EFFECTIVENESS AND SATISFACTION OF IPAD INTEGRATION IN THE
UNDERGRADUATE CLASSROOM

A THESIS
Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies
and Research
of
California University of Pennsylvania in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

by
Teresa Edgar, ATC

Research Advisor, Dr. Thomas West
California, Pennsylvania
2013

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank my mother and step-father
for supporting me throughout my life. You both encouraged
me to reach my goals and believed in me when no one else
did. You have supported me through thick and thin and
raised me to be the strong, independent, young lady that I
am today.
I would also like to thank my fiancé for motivating me
to continue my education and strive for new goals. You have
been there for me throughout my college education and
helped pick me up when times were rough. I look forward to
our future and know we will continue to strive for
excellence together.
To my grandparents, thank you. You have helped mold me
into the driven young lady that I am today and have
encouraged me to continue to strive for the best with my
career.
Thank you to Thomas West, Michael Meyer, and Vilija Bishop
for your time, commitment, and expertise while holding a
position on this thesis committee. Without your help, this
thesis would not have been possible or have gone as
smoothly as it did.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SIGNATURE PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

INTRODUCTION
METHODS

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Research Design
Subjects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Preliminary Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Procedures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Hypotheses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Data Analysis
RESULTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Hypothesis Testing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

v
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
APPENDIX A: Review of Literature

. . . . . . . . 31

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Integration of Technological Devices in
the Classroom

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Technological Devices Impact on Students
Behaviors, Perceptions, and Characteristics

. . . 38

iPads/Tablets in the Classroom . . . . . . .

42

PowerPoint Presentations in the Classroom . . . . 45
Podcasts in the Classroom

. . . . . . . . . 48

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
APPENDIX B: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Significance of the Study

. . . . . . . . . . 55

APPENDIX C: Additional Methods .
iPad Integration Survey (C1)

. . . . . . . . 56

. . . . . . . . . 57

IRB: California University of Pennsylvania (C2) . . 65
Picture Examples of iBook Author (C3) . . . . . . 67
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ABSTRACT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table

Title

Page

1

Technology Experience in Daily Life

2

Frequency of Likert Scale Responses
for iPad Value . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3

Satisfaction of iPad Integration
Statistics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4

Value of iPad Integration Statistics . . . 18

5

Effectiveness of iPad Integration
Statistics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

. . . 14

1

INTRODUCTION

There are a wide range of a teaching technologies
recently made available to the college instructor. These
technologies have the potential to dramatically change the
way teachers teach and students learn. Prior to full
adoption, however, any new teaching methodology should be
piloted and evaluated to determine its effectiveness in
helping students meet their educational goals.
The use of tablet computers in the classroom is a
relatively recent development. The purpose of conducting
this research is to examine student’s perceived
effectiveness and satisfaction pertaining to the
integration of iPads in the undergraduate classroom.
Specifically, this project will examine lectures delivered
via iPads and its associated programs. The following
paragraphs will go into brief detail on previous studies
performed that relate to this research.
D’Angelo and Woosley1 surveyed a large university on
the effectiveness of technology integration. The
researchers investigated whether modern or techno style
teachings were more effective. The results concluded modern
teaching styles of PowerPoint presentations and the use of

2
videos were significantly greater in effectiveness of
technology integration when compared to techno style
teaching of blackboard and overhead projector use.1
Another study, conducted by Lavin,2 surveyed whether
technology impacted the quality of student learning.
Students in technology driven courses were asked how they
would feel if they were switched to a classroom of
traditional teaching methods and vice versa for traditional
courses. Results concluded technology integration has a
meaningful impact on student preparation for the course,
attentiveness, quality notes taken, in class participation,
learning, desire to take additional courses (of the same
subject or instructor), and overall evaluation of the
course and instructor.2
The last study that closely relates to the proposed
research was performed by Geist.3 Geist examined the
practicality and efficacy of iPads for senior level
teachers. The teachers were responsible for using the iPads
to access course materials, keep personal journals of the
ten week study, and experiment with ways to integrate this
device into the classroom. Results concluded that teachers
found iPads to be beneficial as e-readers and the use of
the web during lectures.3

3
There are multiple methods that have been utilized to
evaluate the effectiveness of applying technology to
courses in new ways. One study evaluated collective
feedback through surveys before and after the semester,
quizzes, journals, and discussions.4 Another researcher also
used a survey, and in addition evaluated the teacher’s
lesson plans, held progressive activities once a month, and
observed the teacher’s classroom.5 Additionally, there was a
study conducted using expanded PowerPoint, basic
PowerPoint, and transparencies presentations throughout the
semester, multiple times each. The researcher collected
data through quizzes given after each unit and a survey at
the end of the semester concluding which presentation they
learned from best.6 For the present study a survey will be
utilized to evaluate the use of the tablet computer and
iBook programs delivered via the iPad.
The first three articles discussed are closely related
to the proposed research on the effectiveness of iPad
integration in the undergraduate classroom. Studies have
found technology, more specifically the iPad, to be
beneficial in the classroom.1-3 Since there is generally a
lack of research on iPads, this research is being conducted
to add further conclusions to whether moving forward with

4
iPads in the classroom is more effective and satisfying for
student learning.

5

METHODS

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceived
effectiveness of iPad integration in the undergraduate
classroom through gathering information on how satisfied
the students were with utilizing the iPads and how valuable
the iPads were in the class. The following subsections will
outline the research design, subjects, instruments,
procedures, hypotheses, and data analysis.

Research Design

The design used in this research was a descriptive
study. The independent variable was the use of iPads among
students in the undergraduate classroom.

Through the

iPads, participants were also able to access its associated
programs such as iBooks™, applications, PowerPoint™
Presentations, and Podcasts. The dependent variable was the
perceived effectiveness and student satisfaction of iPads
after integration into the traditional undergraduate
lecture. Effectiveness is described as the participant’s
satisfaction towards the use of iPads and how valuable the
iPads were to classroom use. The variables in this study

6
were measured through a survey, pertaining to the
effectiveness of the iPads through student satisfaction and
how valuable the iPads were after the integration of iPads.

Subjects

The subjects used in this study were undergraduate
students from California University of Pennsylvania
enrolled in one section of the Human Anatomy and Physiology
II course lecture. This research provided subjects through
the use of a stratified sample. Volunteer subjects in the
health science majors signed up in class, were chosen
randomly, and were then emailed by the researcher to make
sure they still wanted to participate along with a copy of
the informed consent form. They met the following day in
the athletic training conference room to go over the study
and sign the informed consent form to use the iPads and
take the satisfaction survey. Out of approximately 120
students, fifteen volunteer subjects were chosen randomly
to complete the study. Throughout the study, each subjects’
identity remained confidential.
Each participant was asked to participate in a survey
(Appendix C1) of satisfaction, value, and general questions
pertaining to the effectiveness of iPad use after the two

7
and a half week period of iPad integration in the
classroom. Each participant was asked to sign an Informed
Consent Form before the study began.

This study was

submitted to (Appendix C2) and approved by California
University of Pennsylvania’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) prior to any data collection.

Preliminary Research

A pilot study was conducted prior to the research
study to ensure the validity of the iBook and survey
instrument. Four subjects volunteered to participate in
this trial. The subjects sat through an entire lecture via
the method stated above. The researcher monitored the
subjects’ participation with the iPad through the lecture
and the survey questions. The researcher made sure the
subject understood what was expected of the subject during
all aspects of the study.

Data was collected using a

sample spreadsheet through SPSS.

Instruments

The instruments used in this research consist of an
original survey created by the researcher (Appendix C1).

8
The faculty instructor assigned to the course delivered the
lectured materials by traditional methods while the
randomly selected subjects followed along on iPads via
iBooks. The iBooks organized the supplemental material and
consisted of lectured materials as well as associated
applications, web links, and videos. After two and a half
weeks of lecture, a survey consisting of questions about
demographic, informative and Likert Scale questions
pertaining to the effectiveness and satisfaction of iPad
integration in the classroom was distributed to each
participant to take on paper in the athletic training
conference room.
The entire study was conducted using 15 iPad 2’s.
They were connected to the University’s WiFi network for
internet access during the course. All 15 iPads were
preloaded with the Apple iBook software,7 Anatomy and
Physiology applications and content specific to the lecture
topic. An iBook is a multitouch book created by use of the
iBook Author7 app from the Mac App Store and easily viewed
on an iPad. The program was used for educational purposes
to help deliver the course materials. The program allowed
the student to shift through an electronic book with text,
graphics, quizzes, videos, and application links that
relate to the classroom material during the lecture and

9
outside of class for studying purposes. The iBook
distributed to the subjects in the Anatomy and Physiology
II course covered material on the skeletal and muscular
tissue sections taught by the assigned course instructor.
Examples of iBook pages used in the study are listed in
(Appendix C3). After using the iBook via the iPad, the
subject was asked to complete a survey pertaining to
his/her experience with the integration of the iPad in the
classroom.
The survey began with four demographic questions
asking the subjects their sex, age, credit hours at this
undergraduate institution, and major. The survey then asked
seven informative questions about how much experience each
of the subjects have with utilizing technology in daily
life and in the classroom, if they own or have consistent
access to an iPad, and the amount of experience with each
of the following items: iPads, educational applications on
Apple devices, and PowerPoint presentations. The subjects
then had to rate the following course applications on how
often they used the application in class and outside of
class on a daily basis during the length of the study:
iBook, PowerPoint lecture, applications, web links, and
videos. The above questions were rated using a Likert Scale
(1-1 time, 2-2 times, 3-3 times, 4-4 times, and 5-5 or more

10
times). The majority of the survey consisted of Likert
Scale questions on how satisfied and valuable the subjects
thought the integration of technology in the classroom was
compared to class sessions without iPads. The Likert Scale
questions were set up as followed, 1-not at all satisfied
(valuable), 2-slightly satisfied (valuable), 3-somewhat
satisfied (valuable), 4-very satisfied (valuable), and 5extremely satisfied (valuable). The survey ended with
another set of Likert Scale questions asking if the
subjects strongly agree or disagree (1-strongly disagree,
2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4-agree, or 5-strongly) with
statements on how useful technology was in the classroom.
There is also an area for comments or recommendations on
how to improve the utilization and usefulness of iPads in
the classroom (Appendix C1).

Procedures

The instructor delivered the lecture materials to the
entire class by traditional teaching methods while 15
selected subjects were also able to use the iBooks
consistent with the lecture via the iPads. The subjects
opened the iBooks via iPads and followed along with the
faculty instructor’s lecture. As the subjects were

11
following along the lecture, they could click through the
provided resources to gain additional knowledge through
applications, web links, and videos. At the end of the
study, a survey consisting of questions on the
effectiveness and satisfaction of iPad integration in the
classroom was distributed to each participant.
Data was collected using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS). The survey included nominal,
ordinal, and scale measurements that were coded in the SPSS
Program by numerical values that determined the frequency
of responses. A paired-samples t test was conducted to
compare satisfaction before and after the integration of
iPads. Overall value was determined by the frequency
(percentages) of Likert Scale responses for the iPad. Both
satisfaction and value questions were set up as Likert
style questions.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were based on prior research
mentioned in the review of literature.
1. Students will report a change in satisfaction due to
the use of the iPad in the classroom.

12
2. Students will find value in using iPads in the
classroom.

Data Analysis

All data was analyzed by SPSS version 18.0 for windows
at an alpha level of 0.05. Satisfaction was tested using a
paired-samples t test. Value was determined by the
frequency of responses to the Likert Scale questions.
Effectiveness was tested by using the mean score for
satisfaction, value, and general questions.

13

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived
effectiveness of iPads integrated into the traditional
undergraduate classroom through satisfaction, value, and
general questions pertaining to iPad use. This section
contains the study’s findings and is distributed among
three subsections: Demographic Information, Hypotheses
Testing, and Additional Findings.

Demographic Information

A total of 15 participants in the Anatomy and
Physiology II course at California University of
Pennsylvania were randomly selected out of 28 volunteers to
utilize the iPads and its associated programs. The iPads
were used in class three times a week for one hour a day
during two and a half weeks of lectures from February 25,
2013 to March 11, 2013. Out of the 15 participants, twelve
surveys were completed and used for data analysis. Three
participants did not show up to complete the survey. The
subjects included 10 females and 2 males. Nine were
athletic training majors and 3 subjects were in the

14
physical therapist assistant program. The subjects’ average
age was 22.5y (+/-4.94). At the time of the study, the
subjects had completed 29.9 (+/-20.42) credit hours at the
undergraduate institution.
The subjects were asked a series of informative
questions about their personal experience with technology
(iPads, iPods, iPhones, PowerPoint Presentations, and
associated applications) which is shown in Table 1. Out of
the twelve subjects, two stated they had had consistent
access to an iPad. The subjects who had consistent access
to an iPad were also asked how often they utilize the iPad
in daily life (1= 1-2 times a day; 2= 3-4 times a day; 3=
5-6 times a day; 4= more than 6 times a day). The results
concluded a mean score of 2.50 (+/-2.121) on the above
scale.

Table 1. Technology Experience in Daily Life
Questions

Mean

In general, how much experience do you have
utilizing technology in daily life?
In general, how much experience do you have
utilizing technology in the classroom?
How much experience do you have with iPads?*

3.83

Std.
Deviation
0.937

3.08

1.311

3.33

1.155

How much experience do you have utilizing
educational applications for iPads, iPhones,
iPods?
How much experience do you have utilizing
PowerPoint Presentations?

2.92

1.084

3.92

1.084

1=Far below average; 2=Below average; 3=Average; 4=Above average; 5=Proficient
*Only completed by subjects who had consistent access to iPads.

15

Hypothesis Testing

The following hypotheses were tested in this study.
All hypotheses were tested with a level of significance set
at α ≤ 0.05.

A paired-samples t test was conducted for

satisfaction and the frequency of responses was found for
value.

Hypothesis 1:

Students will report a change in

satisfaction due to the use of the iPad in the classroom.

Conclusion:

A paired-samples t test was conducted to

compare the mean satisfaction score before and after the
integration of iPads in the undergraduate classroom. The
mean before the integration of iPads was 3.75 (sd = .87),
and the mean after the integration of the iPad was 3.42 (sd
= 1.08). No significant difference from before and after
the iPad integration was found (t(11) = .886, p>.05).

Hypothesis 2: Students will find value in using iPads
in the classroom.

16
Conclusion:

Frequencies of the responses were shown

to determine how valuable the participants found the iPads
to be during the study. Almost two times the participants
chose very valuable. Eleven subjects answered how they
would rate the overall value of iPad integration on a
Likert Scale. Results are shown in Table 2. A statistical
test could not be run due to the limited number of
participants.
Table 2. Frequency of Likert Scale Responses for iPad Value
Not at all
Valuable

Slightly
Valuable

Somewhat
Valuable

Very
Valuable

Extremely
Valuable

1 (9.1%)

2 (18.2%)

2 (18.2%)

5 (45.5%)

1 (9.1%)

Additional Findings

A series of questions were asked using a Likert Scale
to determine how satisfied the subjects were when utilizing
the iPads in the undergraduate classroom. Table 3 shows the
average score for each of the satisfaction questions that
were asked on the survey.

17

Table 3. Satisfaction of iPad Integration Statistics
Questions
How satisfied were you with your course before the
integration of the iPad?
How satisfied were you with your course after the
integration of the iPad?
How satisfied were you with using the applications
on the iPad?
How satisfied were you with the material presented
on the iPad?
How satisfied were you with the iBook application
on the iPad?
How satisfied were you with the use of videos in
the iBook?
How satisfied were you with the use of web links in
the iBook?
Overall, how satisfied were you with the
integration of iPad in the course lecture?
1=Not at all satisfied; 2=Slightly satisfied;
satisfied; 5=Extremely satisfied

Mean

Std.
Deviation

3.75

0.866

3.67

1.303

3.45

0.688

3.75

0.965

3.67

0.985

2.70

0.949

3.00

1.247

3.42

1.084

3=Somewhat satisfied;

4=Very

A series of questions were asked using a Likert Scale
to determine how valuable the iPads were for the subjects
use in the classroom. Table 4 shows the average score for
each of the valuable questions that were asked in the
survey.

18

Table 4. Value of iPad Integration
Statistics
Questions
How valuable was the integration of the iPad for
this course?
How valuable were the application on the iPad?
How valuable was the material presented on the
iPad?
How valuable was the iBook application on the
iPad?
How valuable were the videos in the iBook?
How valuable were the web links in the iBook?
How valuable would a course over 15 weeks be if
it utilized iPads?
Overall, how valuable was the integration of the
iPad in the course lecture?
1=Not at all valuable;
5=Extremely valuable

2=Slightly valuable;

Mean

Std.
Deviation

3.00
3.45

1.279
0.934

3.92

0.669

4.00
2.30
2.40

0.739
0.949
0.966

3.50

1.314

3.17

1.193

3=Somewhat valuable;

4=Very valuable;

A series of general questions were asked using a
Likert Scale to determine how effective the use of iPads
were in the undergraduate classroom. Table 5 shows the
average score for each of the general questions that were
asked in the survey.

19

Table 5. Effectiveness of iPad Integration Statistics

Questions

Mean

Std.
Deviation

iPad integration enhanced my ability to learn.
iPad integration helped me learn the material
more in depth.
iPad integration distracted me from the lectured
materials.
iPad integration increased the quantity of notes
I took.
iPad integration increased the quality of notes I
took.
I was more attentive for this course after iPad
integration.
I had more interaction with the instructor due to
iPad integration.
I have a desire to take additional courses that
are associated with iPad use.
iPad integration has made learning the material
easier.
iPad use in the classroom will help me better
prepare for exams.
iPad use outside of the classroom will help me
better prepare for exams.
iPad use should continue to be used in this
course.

2.83

1.267

2.92

1.505

2.92

1.564

2.67

1.497

2.33

1.371

2.33

1.073

2.33

0.985

2.75

1.288

3.00

1.206

2.83

1.267

3.58

1.084

3.33

1.155

iPad use should in integrated into other courses.
3.33
1.155
Overall, I am pleased with the integration of
iPads into the classroom.
3.33
1.231
1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral;4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree

20

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to examine the
satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of iPad
integration in the undergraduate classroom. This section is
distributed among three subsections: Discussion of Results,
Conclusions, and Recommendations.

Discussion of Results

Anatomy and Physiology II students at California
University of Pennsylvania were asked to utilize
educational applications via iPads to determine
satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of iPad
integration within a traditional style lecture classroom.
The subjects were asked to view lecture materials via the
iBook® application7 and use associated links, videos, and
applications for two and a half weeks. At the end of the
two and a half weeks they were then asked to complete a
survey containing questions on how satisfied they were with
the iPads, how valuable the iPads were in the classroom,
and general questions asking the perceived effectiveness of
the iPads.

21
The first research hypothesis stated students will
report a change in satisfaction due to the use of the iPad
in the classroom. After a paired-samples t test was
conducted, it was determined that there was no significant
difference in satisfaction before and after iPad
integration. The mean before the integration of iPads was
3.75 (sd = .87), and the mean after the integration of the
iPad was 3.42 (sd = 1.08). Therefore, students were
slightly more satisfied with a traditional classroom
setting compared to a technology driven classroom, although
not significantly so.

However, when looking at each

individual question related to satisfaction (Table 3), the
students indicated levels of satisfaction with some aspects
of the integration including the statement, “How satisfied
were you with the material presented on the iPad?.”
The second hypothesis states students will find value
in using iPads in the classroom. After gathering data from
Likert Scale questions, frequencies showed 9.1% of students
found the iPad to not be valuable at all. However, 45.5% of
students found the iPad to be very valuable in the
classroom. A statistical test could not be run due to the
limited number of participants that completed the survey.
Of the 11 participants, 5 chose very valuable and 1
chose extremely valuable. Therefore 6 participants found

22
the iPads to be at the least very valuable compared to the
other 4 that found the iPads to be slightly or somewhat
valuable and 1 participant who found no value in the iPad.
When looking at individual value questions (Table 4), the
questions “How valuable was the iBook application on the
iPad?” concluded to be very valuable with a mean score of
4.000 (sd=0.739).
A series of general questions were asked on a Likert
Scale (1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral;4=Agree;
5=Strongly agree) to gauge the perceived effectiveness of
iPad integration. The questions that pertained to enhanced
learning (M=2.830, sd=1.267), quantity of notes taken
(M=2.670, sd=1.497), quality of notes taken (M=2.330,
sd=1.371), attentiveness for the course (2.330, sd=1.073),
interaction with the instructor (M=2.330, sd=0.985), desire
to take additional iPad integrated courses (M=2.750,
sd=1.288), and better prepared for exams with iPads in the
classroom (M=2.830, sd=1.267) resulted in an average score
that shows the average of students disagree or are neutral
with the Likert Scale questions. In Lavin’s6 study, the
researchers also found the quantity of notes they take and
the interaction with the instructor along with the amount
of time that students study and their attendance to be
technology neutral.2

23
In contrast, Lavin2 found technology to have a
meaningful impact on attentiveness, quality of notes taken,
and student participation in class.2 The average of students
disagreed or were neutral about iPads distracting them
during the lecture (M=2.920, sd=1.564) in the present
study. Students were neutral when asked if iPad integration
made learning the material easier (M=3.000, sd=1.206). The
questions that pertained to the use of iPads outside of
class to better prepare for exams (M=3.580, sd=1.084), iPad
should continue to be used in this course (M=3.330,
sd=1.155), iPad should be integrated into other courses
(3.330, sd=1.155), and overall pleased with iPad
integration in the classroom (M=3.330, sd=1.231) resulted
in an average score of students agree or are neutral with
the Likert Scale questions. Also in Lavin’s2 study, the
researchers found a meaningful impact on student
preparation for class, desire to take additional classes
from the instructor or in the subject matter, and the
overall evaluation of the course and instructor.2
In general there was no significant difference found
for the first hypothesis. However, this may be due to the
small sample size and the lack of participation in
completed surveys. If the present study had a larger sample
size, the results may had concluded a significant

24
difference such as D’Angelo and Woosley’s1 study
established. Their research found modern teaching styles of
PowerPoint and video were shown to be significantly greater
in the effectiveness of teaching at a mean of 3.84 (.731)
compared to traditional teaching styles (blackboard and
overhead transparencies) which resulted in a mean of 3.21
(.777).1 There was a small, non-significant decrease in how
satisfied students were after iPad integration. On the
other hand, students found iPad integration to be valuable
for the course. This could be due to the lack of knowledge
pertaining to navigating the iPad, short period of time the
subjects utilized the iPad, or the age difference of the
participants.

Conclusions

There is very little research specific to iPad
integration in the literature, and no research published on
the iBook Author application utilized in this study.
Therefore the majority of studies utilized related to
technology in general. Due to the limited research, the
present study was exploratory in nature in an effort to
guide future research. The present study found there to be

25
no significant effect of iPad integration on satisfaction
or value.
However, the study did find trends in the data that
majority of students found the iPads to be valuable and
somewhat effective in the classroom when individual
question responses are examined. It is possible that future
studies will be conducted to find data that may or may not
support iPad integration in the classroom. More and more
classrooms are technology driven today. Technology is the
new way of learning and there is supportive data that
technology among the classroom is effective in education.1,2
If this same course was taught next semester, iPads
should be utilized for the entire semester. Each student
would be assigned and have access to the class materials on
the iPads in and outside of the classroom. iBook Author
would be used to deliver the bulk of lecture materials
along with a few educational applications, videos, links,
and podcasts. The main two applications that would be used
are Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy and Muscle and Bone
Anatomy 3D. These applications allow the student to view
diagrams of the sections or systems of the human body while
they are being covered in class. Educational videos can be
found on YouTube.com that condenses the same lectures
materials into a short video with corresponding diagrams.

26
Web links to pages with more in depth information about the
topic can be used for those who still don't understand or
want to know more about the materials after the lecture.
Lastly, podcasts can be used as another study aide for
students. If students miss a class, the teacher is speaking
to fast for note takers, or they want to review the lecture
again podcasts would be uploaded after each lecture that
allows the students to hear what was said in class with the
lecture.

Recommendations

Further research on iPad integration in the
undergraduate classroom would be more beneficial with a few
changes in the study itself and the survey. First, it would
be more beneficial for students to use the iPads during the
entire length of the course and ask everyone in the class
to utilize the iPads. However, California University of
Pennsylvania did not have more than 20 iPads to use for
this study. If this were to happen, the course instructor
could use different means of delivering lectured materials
such as podcasts, videos, links for webpages, educational
applications, etc. during class. These materials were
available to the students, however, many did not utilize

27
them during the two and a half weeks they had access to the
iPads.
Future research would benefit from a larger sample
size. A whole lecture classroom or multiple classrooms
would help to determine if there is any significant effect
on learning within the study. The present study was limited
to the number of participants due to the number of iPads
available and number of participants who completed the
survey.
Additionally, future surveys can focus on ensuring
that participants utilize all of the technological
materials provided to them. In the present study, the
subjects rated how often they used the iBook, PowerPoint
presentations, educational applications, educational web
links, and educational videos in and outside of class. They
were to circle one of the following: 1 time, 2 times, 3
times, 4 times, and 5 or more times. It was assumed each
participant would utilize all of the materials in and
outside of class since the iPads were available during
class and certain times outside of class. Many of the
participants did not answer these questions or wrote in
none. Other questions could also be modified to obtain
better information about the use and value of the various
applications.

28
Lastly, in addition to a larger sample size, the
survey could be conducted online. In such a technology
driven period, the majority of participants might prefer
taking the survey online.

29
REFERENCES

1.

D’Angelo JM, Woosley SA. Technology in the classroom:
friend or foe. Education [serial online].
2007;127(4):462-271.

2.

Lavin AM, Korte L, Davies TL. The impact of classroom
technology on student behavior. Journal of Technology
Research [serial online]. 2010; 2:1-13.

3.

Geist E. The game changer: using ipads in college
teacher education classes. College Student Journal
[serial online]. 2011; 45(4):758-769.

4.

Weisberg M. Student attitudes and behaviors towards
digital textbooks. Publishing Research
Quarterly[serial online]. 2011;27(2):188-196.

5.

Crichton S, Stuewe N, Pegler K, White D. Personal
devices in public settings: lessons learned from an
iPod touch/iPad project. Proceedings of the
International Conference on e-Learning [serial
online]. 2011; 77-83.

6.

Bartsch RA, Cobern KM. Effectiveness of powerpoint
presentations in lectures. Computers and Education
[serial online]. 2003;41:77-86.

7.

iBooks Author. Apple Inc. 2013. Available at:
http://www.apple.com/ibooks-author/. Accessed January
5, 2013.

30

APPENDICES

31

APPENDIX A
Review of Literature

32

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Technology in the Classroom

Technology is beginning to be the new era of teaching
in the classroom. Many teachers are encouraged to make
lessons that are able to utilize technological devices or
programs in the classroom.1 Most students have access to
some sort of technological device at home or school and
many students prefer using technology during lectures.
Teachers can set up real world applications on devices that
encourage more students to participate in classroom
activities. Students are more inclined to use technology
today because of its popularity and the usefulness of the
programs associated with the devices. Phones and iPods are
used a planners, applications on smartphones and iPads make
it easy for students to research topics through the
dictionary or internet or by taking a simple picture of the
lecture on the board. Technological devices can be used in
many different ways in the classroom. There are multiple
ways we can enhance learning in the classroom and this has
been shown through more teachers integrating technological

33
devices and applications that coincide with their lectures
into lectures.1
The purpose of this Review of Literature is to examine
the effectiveness of technology integration within the
classroom. This will be presented through previous studies
of students’ perceptions, behaviors, and characteristics
pertaining to the integration of technology; specifically,
the use of iPads, PowerPoint presentations and Podcasts in
the classroom. The following sections will discuss more in
depth studies relating to this research. The Review of
Literature will end in a brief summary relating each of the
technological advances within lectures today.

Integration of Technological Devices in the Classroom

In D’Angelo and Woosley’s2 study, the researchers
investigated three questions regarding classroom
technology. The questions are as followed:
“What kinds of technology are students experiencing in
the classroom?2”; “Do students perceive certain
education technology environments as being more
conducive to their learning?2”; “Are there differences
in how various subpopulations of students view the

34
effectiveness of various learning technology
environments?2”.
The survey was distributed among a large university to
four criminal justice classes. Of the 251 respondents to
the survey, 64% were criminal justice majors, while 12%
were minoring in criminal justice.2 The survey included
demographic questions; whether the students were exposed to
technologies in the classroom such as the use of a
chalkboard, PowerPoint Presentation, group work on the
blackboard, overhead transparencies, blackboard, on-line
courses, or video; the use of the Likert scale to survey
the perceptions of the students on each of the above
technologies. The perceptions investigated were whether the
students’ knowledge of the lecture increased or decreased
with the integration of technology in the classroom. The
survey showed 95.2% were taught via a chalkboard; 97.6% via
PowerPoint Presentation; 42.6% via group work on the
blackboard; 96.4% via overhead transparencies; 83.7% via
the blackboard; 19.9% via on-line courses; and 79.1% via
video. Effectiveness was measured on a scale of 1-5 with 1
being strongly disagree, 3 being undecided, and 5 being
strongly agree. Modern teaching styles of PowerPoint and
video were shown to be significantly greater in the
effectiveness of teaching at a mean (M) of 3.84 (.731)

35
compared to traditional teaching styles (blackboard and
overhead transparencies) which resulted in a M of 3.21
(.777). The study also shows modern teaching styles were
utilized significantly less than “techno teaching styles2”
which are considered to be the use of a blackboard and online classes. The students thought they were gaining more
knowledge if the lecture was delivered via a PowerPoint
Presentation than techno style materials. The results also
showed the effectiveness of traditional styles were
significantly greater than the delivery of materials
through techno styles. The researchers feel students are
more comfortable with PowerPoint Presentations because of
both the visual graphics or videos and the written
information on the slides. Overall, students thought they
learned more from PowerPoint presentations and they were
shown to be slightly more effective than traditional
classroom styles.2
Bielefeldt3 did a two year correlational study that
provided information on classroom characteristics towards
technology use in the classroom. The characteristics
include how the teacher provides the lectures and the roles
of the instructors. Results were gathered through 144
classroom observations by three trained observers.
Observations were conducted through the ISTE Classroom

36
Observation Tool on classrooms in the United States that
were given technology grants for student and teacher use.
The observer would watch the class for engagement
throughout the lecture. If a student was not paying
attention for more than three minutes, the student would be
counted as not engaged with the lesson. Majority of
classrooms only had one or two students who were not
engaged with the lecture out of an average size class of
twenty-four. The three observers concluded that more
students are inclined to use technology individually
compared to the use of technology by teachers. With a
classroom of whole student participation, teachers were
more inclined to use technology. Overall, students were
more engaged with technology derived classrooms.3
Groves4 article provides information on five teachers
from New South Wales, Australia and how they came to
understand the changing of technology in the classroom.
Teaching experience ranged from three to twenty-four years
for these five teachers. They were to complete an
introductory situational analysis, a professional learning
session, three or more two hour sessions in class and a
debriefing afterwards. Data were collected through the
learning sessions listed above and observation of teaching,
interviews, and a group interview of the students. The data

37
showed writing and pedagogy changes within the classroom
texts since the integration of technology in the
traditional classroom. As for pedagogy changes, the data
showed two main ways to improve teacher use of technology:
teachers should work “at their own pace4” and talk with
colleagues about how they are integrating technology into
their classrooms. Writing among these teachers changed by
incorporating multimodal texts such as visual learning,
video and editing, designing activities or websites, and
using digital photos for learning purposes. In this study,
the main reason for changing teaching practices among these
teachers were conversations among colleagues.4 Another
article by Mitchell provides information on why teachers
should implement technology use in the classroom. Many
colleges use technology to increase the marketing of
students and the university; increase productivity of
students; increase cost effectiveness; and prepare students
for employment since some may have been limited to
traditional teaching materials.5

38
Technological Devices Impact on Students Behaviors,
Perceptions, and Characteristics

Technology had been added to the classroom as a way to
help improve student learning. Some researchers find the
change beneficial for the students learning environment and
the student’s academic scores.6-10 The next few articles
discuss researcher’s findings of students behaviors,
perceptions, and characteristics towards technology
integration in modern classrooms.
In Lavin’s6 study, the researchers provide information
on whether technology in the business classroom has
impacted the quality of learning for students through
surveying students behaviors and perceptions in a
Midwestern university. Students who were in a technology
driven classroom were surveyed about how they would feel if
they were switched to a traditional style of teaching and
vice versa for students who were in a traditional style
teaching setting. The survey consisted of demographic
questions; questions regarding technology using a five
point scale from one being “was significantly positive6”, 3
being “no difference6”, and 5 being “was significantly
negative6”. The results of approximately 550 surveys
concluded that taking technology out of the classroom would

39
cause a positive effect on how much students study for
class or exams, successfulness of note taking, attendance,
and how the students view their instructor’s lecture
effort. However, this study also showed if technology was
taken out of the classroom it would have a negative impact
on student learning specifically attentiveness, amount of
knowledge learned, and to take another class by same
instructor or in the same subject. A student would also
favor the course and instructor if technology was added to
a course. For a traditional style class, students said it
would be more beneficial to integrate technology for all
reasons except technology would have a negative impact for
interaction with teachers and taking more of the subject
courses. The time a student would study for class or exams,
note taking, attendance, and interaction with teacher in
and outside of class were neutral for both groups. Overall,
students had positive behaviors and perceptions if
technology is added to a traditional classroom. If
technology was taken away from technology driven
classrooms, students behaviors would not be affected.
Technology has a positive impact on students when they
learn, prepare for class, take better notes, attend more
classes, etc.6

40
In Perry’s7 study, they provide information gathered
through survey from 139 students in sciences classes. The
researchers wanted to assess the technological experience
level of each student and their opinions on how they feel
about technology being integrated into the classroom. The
survey consisted of demographic questions, computer usage
questions, and answers to questions after watching an
online program. Results showed 86% of students like
technology in the classroom and showed positive results
with watching and answering questions about the online
program.7 Another study by Baser8 shows a list the
perceptions of students towards the integration of
technology in the classroom. The researchers gathered
quantitative and qualitative data for this study from
junior high students. The survey consisted of demographic
questions, computer experience, opinions of computer usage,
and open-ended questions. Out of 189 participants, 63.5%
stated they have a computer at home; 50.8% of the
participants feel they are proficient at using a computer,
43.9% feel they are at an intermediate level and 5.3% are
novice; 85.2% use a computer for homework while 73.5% use
the computer for games; 84.1% stated they use the internet
for homework while 77.2% use the internet for fun. The
qualitative data showed 121 of the 189 students stated

41
using technology increases their academics and 156
participants believe teachers who use technology have a
positive effect towards students academics as well.8
The next two research articles show characteristics
and perceptions of technology added into the classroom.
Eastman’s9 article provides characteristics of business
student’s perceptions towards interactive technology. The
characteristics measured are if students are more engaged
with technology in the classroom; how well students
prepared before class; students attitude towards
technology; and if students are satisfied with technology
in the classroom. Results showed a positive relationship
between paying attention and a positive attitude; a
positive relationship between a positive attitude and
satisfaction; and no relationship between being prepared
because of technology and the students attitude.9
Vandewaetere’s10 study focuses on the perceptions of
students when adapting to technology in the classroom. The
researchers tried to show results of a mediational paradigm
but failed to do so. This study does show a relationship
between adaptively, perceptions, and motivations among
technology integrated into the classroom.10

42
iPads/Tablets in the Classroom

IPads and digital tables are the new way of the era.
The next few articles show the use of iPads and tablets in
the classroom for lectures. A few researchers provide
information on the enhancement of student performance after
the integration of technology in the classroom in the
following paragraphs.11-17
In Geist’s11 study, researchers examined the
practicality and efficacy of iPads for ten weeks in a
preparation class for senior level teachers. Preloaded
software was put onto the iPads. Teachers were to use the
iPads to access course materials (readings, videos, and
class system). Teachers were encouraged to use the iPads
for other classes, keep personal journals of the ten weeks,
and experiment with ways to integrate this device into the
classroom of their own. Results were taken by observations,
the ten week journals, and surveys. This study concluded
that teachers found iPads to be beneficial in the classroom
as e-readers and informative via the web during lectures.11
Saine’s12 study revealed information on iPods, iPads,
and SMARTBoards being integrated into the traditional
classroom. These technologies are improving the way
students engage in classroom work. Students are excited to

43
use these technologies in the classroom. Some teachers find
these technologies to help improve the creativity of
students thinking while others find technology to be a
great way to provide information to students in a fun and
exciting new way.12
Weisberg’s13 study provides collective feedback on
students, faculty, and administrative behaviors, attitudes,
and perceptions on digital textbooks (devices). This two
year study was conducted at Sawyer Business School at
Suffolk University. The students were broken into six
groups. Five groups were given technological devices while
one group was given regular textbooks. Results were
provided though quizzes, discussions, and journals
throughout the semester. Surveys were also given before and
after each semester. Students are accepting technology as
it is integrated into the classroom, however, there was no
significant difference in the devices and textbooks.13
In Crichton’s14 study, researchers show the
opportunities and challenges for students and teachers when
integrating handheld devices into the classroom. Results
were collected through surveys, developmental activities
every month with teachers, copies of the teacher’s lesson
plans, and class observations. With iPod Touch devices
added to the classroom, students would use them to listen

44
to podcasts, but insisted on using a laptop for the
internet, agendas, writing papers, etc. Prior to this
study, 60% had never used this device and 70% understood
how to use it within an hour. Most students preferred to
use technology in the classroom and now the study will
integrate the use of iPads into the classroom to see how
well students adapt to them.14
Murray’s15 article provides information on if iPad
devices will positively affect teaching and learning of K
through level 12 students. Even though the iPad only came
available for a few weeks previously, it had already sold 3
million units. The reasoning many believe for the iPad
being so popular so quickly can be linked to the same
applications as the iPhone and iPod Touch. This article
mainly focuses on the applications of the iPad that can be
used in a classroom setting and if these applications are
able to allow certain styles of teaching that other
traditional techniques could not.15 Another article that
describes how technology should be used for teaching is
Hill’s16 article. It provides background information on how
iPads, Personal Digital Assistants, and Smart Phones can be
integrated into the classroom to improve educational
lectures. Since technology in the classroom is the new
style of teaching, teachers should be educated on how to

45
include technological devices such as the ones listed above
into lectures, assignments, and creative projects.16
Enriquez’s17 study provides information on how teachers
can enhance classroom learning by integrating tablet PC’s
and other wireless technological devices into lectures. It
shows how teachers can provide a more interactive
classroom, improve learning, and provide feedback with the
use of technology. Results from surveys show positive
student perceptions of technology integration. This had led
researchers to believe technology would be better used in
problem-solving courses compared to traditional
classrooms.17

PowerPoint Presentations in the Classroom

The following articles demonstrate results that
correspond with the purpose of this study: information on
the effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the
classroom. In Lai’s18 study, students found PowerPoint
presentations with annotations were helpful in the
classroom. 170 students were subject to both PowerPoint
presentations with annotations and a lecture with a
whiteboard. Majority of students learned the information
better since the lecture included both verbal and graphical

46
visuals. A survey showed PowerPoint presentations allowed
the students to better interpret the lecture rather than a
lecture that consisted of a whiteboard full of notes.18
In Bartsch’s19 study, the researchers gathered
information on whether students would choose PowerPoint
presentations over traditional overhead transparencies and
if they received better grades after sitting through
lectures from these presentations. The thirty-nine students
in a Social Psychology class sat through different
presentations (transparencies, basic PowerPoint, and
expanded PowerPoint) throughout the semester. Each type of
presentation was used many times to decrease bias. Since
PowerPoint presentations were new at the time of this
study, to decrease bias from students choosing PowerPoint
presentations over overhead transparencies because they
were different, the researchers gave PowerPoint lectures to
students all semester. Results were gathered from each
students quiz at the end of each unit; an anonymous survey
from 1-9 (1 – learned nothing, 5 –learned some information,
9- learned a large amount of information); and a survey
rating 1-9 (1- Strongly Disagree, 5- Neutral, 9- Strongly
Agree) on how the students liked each presentation. This
study showed students preferred and felt like they learned
more from PowerPoint lectures compared to transparencies.

47
However, students did 10% worse on the quizzes after given
an expanded PowerPoint presentation compared to
transparencies and basic PowerPoint presentations.19
In Burke’s20 study, the researchers surveyed the
effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations versus the
traditional classroom lectures. Out of 262 participants,
230 surveys were used in this study. The survey consisted
of Likert-type questions pertaining to the effectiveness of
the presentation such as whether the student understood the
lecture; interactions in the classroom (burnout, talking to
others, attention spans, motivation, behaviors, attitudes,
talking notes, etc.); and the material presented in the
presentations. Results showed that more students feel
PowerPoint presentations provide a better cognitive
learning and positive perceptions of influence compared to
during traditional lectures.20
The use of a blackboard in the classroom is a great
way to deliver information and keep up with the instructor.
However, writing on the blackboard takes up a lot of time
and limits ways to present the information.21 Instructors
found a better way to decrease time spent on creating
presentations and delivering more information and visuals
to the class through PowerPoint presentations. This frees
up the teachers time from writing on the board to

48
interacting with the students. It also is easily stored,
reusable, and provides pictures, graphs, texts, sounds,
etc. that corresponds with the lecture. The effectiveness
of PowerPoint lectures in the classroom seems to be favored
by students. However, even though students feel they learn
better or like PowerPoint presentations better, in
Bartsch’s study, majority of students scored less on the
PowerPoint lecture quizzes.19 PowerPoint lectures are known
to be a great tool to deliver verbal and visual displays in
the classroom19, but more studies should be conducted to
better understand why students prefer PowerPoint lectures
but seem to lack interpreting this information.

Podcasts in the Classroom

Podcasting was founded in 2003 after the creation of
the iPod by Apple Inc.22 It was first used in Willowdale
Elementary School in Nebraska by students for art history.
It is now used in the classroom as a way to relay messages
by recording their voice and/or typing a text message.
Podcasting shows discipline-based reading, writing, and
research. It allows the student to edit, orally read to
student or record a presentation, learn new technology, and
increase problem solving and creative thinking.22

49
Hew’s23 article provides information on the most common
uses of the Podcast in K-12 and higher levels in school.
The article breaks it down into three categories the
researchers gathered information about: how participants
were using podcasts; effects of using podcasts for
learning; and how podcasts influenced participants
learning. The most common uses of the podcast were students
listening to lectures from professors or to review material
on their own time. Another plus with the podcast is
students can replay specific parts of the lecture that they
missed at any time.23
In Beard’s24 study, fifty nursing students were
selected for this study on whether podcasts or regular
textbook reading met learning objectives. The students were
to read a chapter and listen to the podcast within one week
before attending class. Once students attended class, they
were asked to complete a seven question pretest on the
material. After completing the pretest survey, the
instructor read aloud a similar material on the same topic
and a thirty minute discussion. The students were then
given a posttest to complete which was the same pretest.
Results were shown by a paired-samples t test to compare
the two styles of teaching. Even though students scored
better after reading aloud and taking part in the

50
discussion, 80% of students preferred the podcast lecture
over the textbook. However, only nine students actually
listened to the podcast within the week.24
Bartlett’s25 article provides background information
and how podcasts can be used in the classroom. There are
applications that can be downloaded for each subject in
school. When it comes to reading, the podcasts allow
students to portray a story through the authors’ voice and
tone. Examples of how to integrate podcasts into the
classroom other than lectures could be for teachers to
assign students to create their own podcasts for projects.
Podcasts are a way to deliver information and a way for
students to show their artistic side.25

Summary

In closing, the previous research has provided
information on how technological devices can be used in the
classroom through many different techniques. Learning in
the classroom can be enhanced using more teachers providing
lectures through these technological devices and programs.125

Technology integration among traditional style classrooms

has shown to be beneficial among students and instructors.125

Of course, technology also had its downfalls, but

51
overall the perceptions, behaviors, and characteristics of
students were positive towards technological devices having
been integrated into the classroom.6-10 Overall, the
researcher’s showed studies that can be examined to
determine if technology integration was effective in
teaching methods.

52

APPENDIX B
The Problem

53
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of the study is to examine the
effectiveness of iPad use after being integrated into a
traditional classroom. It is important to examine this
relationship because technology among the classroom is
popular in this era. More instructors are integrating
technology to create more interesting lectures by using
visual graphics, sounds, etc. Additionally it would be
beneficial for instructors to know if integrating
technology in the classroom is effective in students’
knowledge of the lecture and satisfaction of using iPads
and its associated programs.

Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms will be defined for
this study:
1)

iPad – released by Apple Computer, Inc. in 2010.26

It

provides the following features: multi-touch
interface, multimedia processing, virtual keyboard,
iBook application, and other applications used by the
iPhone.26
2)

PowerPoint – an application, released by Microsoft,
used to create presentation slides.27

54
3)

Podcast – a digital audio recording that can be played
or downloaded over the computer.28

4)

Application – computer programs used on the iPads.
Software programs used as tools29 to complete a
project, gain knowledge, etc.

Basic Assumptions
The following are basic assumptions of this study:
1)

The subjects will be honest when they complete their
demographic sheets.

2)

The subjects will be honest when they complete their
satisfaction survey.

3)

The subjects will follow along on the iPad without
being distracted with applications that do not relate
to the study.

4)

The subjects will have experience using PowerPoint
presentations.

Limitations of the Study
The following are possible limitations of the study:
1)

The validity of the technology satisfaction survey has
not been established.

2)

Subjects may be distracted during lecture with other
applications that do not coincide with this study.

55
3)

Amount of subjects that will volunteer and fully
complete the survey.

Significance of the Study
This study will show results of student’s satisfaction
and perceived effectiveness of iPad integration. It will
also show if students are satisfied with iPad use among the
classroom. This study is important to the field of teaching
to determine if students are satisfied with iPad
integration and to determine how students perceive the
effectiveness of iPad use.

56

APPENDIX C
Additional Methods

57

Appendix C1
iPad Integration Survey

58
SURVEY
Demographic Questions:
1.
Are you male or female?
_____ Male
_____ Female
2.

What is your age?

_______
3.
Approximately, how many credit hours have you
completed at this undergraduate institution?
_______
4.

What is your major?

______ Athletic Training Education Program
______ Physical Therapy Assistant
______ Other

Informative Questions:
1. In general, how much experience do you have utilizing
technology in daily life?
a. Far below average
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Above average
e. Proficient
2. In general, how much experience do you have utilizing
technology in the classroom?
a. Far below average
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Above average
e. Proficient

59
3. Do you own or have consistent access to an iPad? If
yes, answer #4 and 5. If no, skip to #6.
_______
4. How much experience do you have with iPads?
a. Far below average
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Above average
e. Proficient
5. How often do you utilize the iPad in daily life?
a. 1-2 times a day
b. 3-4 times a day
c. 5-6 times a day
d. More than 6 times a day
6. How much experience do you have utilizing educational
applications for iPads, iPhones, iPods?
a. Far below average
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Above average
e. Proficient
7. How much experience do you have utilizing PowerPoint
Presentations?
a. Far below average
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Above average
e. Proficient
Technology Integration
Please rate the following course applications as you used
them in collaboration with the iPad.
iBook
How often have you used the iBook in class during the
length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

60
How often have you used the iBook outside of class during
the length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

PowerPoint Lecture
How often have you used the PowerPoint lecture in class
during the length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

How often have you used the PowerPoint lecture outside of
class during the length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

Educational Applications
How often have you used applications in class during the
length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

How often have you used applications outside of class
during the length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

61
Educational Web Links
How often have you used web links in class during the
length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

How often have you used web links outside of class during
the length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

Educational Videos
How often have you used videos in class during the length
of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

How often have you used videos outside of class during the
length of the study
1
1 time

2

3

4

2 times

3 times

4 times

5
5 or more times

Satisfaction: Please rate the following questions on how
satisfied you were with iPad use in the classroom when
compared with the class sessions without iPads. Please
rate the questions by using the scale provided below.
1 - Not at all satisfied
2 - Slightly satisfied

62
3 - Somewhat satisfied
4 - Very satisfied
5 - Extremely satisfied
1. How satisfied were you with your course before the
integration of the iPad?
2. How satisfied were you with your course after the
integration of the iPad?
3. How satisfied were you with using the applications on
the iPad?
4. How satisfied were you with the material presented on
the iPad?
5. How satisfied were you with the iBook application on
the iPad?
6. How satisfied were you with the use of videos in the
iBook?
7. How satisfied were you with the use of web links in
the iBook?
8. Overall, how satisfied were you with the integration
of the iPad in the course lecture?

Valuable: Please rate the following questions on how
valuable they were to your learning during iPad use in the
classroom when compared with the class sessions without
iPads. Please rate the questions by using the scale
provided below.
1 - Not at all valuable
2 - Slightly valuable
3 - Somewhat valuable
4 - Very valuable
5 - Extremely valuable
1. How valuable
course?
2. How valuable
3. How valuable
4. How valuable

was the integration of the iPad for this
were the applications on the iPad?
was the material presented on the iPad?
was the iBook application on the iPad?

63
5. How valuable were the videos in the iBook?
6. How valuable were the web links in the iBook?
7. How valuable would a course over 15 weeks be if it
utilized iPads?
8. Overall, how valuable was the integration of the iPad
in the course lecture?

Please rate the following on the below scale.
1

2

3

4

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

5
Strongly agree

1. IPad integration enhanced my ability to learn.
2. IPad integration helped me learn the material more in
depth.
3. IPad integration distracted me from the lectured
materials.
4. IPad integration increased the quantity of notes I
took.
5. IPad integration increased the quality of notes I
took.
6. I was more attentive for this course after iPad
integration.
7. I had more interaction with the instructor due to iPad
integration.
8. I have a desire to take additional courses that are
associated with iPad use.
9. IPad integration has made learning the material
easier.
10. IPad use in the classroom will help me better prepare
for exams.
11.Ipad use outside of the classroom will help me better
prepare for exams.
12.IPad use should continue to be used in this course.
13.IPad use should be integrated into other courses.
14.Overall, I am pleased with the integrations of iPads
into the classroom.

64

Comments
What recommendations do you have to improve the utilization
and usefulness of iPads in the classroom?

65

APPENDIX C2
IRB: California University of Pennsylvania

66
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP,Chair
Dear Ms. Edgar:
Please consider this email as official notification
that your proposal titled "Effectiveness and Satisfaction
of iPad Integration in the Undergraduate Classroom”
(Proposal #12-034) has been approved by the California
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board, with
the following stipulations:
-- In section 12 of the consent form, text equivalent to
“and all data will be discarded” must be included in the
description of discontinuation of participation in the
study.
Once you have amended the consent form, you may immediately
begin data collection. You do not need to wait for further
IRB approval. At your earliest convenience, you must
forward a copy of the consent form for the Board’s records.
The effective date of the approval is 2/14/13 and the
expiration date is 2/15/14. These dates must appear on the
consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify
the IRB promptly regarding any of the following:
(1)Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish
for your study (additions or changes must be approved by
the IRB before they are implemented)
(2)Any events that affect the safety or well-being of
subjects
(3)Any modifications of your study or other responses that
are necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4)To continue your research beyond the approval expiration
date of 2/15/14 you must file additional information to
be considered for continuing review. Please contact
instreviewboard@cup.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Chair, Institutional Review Board

67

APPENDIX C3
Picture Examples of iBook Author

68

69

REFERENCES

1.

D’Angelo JM, Woosley SA. Technology in the classroom:
friend or foe. Education [serial online].
2007;127(4):462-271.

2.

Lavin AM, Korte L, Davies TL. The impact of classroom
technology on student behavior. Journal of Technology
Research [serial online]. 2010; 2:1-13.

3.

Geist E. The game changer: using ipads in college
teacher education classes. College Student Journal
[serial online]. 2011; 45(4):758-769.

4.

Weisberg M. Student attitudes and behaviors towards
digital textbooks. Publishing Research
Quarterly[serial online]. 2011;27(2):188-196.

5.

Crichton S, Stuewe N, Pegler K, White D. Personal
devices in public settings: lessons learned from an
iPod touch/iPad project. Proceedings of the
International Conference on e-Learning [serial
online]. 2011; 77-83.

6.

Bartsch RA, Cobern KM. Effectiveness of powerpoint
presentations in lectures. Computers and Education
[serial online]. 2003;41:77-86.

7.

iBooks Author. Apple Inc. 2013. Available at:
http://www.apple.com/ibooks-author/. Accessed January
5, 2013.

8.

Pilgrim J, Bledsoe C, Reily S. New Technologies in the
Classroom. [serial online]. 2012; 78(4):16-22.

9.

D’Angelo JM, Woosley SA. Technology in the classroom:
friend or foe. Education [serial online].
2007;127(4):462-271.

10.

Bielefeldt T. Guidance for technology decisions from
classroom observation. Journal of Research on

70

11.

Technology in Education [serial online]. 2012; 44(3):
205-223.
Groves CE. Interactive creative technologies: changing
learning practices and pedagogies in the writing
classroom. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy
[serial online]. 2012; 35(1):99-113.

12.

Mitchell RG. Planning for instructional technology in
the classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges
[serial online]. 2011; 154:45-52.

13.

Lavin AM, Korte L, Davies TL. The impact of classroom
technology on student behavior. Journal of Technology
Research [serial online]. 2010; 2:1-13.

14.

Perry AL, Cunningham LD, Gamage JK. Computer
technology in the classroom: do students really like
it. International Journal of Instructional Media
[serial online]. 2012; 39(1):17-24.

15.

Baser VG, Mutlu N, Sendurur P, Sendurur E. Perceptions
of students about technology integration. E-Journal of
New World Sciences Academy [serial online]. 2012;
7(2):591-598.

16.

Eastman JK, Iyer R, Eastman KL. Business student’s
perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction with
interactive technology: an exploratory study. Journal
of Education for Business [serial online]. 2011;
86(1):36-43.

17.

Vandewaetere M, Vandercruysse S, Clarebout G.
Learners’ perceptions and illusions of adaptivity in
computer-based learning environments. Educational
Technology Research & Development [serial online].
2012; 60(2):307-324.

18.

Geist E. The game changer: using ipads in college
teacher education classes. College Student Journal
[serial online]. 2011; 45(4):758-769.

19.

Saine P. iPods, iPads, and the SMARTBoard:
transforming literacy instruction and student
learning. New England Reading Association Journal
[serial online]. 2012;47(2):74-79.

71
20.

Weisberg M. Student attitudes and behaviors towards
digital textbooks. Publishing Research
Quarterly[serial online]. 2011;27(2):188-196.

21.

Crichton S, Stuewe N, Pegler K, White D. Personal
devices in public settings: lessons learned from an
iPod touch/iPad project. Proceedings of the
International Conference on e-Learning [serial
online]. 2011; 77-83.

22.

Murray O, Olcese N. Teaching and learning with iPads,
ready or not. Tech Trends[serial online]. 2011; 55(6):
42-48.

23.

Hill RA. Mobile digital devices. Teacher Librarian
[serial online]. 2011; 39(1):22-26.

24.

Enriquez AG. Enhancing student performance using
tablet computers. College Teaching [serial online].
2010; 58(3):77-84.

25.

Lai YS, Tsai HH, Yu PT. Integrating annotations into a
dual-slide powerpoint presentation for classroom
learning. Educational Technology & Society [serial
online]. 2011;14(2):43-57.

26.

Bartsch RA, Cobern KM. Effectiveness of powerpoint
presentations in lectures. Computers and Education
[serial online]. 2003;41:77-86.

27.

Burke LA, James KE. Powerpoint-based lectures in
business education: an empirical investigation of
student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business
Communication Quarterly [serial online].
2008;71(3):277-296.

28.

Lai YS, Tsai HH, Yu PT. Screen-capturing system with
two-layer display for powerpoint presentation to
enhance classroom education. Educational Technology &
Society [serial online]. 2011;14(3):69-81.

29.

Riddle, J. Podcasting in the classroom: a sound
success. MultiMedia & Internet at Schools[serial
online]. 2010; 17(1):23-26.

30.

Hew K. Use of audio podcast in k-12 and higher
education: a review of research topics and

72
methodologies. Educational Technology Research &
Development [serial online]. 2009;57(3):333-357.
31.

Beard K, Morote ES. Using podcasts with narrative
pedagogy: are learning objects met. Nursing Educaton
Perspectives[serial online]. 2010; 31(3): 186-187.

32.

Bartlett M. A voice in the world: podcasts and the
classroom. Scientific Education [serial online]. 2012;
64:66-70.

33.

Dictionary.com, "iPad," in The Free On-line Dictionary
of Computing. Source location: Denis Howe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iPad.
Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed:
November 23, 2012.

34.

Dictionary.com, "powerpoint," in The Free On-line
Dictionary of Computing. Source location: Denis Howe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/powerpoint.
Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed:
November 23, 2012.

35.

Dictionary.com, "podcast," in The Free On-line
Dictionary of Computing. Source location: Denis Howe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/podcast.
Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed:
November 23, 2012.

36.

Dictionary.com, "application," in The Free On-line
Dictionary of Computing. Source location: Denis Howe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/application.
Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed:
November 23, 2012.

73
Abstract

TITLE:

EFFECTIVENESS AND SATISFACTION OF IPAD
INTEGRATION IN THE UNDERGRADUATE CLASSROOM

RESEARCHER:

Teresa Edgar, ATC

ADVISOR:

Thomas F. West, PhD, ATC

CONTEXT:

Technology is utilized in the majority of
the classrooms today; however, there is
limited research on whether technology is
effective in delivering the lectured
materials.

OBJECTIVE:

This study examined the perceived
effectiveness of iPad integration in the
traditional classroom through a survey
pertaining to satisfaction, value, and
general effectiveness of utilizing the
iPads.

DESIGN:

Descriptive survey.

SETTING:

Anatomy and Physiology II course at
California University of Pennsylvania.
Patients or Other Participants: 15 out of
approximately 120 undergraduate health
science students from a stratified sample
(Gender=2 males, 10 females; Major=9
athletic training education program, 3
physical therapist assistant program;
age=22.5±4.94; completed credit
hours=29.9±20.42).

INTERVENTIONS: Once majors were determined for each subject
in the course, participants were randomly
chosen from health science majors at this
university. Participants received an email
with the informed consent form and
information pertaining to this research.
Subjects utilized iPads during each lecture
for 2.5 weeks. A hard copy survey pertaining
to the satisfaction value, and effectiveness
of iPad integration in the traditional style

74
classroom was distributed to each
participant. The participants had one week
after the length of the study to complete
the entire survey. A paired-samples t test
was conducted to compare the mean
satisfaction score before and after iPad
integration in the undergraduate classroom.
Value was determined by gathering
frequencies of how valuable the subjects
found iPad use in the classroom.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Respondents will answer Likert style
questions pertaining to satisfaction, value,
and general effectiveness of iPad
integration.
RESULTS:

12 out of 15 completed surveys concluded no
significant difference was found for both
hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 found (t(11) =
.886, p>.05). Hypothesis 2 found 9.1% of
students did not find the iPad to be
valuable at all. However, 45.5% found the
iPad to be very valuable in the classroom.
A statistical test was not run due to the
limited number of participants. Additional
results were found for satisfaction, value,
and general questions pertaining to
effectiveness of iPad integration.

CONCLUSION:

This study found there to be no significant
effect of iPad integration on satisfaction
or value. However, the study did find trends
in the data that majority of students found
the iPads to be valuable and somewhat
effective in the classroom when individual
question responses are examined.

WORD COUNT:

398