature Studies, 2(3), pp.18-30.

Zou, B. and Li, J., 2015. Exploring mobile apps for English language teaching and

learning. In: F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda and S. Thouësny, eds. Critical

CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference. Padova, Italy.

225

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A1: Student questionnaire SECTION A

The questions in this section is to gather biographical data which will be used for

statistical purposes only. Please indicate your choice by placing a tick on the

space provided against to your choice.

A1. Please indicate your gender

MALE

FEMALE

A2. Please indicate your age group

17- 25

26 – 30

31 – 40

Above 40

A3. Please indicate the national diploma you have chosen

Information and Communication Technology

Electrical Engineering

A4. Please indicate your level of study

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4 and above

226

APPENDIX A2: Student questionnaire SECTION B

The questions in this section are for you to indicate your agreement on the given

statements on a scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Please circle the

number shown below, that best represents your response on your activities using

tablet.

# STATEMENT

After getting tablet, I started to

STRON

GLY

DISAG

REE

DISAG

REE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGREE STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

B1 read e-books. 1 2 3 4 5

B2 communicate with the lecturer. 1 2 3 4 5

B3 conduct research. 1 2 3 4 5

B4 gather information. 1 2 3 4 5

B5 e-learning through Black Board. 1 2 3 4 5

B6 learn multiple learning styles. 1 2 3 4 5

B7 have a negative impact on their

handwriting skills.

1 2 3 4 5

B8 take photos of the lecture

highlights on white board to avoid

copying by hand.

1 2 3 4 5

B9 use during the lecture for taking

notes.

1 2 3 4 5

B10 submit their work to the lecturer

through email or a file sharing

apps.

1 2 3 4 5

227

APPENDIX A3: Student questionnaire SECTION C


statements on the scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Please circle the

number shown below, that best represents your response on tablet use in learning

the courses.

# STATEMENT

The use of tablets helped

me to

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

DISAG

REE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGRE

E

STRON

GLY

AGREE

C1 learn the course content in the

class.

1 2 3 4 5

C2 perform my homework more

easier.

1 2 3 4 5

C3 perform my project easier. 1 2 3 4 5

C4 learn multiple learning styles. 1 2 3 4 5

C5 participate in the course

activity that enhanced my

learning.

1 2 3 4 5

C6 develop confidence in the

subject area.

1 2 3 4 5

C7 focus on the tasks. 1 2 3 4 5

228

APPENDIX A4: Student questionnaire SECTION D



number shown below, that best represents your response on the tablet use for

engagement and student collaboration in classroom.

# STATEMENT

Tablet

STR

ONG

LY

DISA

GRE

E

DISAG

REE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

D1 activities motivated me to learn the course

material more than the class activities that did

not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

D2 helped me to participate more in class during

the tablet activities than during activities that

did not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

D3 assisted me to participate more in classroom

during the tablet activities with my classmates

than during activities that did not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

D4 use at home is not as useful as that in the

classroom.

1 2 3 4 5

D5 made it easier for me to understand the topics

using tablets when I learn in a group.

1 2 3 4 5

D6 activities helped me to participate in quiz as a

team.

1 2 3 4 5

D7 helped me to gather information for the group

project work.

1 2 3 4 5

D8 helped me in Group discussion. 1 2 3 4 5

229

APPENDIX A5: Student questionnaire SECTION E



number shown below, that best represents your response on the use of tablet when

it is compared with personal computer (PC).

#

STATEMENT STR

ONG

LY

DISA

GRE

E

DISAG

REE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

E1 tablets are more convenient to use when

compared with personal computer(PC).

1 2 3 4 5

E2 The tablet assists me to search for more

information than through PC.

1 2 3 4 5

E3 tablet assisted me to participate more actively

in discussions than using PC.

1 2 3 4 5

E4 I was not able to develop programs using

tablets but was able to develop them using PC.

1 2 3 4 5

E5 I see tablet as a good tool to learn when I

compare it with PC.

1 2 3 4 5

230

APPENDIX B1: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION A





MALE

FEMALE


21- 30

31 – 40

41 – 50

Above 50

A3. Please indicate your highest qualification

B Tech

Honours

Masters

PhD

A4. Please indicate the department in which you are working on

Information and Communication Technology

Electrical Engineering

A5. Please indicate your lecturing experience

Below 1 year

1 year and above but less than 2 years

2 years and above but less than 4 years


Above 6 years

A6. Please indicate your level of experience using the tablet in lecturing

Below 1 year




Above 6 years

231

APPENDIX B2: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION B



number shown below, that best represents your response on students’ activities

using tablet.

# STATEMENT

After getting tablet, students

started to

STRO

NGLY

DISAG

REE

DISAG

REE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

B1 read e-books. 1 2 3 4 5

B2 communicate with the lecturer. 1 2 3 4 5

B3 conduct research. 1 2 3 4 5

B4 gather information. 1 2 3 4 5

B5 e-learning through Black Board. 1 2 3 4 5

B6 learn multiple learning styles. 1 2 3 4 5

B7 have a negative impact on their

handwriting skills.

1 2 3 4 5

B8 take photos of the lecture highlights

on white board to avoid copying by

hand.

1 2 3 4 5

B9 use during the lecture for taking

notes.

1 2 3 4 5

B10 submit their work to the lecturer

through email or a file sharing apps.

1 2 3 4 5

232

APPENDIX B3: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION C



number shown below, that best represents your response on students’ activities for

engagement and collaboration in classroom using tablet.

# STATEMENT

Tablet

STRO

NGLY

DISAG

REE

DISA

GRE

E

NO

OPIN

ION

AGR

EE

STR

ONG

LY

AGR

EE

C1 activities motivated students to learn the

course material more than the class

activities that did not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

C2 helped students to participate more in

class during the tablet activities than

during activities that did not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

C3 assisted students to participate more in

classroom during the tablet activities with

their classmates than during activities

that did not use tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

C4 made it easier for students to understand

the topics using tablets when they learn

in a group.

1 2 3 4 5

C5 use in Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) tutor

class has helped them to learn the topics

better than without tablets.

1 2 3 4 5

C6 activities helped them to participate in

quiz as a team.

1 2 3 4 5

C7 helped them to gather information for the

group project work.

1 2 3 4 5

C8 helped them in Group discussion. 1 2 3 4 5

233

APPENDIX B4: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION D



number shown below, that best represents your response on students’ use of tablet

when compared with personal computer (PC).

# STATEMENT STR

ONG

LY

DISA

GRE

E

DISAG

REE

NO

OPINI

ON

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

D1 tablets are more convenient to use

when compared with personal

computer(PC).

1 2 3 4 5

D2 The tablet assists students to search

for more information than through PC.

1 2 3 4 5

D3 Students were not able to develop

programs using tablets but was able

to develop them using PC.

1 2 3 4 5

234

APPENDIX B5: Lecturer questionnaire SECTION E



number shown below, that best represents your response on your tablet use in

lecturing the courses.

# STATEMENT

STRO

NGLY

DISAG

REE

DISA

GRE

E

NO

OPINIO

N

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

E1 I use tablets for most of my lecture

classes.

1 2 3 4 5

E2 Tablet enhances the tasks during

lectures.

1 2 3 4 5

E3 By using the tablet, I am quickly able

to complete the topics.

1 2 3 4 5

E4 The use of tablet helps to complete

the curriculum on time.

1 2 3 4 5

E5 Current curriculum should be adapted

for effective use of tablet.

1 2 3 4 5

E6 tablet use has made my work more

easier in lecturing.

1 2 3 4 5

E7 With students’ use of tablets, I see

distraction in class while I am

lecturing.

1 2 3 4 5

E8 Using personal computers (PC)

makes better impact in students than

using tablets.

1 2 3 4 5

E9 tablet helped me to develop skills that

apply to my academic career.

1 2 3 4 5

E10 Overall, I prefer personal computers

than using tablets.

1 2 3 4 5

235

APPENDIX C1: Manager Questionnaire SECTION A





MALE

FEMALE


21- 30

31 – 40

41 – 50

Above 50

A3. Please indicate your highest qualification

B Tech

Honours

Masters

PhD

A4. Please indicate your designation

Dean

Head of the Department

Extended Programme Coordinator

e-learning specialist

e-learning administrator

Institutional Head of Extended programme co-ordinator

A5. Please indicate your Managing experience

Below 1 year




Above 6 years

236

APPENDIX C2: Manager Questionnaire SECTION B


statements on a scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

Please circle the number shown below, that best represents your response on the

tablet use of students and lecturers in learning and teaching respectively.

#

STATEMENT

STRO

NGLY

DISAG

REE

DISAGR

EE

NO

OPIN

ION

AGRE

E

STRO

NGLY

AGRE

E

B1 Tablet helped the lecturers to develop

skills that apply to their academic career

1 2 3 4 5

B2 Academic results of students have

improved after incorporating tablets into

education

1 2 3 4 5

B3 After using tablet, lecturers are able to

complete the curriculum very fast

1 2 3 4 5

B4 Current curriculum should be adapted

for effective use of tablet

1 2 3 4 5

B5 tablets are better than personal

computer (PC) for students

1 2 3 4 5

B6 tablets are better than personal

computer (PC) for lecturers

1 2 3 4 5

B7 Wi-Fi internet speed in the campus and

class room is good

1 2 3 4 5

B8 Tablets are adopted just for a trend to

be with the latest technology in the

market.

1 2 3 4 5

237

APPENDIX D1: Interview protocols for Students

1. Do you use tablets for any activity other than learning during lecture hours? If yes,

what are they?

2. Do you use tablets for any activity other than learning after the class hours? If yes,

what are they?

3. Do you think tablets enhanced your learning capability? Why or why not?

4. Did tablets enable you to collaborate with your lecturer? If yes, how?

5. Did tablets enable you to collaborate with your classmates? If yes, how?

6. What benefits have you obtained in your use of tablet computers as a learning

tool?

7. What drawbacks have you noticed in your use of tablet computers as a learning

tool?

8. Would you like to share anything else with me about the use of tablets in

classroom?

238

APPENDIX D2: Interview protocols for Lecturers

1. Have you attended any training in order to use the tablets effectively for teaching

before it was integrated in classroom? If yes, how effective was it for you?

2. What benefits have you obtained in your use of tablet computers as a teaching

tool?

3. What drawbacks have you noticed in your use of tablet computers as a teaching

tool?

4. Please describe your teaching experience in using pedagogical apps that are

installed in tablets to teach IT/Electrical courses.

5. Was it easy or challenging to teach the courses before the integration of tablets?

Why?

6. In your view, do you think that the curriculum needs to be changed for the

effective use of tablets to make students more active in learning? Why or why not?

7. What are the different tablet activities that are related to learning which you have

noticed very often among students while you lecture in classroom?

8. What are the different tablet activities that are not related to learning which you

have noticed very often among students while you lecture in classroom?

9. Do you think that the method of learning by the students has changed after the

implementation of tablets? If yes, How?

10. How does the use of tablets support engagement and collaboration between

students?

11. What benefits for students have you noticed in their use of tablet computers as a

learning tool?

12. What drawbacks for students have you noticed in their use of tablet computers

as a learning tool?

13. Would you like to share anything else with me about students’ use of tablets in

learning?

14. Would you like to share anything else with me about your use of tablets in

teaching?

239

APPENDIX D3: Interview protocols for Managers

1. Do you think that the pass rate of students has improved after the implementation

of tablets? If yes, How?

2. What difference have you noticed in the teaching methodology of lecturers after

the implementation of tablets?

3. Have you offered any training to students in order to use the tablets effectively for

learning before it was integrated in classroom? If yes, how effective was it for them in

their learning?

4. Have you offered any training to lecturers in order to use the tablets effectively for

teaching before it was integrated in classroom? If yes, how effective was it for them

in their teaching?

5. Do you think that the integration of tablets in classroom has enhanced the skill of

students in learning? Why or why not?

6. Do you think that the integration of tablets in classroom has enhanced the skill of

lecturers in teaching? Why or why not?


effective use of tablets to make students more active in learning? Why or why not?


effective use of tablets to make lecturers more active in teaching? Why or why not?

9. What benefits for students have you noticed in their use of tablet computers as a

learning tool?

10. What benefits for lecturers have you noticed in their use of tablet computers as a

teaching tool?

11. What drawbacks for students have you noticed in their use of tablet computers

as a learning tool?

12. What drawbacks for lecturers have you noticed in their use of tablet computers

as a teaching tool?

13. Would you like to share anything else with me about your use of students and

lecturers use of tablets?

240

APPENDIX E1: Application letter requesting for Ethical clearance certificate

241

APPENDIX E2: Ethical clearance certificate from University of Fort Hare

243

APPENDIX E3: Application letter requesting for permission to conduct the

study in research site

244

APPENDIX E4: Consent from University where study was executed

245

APPENDIX E5: Invitation letter to Managers to participate in pilot study

246

APPENDIX E6: Invitation letter to lecturers to participate in pilot study

247

APPENDIX F1: Survey Consent form - Managers

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

RESEARCHER

Simon Christopher Fernandez, a PhD student in the department of Education

at University of Fort Hare.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this form is to provide you with information by which you can

decide whether to participate or not in this study. Any questions that you may have

will be answered by the researcher. Once you are familiar with the information on the

form and have asked any questions you may have, you can decide whether to

participate or not to participate. If you agree, please sign at the end of this form in the

given space.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to gather the views of selected stakeholders to

assess the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets for learning and teaching in a

university.

POTENTIAL RISKS

This research is purely academic and any information provided here will not

be used against the respondents. There are no foreseeable risks to your involvement

in this study. Therefore, confidentiality of your responses is hereby pledged. If for

any reason participating in this study cause you to feel upset or anxious, you may

withdraw from participation at any time.

COMPENSATION

You will not receive any type of payment for participating in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

The possible benefits to you if you participate in this research is that you may

learn about what a survey is and how to do it by rating opinions. You may also think

more about the strengths and weaknesses of using the tablet in classrooms.

248

STATEMENT OF PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The researcher will make every effort to prevent anyone from knowing that

you have provided the information, or what that information was. To protect the

anonymity, your name or personal details will not be asked in this form.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

Your refusal to participate in this study will involve no penalty or loss of

benefits and will not affect you in any way.

DURATION

The completion of the survey will take approximately 10 minutes.

PLEASE NOTE

Before you sign this form, please ask any questions on any aspect of this

study that is unclear to you.

SIGNATURE SECTION – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

By signing this consent form, you confirm that you are satisfied with the

ethical concerns and you have read and understood the information provided above

and give consent to take part in this research.

Participant Signature……………….………..………….…………………

Date……………………………

249

APPENDIX F2: Survey Consent form - Lecturers


RESEARCHER



INTRODUCTION






given space.

PURPOSE



university.

POTENTIAL RISKS






COMPENSATION


POTENTIAL BENEFITS



more about the strengths and weaknesses of using the tablet in classrooms.

250



you have provided the information or what that information was. To protect the

anonymity, your name or any personal details will not be asked in this form.




DURATION


PLEASE NOTE







Participant Signature………………. ………..………….…………………

Date……………………………

251

APPENDIX F3: Survey Consent form - Students


RESEARCHER



INTRODUCTION






given space.

PURPOSE



university.

POTENTIAL RISKS






COMPENSATION


POTENTIAL BENEFITS



more about the strengths and weaknesses of using the tablet in your courses.

252



you have provided the information, or what that information was. To protect the

anonymity, your name or personal details will not be asked in this form.




DURATION


PLEASE NOTE







Participant Signature………………. ………..………….…………………

Date……………………………

253

APPENDIX F4: Interview Consent form - Students

Ethics Research Confidentiality and Informed Consent Form

Please note: This form is to be completed by the researcher(s) as well as by the interviewee before the commencement of the research. Copies of the signed form must be filed and kept on record (To be adapted for individual circumstances/needs) Our University of Fort Hare / Department is asking people from your community / sample / group to answer some questions, which we hope will benefit your community and possibly other communities in the future. The University of Fort Hare / Department/ organization is conducting research regarding selected stakeholders’ views on the use of tablet computer in learning and teaching – a South African case study at a university. We are interested in finding out more about views of University students, Lecturers, and Managers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets for learning and teaching in a university. We are carrying out this research to help the lecturers who are using new technologies and also the institutions that are having a plan to adopt tablets for learning. Please understand that you are not being forced to take part in this study and the choice whether to participate or not is yours alone. However, we would really appreciate it if you do share your thoughts with us. If you choose not take part in answering these questions, you will not be affected in any way. If you agree to participate, you may stop me at any time and tell me that you don’t want to go on with the interview. If you do this there will also be no penalties and you will NOT be prejudiced in ANY way. Confidentiality will be observed professionally. I will not be recording your name anywhere on the questionnaire and no one will be able to link you to the answers you give. Only the researchers will have access to the unlinked information. The information will remain confidential and there will be no “come-backs” from the answers you give. The interview will last around (13) minutes. I will be asking you a questions and ask that you are as open and honest as possible in answering these questions. Some questions may be of a personal and/or sensitive nature. I will be asking some questions that you may not have thought about before, and which also involve

254

thinking about the past or the future. We know that you cannot be absolutely certain about the answers to these questions but we ask that you try to think about these questions. When it comes to answering questions there are no right and wrong answers. When we ask questions about the future we are not interested in what you think the best thing would be to do, but what you think would actually happen. If possible, our organisation would like to come back to this area once we have completed our study to inform you and your community of what the results are and discuss our findings and proposals around the research and what this means for people in this area.

INFORMED CONSENT I hereby agree to participate in research regarding selected stakeholders’ views on the use of tablet computers in learning and teaching – a South African case study at a university. I understand that I am participating freely and without being forced in any way to do so. I also understand that I can stop this interview at any point should I not want to continue and that this decision will not in any way affect me negatively. I understand that this is a research project whose purpose is not necessarily to benefit me personally. I have received the telephone number of a person to contact should I need to speak about any issues which may arise in this interview. I understand that this consent form will not be linked to the questionnaire, and that my answers will remain confidential. I understand that if at all possible, feedback will be given to my community on the results of the completed research. …………………………….. Signature of participant Date:………………….. I hereby agree to the tape recording of my participation in the study …………………………….. Signature of participant Date:…………………..

255

APPENDIX F5: Interview Consent form - Lecturers and Managers

Ethics Research Confidentiality and Informed Consent Form

Please note: This form is to be completed by the researcher(s) as well as by the interviewee before the commencement of the research. Copies of the signed form must be filed and kept on record (To be adapted for individual circumstances/needs) Our University of Fort Hare / Department is asking people from your community / sample / group to answer some questions, which we hope will benefit your community and possibly other communities in the future. The University of Fort Hare / Department/ organization is conducting research regarding selected stakeholders’ views on the use of tablet computer in learning and teaching – a South African case study at a university. We are interested in finding out more about views of University students, Lecturers, and Managers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of using tablets for learning and teaching in a university. We are carrying out this research to help the lecturers who are using new technologies and also the institutions that are having a plan to adopt tablets for learning. Please understand that you are not being forced to take part in this study and the choice whether to participate or not is yours alone. However, we would really appreciate it if you do share your thoughts with us. If you choose not take part in answering these questions, you will not be affected in any way. If you agree to participate, you may stop me at any time and tell me that you don’t want to go on with the interview. If you do this there will also be no penalties and you will NOT be prejudiced in ANY way. Confidentiality will be observed professionally. I will not be recording your name anywhere on the questionnaire and no one will be able to link you to the answers you give. Only the researchers will have access to the unlinked information. The information will remain confidential and there will be no “come-backs” from the answers you give. The interview will last around (30) minutes. I will be asking you a questions and ask that you are as open and honest as possible in answering these questions. Some questions may be of a personal and/or sensitive nature. I will be asking some questions that you may not have thought about before, and which also involve

256

thinking about the past or the future. We know that you cannot be absolutely certain about the answers to these questions but we ask that you try to think about these questions. When it comes to answering questions there are no right and wrong answers. When we ask questions about the future we are not interested in what you think the best thing would be to do, but what you think would actually happen. If possible, our organisation would like to come back to this area once we have completed our study to inform you and your community of what the results are and discuss our findings and proposals around the research and what this means for people in this area.

INFORMED CONSENT I hereby agree to participate in research regarding selected stakeholders’ views on the use of tablet computers in learning and teaching – a South African case study at a university. I understand that I am participating freely and without being forced in any way to do so. I also understand that I can stop this interview at any point should I not want to continue and that this decision will not in any way affect me negatively. I understand that this is a research project whose purpose is not necessarily to benefit me personally. I have received the telephone number of a person to contact should I need to speak about any issues which may arise in this interview. I understand that this consent form will not be linked to the questionnaire, and that my answers will remain confidential. I understand that if at all possible, feedback will be given to my community on the results of the completed research. …………………………….. Signature of participant Date:………………….. I hereby agree to the tape recording of my participation in the study …………………………….. Signature of participant Date:…………………..

257

APPENDIX G1: Certificate of Language Editing

SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS' VIEWS ON THE USE OF TABLET ...

Documents

Transcript of SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS' VIEWS ON THE USE OF TABLET ...