Principles of Learning:

My Journey So Far
(Analysis and Synthesis)
Warren Griffiths
100388318
University of Ontario Institute of Technology

!2
Personal Background
Montcrest School is a Toronto based independent school of 350 students, from junior
kindergarten to grade 8. Found in 1961, it has always prided itself on being a frontrunner
of educational practices. Though, it is a time a great flux in the school. The old computer
lab model of technology (not) in the classroom still exists. The school understands that if
technology is truly support student learning, some drastic changes in the pedagogy must
be made. I joined Montcrest School, in July of 2012 in the role of Director of Technology
and Innovation. In my previous experience, directing technology is fairly
straightforward; being innovative is a moving target. As a technology educator, especially
one with a certain degree of purchasing power, there is the temptation to purchase and
integrate the latest and greatest sexy gadget, losing sight of what learning outcomes
should drive such decisions. The year previous to my tenure at Montcrest, the decision to
purchase Apples iPad tablet for students on individual education plans (IEPs) was set in
place. The devices multi-use functionality, such as voice-to-text, in addition to its
widespread acceptance by students, was seen as a good fit for special education students
at Montcrest School. An ongoing concern with faculty at Montcrest is that the device
offers many game-based apps, lacking in any foundation in learning theory. As director of
technology, I am facing a problematic decision around the future of educational
technology at the school: do we expand the iPad initiative, continuing to place iPads in
the hands of our students? What quantifiable data exists to support this decision? Can the
iPad improve a students grasp of learning concepts?

!3

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to expand on my understanding of the theories taught in the
Principles of Learning course in UOITs Masters of Education program. With this, I
intend to analyze and synthesize this knowledge with current research on successful iPad
implementation programs. My purpose is to clear a path for myself, ensuring that any
implementation of the iPad at Montcrest School is supported by sound pedagogical
approaches. Cochran, Narayan, and Oldfield (2013), researching the building blocks of
many successful iPad pilot programs, list six critical success factors to be considered:

1. The pedagogical integration of the technology into the course and assessment.
2. Lecturer modeling of the pedagogical use of the tools.
3. Creating a supportive learning community.
4. Appropriate choice of mobile devices and Web 2.0 social software.
5. Technological and pedagogical support.
6. Creating sustained interaction that facilitates the development of ontological
shifts, both for the lecturers and the students, bridging the pedagogy-andragogyheutagogy continuum from lecturer-directed pedagogy to student-directed
heutagogy. (p. 53)

Reviewing twelve pilot programs launched between 2010 and 2011, Cochrane et al.,
grouped successful pedagogical affordances according to these categories: Media

!4
creation and editing, augmented reality, productivity, and collaboration (see Appendix
One). Successes found in iPad pilot programs show that optimal pedagogical impact from
these devices requires innovative design and support. But, how does this look in practice?
What principles of learning can be applied to make, as educational theorist Ruben
Puentedura (2013) states, the redefinition of the classroom a reality?

Initial Findings
In September 2012, I began the Research Methods in Education course in UOITs Master
of Education program. A review of literature assignment gave the opportunity to
search for date that proves the iPad being the key tool in reformative educational
practices. Unfortunately, the data I found was not promising. Phenomenological data
from most studies support the claim that the iPad is having a positive effect on student
motivation (Not surprising; I have seen such excitement myself at Montcrest School).
Unfortunately, academic achievement gains measured are generally negligible (Ross,
2012). Oliver and Corn (2008) suggest, after a two-year study of a one-to-one tablet
computing program at a private middle school in the United States, that student
satisfaction with mobile devices is promising. Unfortunately, improvement in
standardized testing scores was not impressive (p. 216). Echoed by Carr (2012), whose
study of a fifth grade mathematics classroom, found that instruction with the iPad has not
significantly influenced achievement.

!5
One critical study argued that the
iPad, or specifically, the
applications developed for it is the
perfect tool for 21st century
learning. Beyond Textbooks was a
HMH Fuse: Algebra I App a $20 download on iTunes

2011-2012 school-year study at

Californias Riverside Unified School District. This investigation focused on teaching

practice and student achievement with the iPad, specifically involving the HMH Fuse:
Algebra I application (Ross, 2012, p. 3). At the end of the school year, results indicated
an average 19% increase on standardized math tests for the experimental group, while
observational data reported high levels of student acceptance (Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt, 2012, p. 7). So here is my dilemma. Most studies found little to no
improvement in student achievement. In contrast, Beyond Textbooks, found significant
student gains when the HMH Fuse: Algebra I application was paired with the iPad. Why
did these studies offer such divergent results? Why is the integration of iPads such an
attractive proposition for one school, and a misalignment of funds in another?

!6
The Social Device
While searching for answers to these questions, the answers began to find me. In October
of 2012, I had the opportunity to attend the Apple Education Leadership Institute 2012, in
Toronto. Speaking the first night was Ruben Puentedura, an educational theorist who
developed the SAMR ladder. As
an extension of developmental
theories of Vygotsky and Bruner,
and Bandura's social cognitive
theory, the SAMR ladder is a
system in which educators can
measure the successful
application of technology (Puentedura, 2012). The model shows a ladder of four levels
of technology integration. The lowest rung on the ladder is labeled Substitution.
Substitution is simply enhancing curriculum with tech tools that perform the same task as
pencil and paper assignments, leading to little or no enhancement to student learning
(Puentedura, 2013). Ideally, technology in the classroom should allow for the creation of
new tasks that are inconceivable with tradition approaches (Puentedura). It was here, in a
large conference hall within the Toronto Hilton, I had my a-ha! moment. With its
enhanced features such as multimedia, communication, and collaboration tools, the iPad
can provide new learning opportunities that transcend the confines of formal learning in
the classroom. Let me expand on this, explaining why the iPad has had some clear
success in educational technology, and may continue to do so at Montcrest School.

!7
As mention above, the first rung the SAMR ladder is the lowest level of use, Substitution.
Technology acts as a direct tool substitute with no functional changes (Puentedura, 2013).
For example, consider a laptop with a word processing application, such as Microsoft
Word, being exchanged for an iPad with a similar word processing application, such as
Pages, and being used in exactly the same way. Since both applications have similar cut
and paste and spell check functions, this represents direct substitution with no foreseeable
increase in student achievement.

The second level is Augmentation. At this level, the student is using Pages with some
functional improvement. Improvements may include the customization of documents
with the colors, fonts, and textures, not readily found in other word processors. Already at
this secondary stage we are seeing a much higher level of productivity from the student
(Puentedura, 2013).

The third level is: Modification. This level actually slightly alters the task. As an
example, lets say the word processor is being used by a student to produce a short story.
But now with additional integrated apps available on the iPad, such as iPhoto, the student
could visualize the story with images, and directly embed this into the Pages document.
The student may also choose to email, or upload to a cloud storage option such as
Dropbox, instead of printing it. The student story has now seen significant task redesign.
This results in substantial productivity increase (Puentedura, 2013).

!8
The fourth level is known as Redefinition. At this level, the combination of pedagogically
sound apps and the devices built-in functionalities, the iPad can completely redesign
tasks (Puentedura, 2013). For instance, the student may use the Book Creator app, no
longer producing a flat, wordprocessed story. Through the
apps cloud storage sharing
options, details that would have
originally been compiled by an
individual could now involve
many contributors. The project
Book Creator by Red Jumper Studio

could include photographs,

graphics, and even audio narration, added directly from the device. The story can then be
emailed to teachers, parents, or even published to the iTunes Store for the world to
download and read. Many more users are viewing the story, increasing communication,
accuracy, creativity, and productivity (Puentedura, 2013).

Extolling the benefits of Puenteduras SAMR ladder approach in the connected

classroom, Chou, Block, and Jesness (2012) study of an iPad pilot project in a K-12
school states:

Students can now be historians in creating digital stories about a historical event,
explore manipulative learning environments to further their understanding of

!9
math, use simulations to understand an abstract science topic, and maintain a
personalized learning network to sustain life-long learning. Although all these
tasks can be accomplished through desktop computers or laptops, access to the
computer lab on a sign-up basis is much more limiting in granting access to v
digital resources and the Internet than the every day access of a one-to-one
learning environment in the classroom with iPads. (p.15)

While learning with iPads is relatively new, studies show that the devices built-in
communicative, creative, and collaborative functions can offer students a truly engaging
learning experience (p.23). Though, this tool will fall short of quantifiable performance
increases for students if not used in conjunction with sound learning theories, such as the
SAMR ladder. Also, applying social constructivist theories will help this device be
successful at Montcrest School. The device may up-end teacher-centric learning
environments, empowering students with a solution that is portable, connected, and
integrated with applications that promote student-generated content, collaboration, and
sharing (Cochrane et al., 2013, p.48)

The Social Device and Constructivism

The intent of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive reflection of traditional learning
theories, though social constructivism is worth mentioning. For SAMR to redefine
education, alignment to social constructivism is critical (Puentedura, 2013). As noted by
Derry (1999) and McMahon (1997), social constructivism underscores the importance of

!10
culture and context in understanding what occurs in the world and constructing
knowledge based on this understanding (Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997). This viewpoint
is closely associated with the developmental theories of Vygotsky and Bruner, and
Bandura's social cognitive theory (Shunk, 2000). Social constructivism is based on
assumptions about reality, knowledge, and learning. To apply the SAMR model in the
classroom, in conjunction with an iPad program, it is essential to support an constructivist
approach (Derry, 1999).

Social constructivism states that reality is constructed through human action. Members of
a society together formulate the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social
constructivist, reality cannot be revealed for it does not exist prior to its social interaction.
Knowledge is also a human creation, and is collectively and culturally formed (Ernest,
1999; Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden, 1994). McMahon (1997) states that the individual
constructs meaning through their connections with others and with their surroundings.
Social constructivists view learning as a collective practice. It does not take place only
within an individual, nor is it a passive growth of behaviors that are fashioned by
peripheral forces (McMahon, 1997). Significant learning happens when individuals are
engaged in social behavior.

Teaching models based on the social constructivist viewpoint emphasize the need for
cooperation among learners and with others in society (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McMahon,
1997). Lave and Wenger (1991) claim that a societys functional knowledge is to be

!11
found in associations among people, their practice, and the social organization and
political economy of communities of practice. For this reason, learning should involve
such knowledge and practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

At it core, the iPad is a social device. It is lightweight, portable, wirelessly connected,

and built for social learning. Together, with apps applicable with social constructivist
approaches, it offers the possibility for a redefined classroom (Melhuish and Falloon,
2010, p. 1).

Conclusion
The academic goal of this paper is to expand on my understanding of the theories and
methods taught in the Principles of Learning course in UOITs Masters of Education
program. With this, I intend to analyze and synthesize this knowledge with current
research on successful iPad implementation programs. My professional goal is to lay
successful building blocks for any future iPad rollout at Montcrest School. In analyzing
Puenteduras SAMR ladder, combined with the practices of social constructivism, I
believe the foundation has been laid.

As proven by many unsuccessful implementations, one cannot just give a classroom

iPads and simply expect a radical change in learning. Instead, the focus needs to be on
changing the social nature of learning (Ryan, 2011). Successes found in the pilot
programs show that optimal pedagogical impact from these devices requires innovative

!12
design and support. The redefined iPad classroom, supporting a social constructivist
learning environment, may just lead to substantial, measurable, student achievement.

!13
References

Carr, J. M. (2012). Incorporation of iPads into fifth-grade mathematics instruction: A

focus on mathematics achievement. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 148.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dcuoit.ca/docview/1098798866?accountid=14694. (1098798866).

Chou, C.C., Block, L., & Jesness, R. (2012). A case study of mobile learning pilot project
in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange,
5(2), 11-26.
Cochrane, T., Narayan, V., and Oldfield, J. (2013). iPadagogy: appropriating the iPad
within pedagogical contexts. International Journal of Mobile Learning and
Organization, 7(1), 48-65.
Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A. M.
O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.).

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:
Routledge.

McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A
Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth,

!14
Australia.

Melhuish, K. & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad.
Computers in New Zealand Schools, 22(3), 1-16

Oliver, K. M., & Corn, J. O. (2008). Student-reported differences in technology use and
skills after the implementation of one-to-one computing. Educational Media
International, 45(3), 215-229. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc.uoit.ca/docview/61984974?
accountid=14694

Puentedura, R. R., The SAMR Model: Background and Exemplars. Retrieved

from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/
SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf on 3 March, 2013.

Puentedura, R. R.,. (2013, January 7). Technology In Education: A Brief Introduction

[video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c
Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist
Views of Learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48.

Shunk, D. H. (2000). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.

Ryan, K. (2011) Should New Technology Like iPads be in Schools?, Radio New Zealand,
Auckland. Available online at: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/
ninetonoon/ audio/2493993/should-new-technology-like-ipads-be-in-schools

!15
on 3 March, 2013.

!16
Appendix One
Cochrane, Narayan, Oldfields Pedagogical Affordances Table

continued

!17

!18