8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 1/14

Lesson s and Dilem m as :

Im plement ing and Evaluating aCo lleg e-Wid e iPad Pro ject

Presenters Charles Timothy (Tim) Dickel, EdD

AndMaya M. Khanna, PhD

Creighton University

EDUCAUSE –

ConnectChicago, IllinoisMarch 18, 2014

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 2/14

PROJECT OVERVIEW • November 2011 : AVP and Director of Undergraduate

Admissions believe an iPad Program in the Collegeof Arts and Sciences will make the institution more

attractive to potential students and their families.• December 2011 : An associate dean of the College isasked to direct the project, and Dickel and Khannaare invited to a meeting to discuss how to evaluatethe proposed project. Freshmen entering the Collegein the fall of 2012 will be encouraged to bring aniPad.

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 3/14

Question 1

How would you suggestapproaching this challenge, given

your role at your college oruniversity?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 4/14

Question 2

How would you implement this projectacross a undergraduate college of

2500 students?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 5/14

Question 3

What would you do to attractfaculty involvement in thisproject?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 6/14

Question 4

How would you prepare recruitedfaculty to teach using an iPad?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 7/14

Question 5

What would you suggest as theoutcomes for this program?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 8/14

Question 6

How would you evaluate thisproject across a undergraduate

college of 2500 students?

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 9/14

Student Learning Data

Comparing iPad and Non-iPad Course Deliveries

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 10/14

Faculty Response toPre/Post Content

Assessment • Non-iPad Sections: 238 out of 687

students completed both the pre- andpost-test sets.

• iPad Sections: 174 out of 198 studentscompleted both the pre- and post-test

sets.

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 11/14

Content Assessments

• We asked each instructor to design anexam that would gauge students ’ understanding of the mostcentral/important content from theircourse.

• We asked that they use a 25 multiple-choice question exam.

• There was some variability in the type of

assessments that instructors designed.

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 12/14

Pre/Post Content

Assessment • Instructors submitted student scores on the

pre- and post-tests.

• We calculated the proportion correct for eachstudent respondent.

• Non-iPad Sections: 238 out of 687 studentscompleted both the pre- and post-test sets.

• iPad Sections: 174 out of 198 studentscompleted both the pre- and post-test sets.

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 13/14

Analyses of Pre/Post Sets • For the analyses, we used only the

participants with both pre- and post-test

available• We conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA

using time of test (pre vs. post) as a within-participants variable and mode ofinstruction(iPad section vs. non-iPad section)as a between-participants variable(participants are the students).

8/12/2019 Effective Deployment of Tablets and iPads: Lessons Learned (211666656)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effective-deployment-of-tablets-and-ipads-lessons-learned-211666656 14/14

Comparison of iPad and

Non-iPad Deliveries There was an interaction

between time of test and iPaduse ( F (1,390) = 17.14, p = .000.

There was a main effect ofTime of Test, F (1,390) =888.9, p = .000.

There was a marginal effectof instruction mode on testscores ( F (1,390) = 2.86, p =.093)

30.62 37.85

68.024 66.04

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ipad Sections Non-iPad Sections