Advertisement

A Critical Literature Review of Perceptions of Tablets for Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools

  • Julie MuletEmail author
  • Cécile van de Leemput
  • Franck Amadieu
REVIEW ARTICLE

Abstract

There is growing interest in the use of tablets in classrooms, and educational policies from different countries promote their integration. Previous literature reviews were conducted on the effects of the use of tablets in learning. There is, however, a strong need to understand how students perceive the use of tablets for learning as these perceptions determine the adoption, use and, thereby, the value of tablets for learning. Thus, the purpose of this article is to systematically review the existing literature on students’ perceptions toward the use of tablets in primary and secondary schools. The literature search selected 41 relevant qualitative and quantitative studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Their results and methodological aspects were analyzed and discussed. Overall, the results showed that students have rather good perceptions of the use of tablets, though some limitations were highlighted, particularly in the qualitative studies. Moreover, this review highlighted the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methods. Finally, educational implications and recommendations for further research were discussed.

Keywords

Acceptance Critical review Learning Perceptions Primary and secondary school Tablet 

Notes

Funding Information

This study was supported by the research project LETACOP founded by the ANR (National Research Agency) – ANR-14-CE24-0032.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033. Google Scholar
  3. Amadieu, F., Pecoste, C., Mariné, C., van de Leemput, C., & Lescarret, C. (2016). Effects of studying tasks compatibility with tablets on their acceptance: how experienced tasks with tablets can modify perceptions of tablets.. In F. M. Mendes Neto, R. de Souza, & A. S. Gomes (Eds.), Handbook of research on 3-D virtual environments and hypermedia for ubiquitous learning (pp. 338–361). IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0125-1.ch014.
  4. Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Simon, B., Wolfman, S., VanDeGrift, T., & Yasuhara, K. (2004). Experiences with a tablet PC based lecture presentation system in computer science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 56.  https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971323.Google Scholar
  5. Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 503–509). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd..  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26099-6.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.Google Scholar
  7. Cacciamani, S., Villani, D., Bonanomi, A., Carissoli, C., Olivari, M. G., Morganti, L., Riva, G., & Confalonieri, E. (2018). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of tablet PCs: a study in Italian high schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1409672.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, H. (2010). Task-technology fit and user acceptance of online auction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 69–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.010.Google Scholar
  9. Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers in Education, 63, 160–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003.Google Scholar
  10. Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12036.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, L., & Abbott, L. (2016). Young pupils’, their teacher’s and classroom assistants’ experiences of iPads in a Northern Ireland school: “four and five years old, who would have thought they could do that?”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1051–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12266.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2014). An updated literature review on the use of tablets in education. Family Kids & Youth. Retrieved from http://www.tabletsforschools.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/T4S-Literature-Review-9-4-14.pdf
  13. Courtois, C., Montrieux, H., De Grove, F., Raes, A., De Marez, L., & Schellens, T. (2014). Student acceptance of tablet devices in secondary education: a three-wave longitudinal cross-lagged case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.017.Google Scholar
  14. Çukurbaşi, B., Işbulan, O., & Kiyici, M. (2016). Acceptance of educational use of tablet computers: a critical view of the FATIH Project. Ted Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(188), 67–82.  https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2016.6621.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.Google Scholar
  16. Dündar, H., & Akçayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: the effect on learners’ reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441–450 Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/188.Google Scholar
  17. Dündar, H., & Akçayir, M. (2014). Implementing tablet PCs in schools: students’ attitudes and opinions. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 40–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.020.Google Scholar
  18. Duran, M., & Aytaç, T. (2016). Students’ opinions on the use of tablet computers in education. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 65–75.  https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2016.15.65.Google Scholar
  19. Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Fekonja-Peklaj, U., & Marjanovič-Umek, L. (2015). Positive and negative aspects of the IWB and tablet computers in the first grade of primary school: a multiple-perspective approach. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6), 996–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.974592.Google Scholar
  21. Ferguson, J. M. (2017). Middle school students’ reactions to a 1:1 iPad initiative and a paperless curriculum. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1149–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9480-2.Google Scholar
  22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Fokides, E., & Mastrokoukou, A. (2018). Results from a study for teaching human body systems to primary school students using tablets. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), 154–170.  https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.414808.Google Scholar
  24. Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: a comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189–201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12071.Google Scholar
  25. Gokcearslan, S. (2017). Perspectives of students on acceptance of tablets and self-directed learning with technology. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(1), 40–55 Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/81/813.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Golub, E. (2004). Handwritten slides on a tabletPC in a discrete mathematics course. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ‘04 (p. 51). New York, USA: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971322.
  27. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249689.Google Scholar
  28. Görhan, M. F., Öncü, S., & Şentürk, A. (2014). Tablets in education: outcome expectancy and anxiety of middle school students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(6), 2259–2271.  https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2230.Google Scholar
  29. Güngören, Ö. C., Bektaş, M., Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2014). Acceptence of TPC scale—validity and reliability study. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 69–79.  https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3497.Google Scholar
  30. Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139–156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12123.Google Scholar
  31. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: a review. Computers in Education, 90, 36–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005.Google Scholar
  32. Horzum, M. B., Öztürk, E., Bektaş, M., Güngören, Ö. C., & Cakir, Ö. (2014). Secondary school students tablet computer acceptance and readiness: a structural equation modelling. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 81–94.  https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3500.
  33. Huang, Y. M., Shadiev, R., Sun, A., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2017). A study of the cognitive diffusion model: facilitating students’ high level cognitive processes with authentic support. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 505–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9475-0.Google Scholar
  34. Hwang, W.-Y., Shadiev, R., Tseng, C.-W., & Huang, Y.-M. (2015). Exploring effects of multi-touch tabletop on collaborative fraction learning and the relationship of learning behavior and interaction with learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 459–473 Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/18_4/35.pdf.Google Scholar
  35. Hyppa-Martin, J., Collins, D., Chen, M., Amundson, C., Timinski, K., & Mizuko, M. (2016). Comparing first graders’ attitudes and preferences toward a peer using an iPad®-based speech-generating device and a non-electronic AAC system. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(2), 94–104.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2016.1146332.Google Scholar
  36. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: the teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.004.Google Scholar
  37. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2016). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(4), 306–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1215172.Google Scholar
  38. Kaman, S., & Ertem, I. S. (2018). The effect of digital texts on primary students’ comprehension, fluency, and attitude. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 76, 147–164.  https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.76.8.Google Scholar
  39. Keane, T., Lang, C., & Pilgrim, C. (2013). Pedagogy! iPadology! Netbookology! Learning with mobile devices. Australian Educational Computing, 27(2), 29–33 Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/pj/journal/27_2Pedagogy_iPadology_Netbookology_p29.pdf.Google Scholar
  40. Keskin, N. O., & Metcalf, D. (2011). The current perspectives, theories and practices of mobile learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 202–208 Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/articles/v10i2/10220.pdf.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, H. J., & Jang, H. Y. (2015). Factors influencing students’ beliefs about the future in the context of tablet-based interactive classrooms. Computers in Education, 89, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.014.Google Scholar
  42. Kontkanen, S., Dillon, P., Valtonen, T., Eronen, L., Koskela, H., & Väisänen, P. (2017). Students’ experiences of learning with iPads in upper secondary school—a base for proto-TPACK. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1299–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9496-7.Google Scholar
  43. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers in Education, 60(1), 14–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015.Google Scholar
  44. Lin, C. (2014). Learning English reading in a mobile-assisted extensive reading program. Computers & Education, 78, 48–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.004.Google Scholar
  45. Lin, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:M CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x.Google Scholar
  46. Ling, G. (2016). Does it matter whether one takes a test on an iPad or a desktop computer? International Journal of Testing, 16(4), 352–377.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2016.1160097.Google Scholar
  47. Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00976.x.Google Scholar
  48. Mahlke, S., & Thüring, M. (2007). Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2007 (pp. 915–918). San Jose, California: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240762.Google Scholar
  49. Maio, G. R., Haddock, G., & Verplanken, B. (2018). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.Google Scholar
  51. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.Google Scholar
  52. Montrieux, H., Courtois, C., De Grove, F., Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Marez, L. (2014). Mobile learning in secondary education: teachers’ and students’ perceptions and acceptance of tablet computers. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(2), 26–40.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2014040103.Google Scholar
  53. Montrieux, H., Raes, A., & Schellens, T. (2017). ‘The best app is the teacher’ introducing classroom scripts in technology-enhanced education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12177.Google Scholar
  54. Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). IPads in higher education—hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190–203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12137.Google Scholar
  55. Norqvist, L. (2016). Learning, tablet, culture—coherence? Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1306–1318.  https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040608.Google Scholar
  56. Ozdamli, F., & Tavukcu, T. (2016). Determination of secondary school students’ attitudes towards tablet PC supported education. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  57. Pamuk, S., Ergun, M., Çakir, R., Yilmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). The use of tablet PC and interactive board from the perspectives of teachers and students: evaluation of the Fati̇h project. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1815–1822.  https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1734.Google Scholar
  58. Park, S. Y., Nam, M.-W., & Cha, S.-B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x.Google Scholar
  59. Peng, H., Su, Y. J., Chou, C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 171–183.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290902843828.Google Scholar
  60. Prince, J. (2017). English language learners in a digital classroom. CATESOL Journal, 29(1), 51–73 Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1144336.Google Scholar
  61. Pruet, P., Ang, C. S., & Farzin, D. (2015). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1131–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.063.Google Scholar
  62. Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. In A. Ferligoj & A. Mrvar (Eds.), Developments in applied statistics (pp. 159–177). Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.Google Scholar
  63. Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, Y. M., & Liu, T. Y. (2017). Cognitive diffusion model: facilitating EFL learning in an authentic environment. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(2), 168–181.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2574356.Google Scholar
  64. Sharples, M., Sánchez, I. A., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233–249). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Simon, B., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., & Su, J. (2004). Preliminary experiences with a tablet PC based system to support active learning in computer science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 213–217.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1007996.1008053.Google Scholar
  66. Soffer, T., & Yaron, E. (2017). Perceived learning and students’ perceptions toward using tablets for learning: the mediating role of perceived engagement among high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 951–973.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117689892.Google Scholar
  67. Sommerich, C. M., Ward, R., Sikdar, K., Payne, J., & Herman, L. (2007). A survey of high school students with ubiquitous access to tablet PCs. Ergonomics, 50(5), 706–727.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701194793.Google Scholar
  68. Soykan, E. (2015). Views of students’, teachers’ and parents’ on the tablet computer usage in education. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(3), 228.  https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v1i1.68.Google Scholar
  69. Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: the role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005.Google Scholar
  70. Tay, H. Y. (2016). Longitudinal study on impact of iPad use on teaching and learning. Cogent Education, 3(1).  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1127308.
  71. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144.Google Scholar
  72. Teo, T. (2010). The development, validation, and analysis of measurement invariance of the Technology Acceptance Measure for Preservice Teachers (TAMPST). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 990–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410378087.Google Scholar
  73. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2008). Development and validation of a computer attitude measure for young students (CAMYS). Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2659–2667.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.006.Google Scholar
  74. Trudel, L., Simard, C., & Vonarx, N. (2007). La recherche qualitative est-elle nécessairement inductive? Recherches Qualitatives, Hors Série(5), 26–37. Retrieved from http://www.recherche-qualitative.qc.ca/documents/files/revue/hors_serie/hors_serie_v5/anadon.pdf
  75. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Ben Allouch, S., & Ruijter, L. P. (2016). Tablet use in primary education: adoption hurdles and attitude determinants. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 971–990.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9363-3.
  76. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.Google Scholar
  77. Villani, D., Morganti, L., Carissoli, C., Gatti, E., Bonanomi, A., Cacciamani, S., Confalonieri, E., & Riva, G. (2018). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs in Italian high schools: profiles and differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 533–544.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12591.Google Scholar
  78. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.Google Scholar
  79. Wu, W. H., Jim Wu, Y. C., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: a meta-analysis. Computers in Education, 59(2), 817–827.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016.Google Scholar
  80. Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2004). It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(03)00062-9.Google Scholar
  81. Yanikoglu, B., Gogus, A., & Inal, E. (2017). Use of handwriting recognition technologies in tablet-based learning modules for first grade education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1369–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9532-3.Google Scholar
  82. Zubković, B. R., Kolić-Vehovec, S., Maglica, B. K., Smojver-Ažić, S., & Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2016). Attitudes of students and parents towards ict with regard to the experience of using the ipad in classroom. Suvremena Psihologija, 19(1), 37–47.  https://doi.org/10.21465/2016-SP-191-03.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CLLE, CNRS, UT2JUniversity of ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychological Science and Education, Research Center for Work and Consumer PsychologyUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations