Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
There has been a noticeable increase in the use of tablet computers in higher
education and in particular iPads. However, only relatively recently educational
institutions have begun to research the use of iPads for teaching and learning, and
the number of related studies remains small (Churchill, Fox, & King, 2012;
Ifenthaler & Schweinbenz, 2013; Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012, pp. 1415).
The signicance of this for art and design education, i.e. the current research lacuna
on the use of iPads in higher education, is compounded when one considers that
overall elearning in art and design disciplines is under-researched (Souleles, 2012).
The purpose of phenomenographic studies is to describe variations of conceptions that people have of a particular phenomenon, i.e. their conceptual meanings of
the phenomenon of interest. Such studies are suited for under-researched areas
because they open up the spectrum of perceptions for further more focused studies.
This article describes the second stage of a research project on the use of iPads in
undergraduate studio-based art and design disciplines. It is a collaboration between
*Corresponding author. Email: nicos.souleles@cut.ac.cy
2016 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
N. Souleles et al.
the research lab Art + Design: elearning lab at Cyprus University of Technology,
and academics from Falmouth University in the UK.
The rst stage of the project was completed in the rst half of 2013, and it
entailed the investigation of the perceptions of undergraduate art and design students
on the educational potential of the iPad (Souleles, Savva, Watters, Bull, & Annesley,
2014). In brief, this study concluded that the use of iPads for teaching and learning
in art and design should consider that the learning affordances associated with these
tablets are not as evident. From the perspective of the students, the benets identied for teaching and learning focus mostly on the communicative potential of these
devices. In addition, the use of iPads for teaching and learning requires consideration of a range of differing student attitudes, not all of which are supportive in the
context of teaching and learning (Souleles et al., 2014).
Prosser and Trigwell (2000) argued that teaching and learning are closely related,
and the required alignment is between the students and the lecturers perception of
teaching and learning. This article deals with the second part of this dictum, which
is to identify the different ways art and design faculty consider the iPad for teaching
and learning.
The literature review section of this article examines the main technology acceptance models (TAMs) and their characteristics, and argues that the unied theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) provides a relatively reliable framework
to assess the behavioural intention of users when considering the adoption of technologies. The literature review section is followed by a description of the teaching
and learning characteristics of art and design; it is within this academic milieu and
the distinctiveness that permeates it that faculty engage with instructional practices.
The methodology section describes the research design and limitations and delimitations of this phenomenographic investigation. Data was collected through semistructured interviews with faculty from both institutions listed above. This study
concludes with the presentation and analysis of outcomes. Finally, the implications
for art and design education are elaborated upon, as well as directions for future
research on the use of iPads for teaching and learning in art and design.
N. Souleles et al.
According to the authors, this model is parsimonious and less technology informed,
but its relevance needs to be tested further.
The art and design context
The prevailing teaching and learning practices in art and design are of relevance
because they provide a context that inevitably informs faculty attitudes towards
instructional technology in general. Firstly, it is important to draw an overarching
distinction between disciplines of high and low paradigmatic development.
Paradigmatic development refers to the degree to which there is agreement among
the members of an academic discipline about theory, methods and techniques. For
example, biology, chemistry, physics and the sciences represent disciplines of high
paradigmatic development, in contrast to history, sociology and psychology, which
are considered low paradigmatic disciplines (Braxton, Olsen, & Simmons, 1999,
p. 301). Owing to the open-ended nature of most art and design outcomes, related
programmes of study inevitably fall within the group of low paradigmatic disciplines; the curriculum tends to be uid (Shreeve, Sims, & Trowler, 2010, p. 135).
Subsequently, teaching and learning practices emphasise the development of a set of
intellectual skills and competencies which the Art and Design Subject Benchmark
Statement lists as intellectual maturity, curiosity, personal innovation, risk-taking,
independent enquiry, and effective management and planning skills (Kennedy &
Welch, 2008, p. 9).
A study by Shreeve et al. (2010, pp. 130133) identied the characteristics of
the signature pedagogies that underpin art and design education. Learning has a
material and physical dimension. The former entails sketching, recording and reecting upon process, as well as working and experimenting with materials. The physical dimension can include the involvement of the body itself in performance-based
subjects. Learning involves living with uncertainty and unknown outcomes, and
making judgements about ideas, practices and values in order to inform actions. In
addition, learning has a visible dimension; outcomes manifest as artefacts that are
open to debate and scrutiny. Learners increasingly learn to incorporate critical feedback and to function with a decreasing amount of support and feedback. Thus,
teaching and learning aims to promote the development of independent and creative
practitioners. Learners become accustomed not merely to what needs to be done, but
what it is to be part of a community of practice. Learning is fundamentally social,
that is learning practices are visible and discussed often in an informal manner and
in the presence of peers. Lastly, process and development are important because they
support the ongoing exploration and renement of outputs. Consequently, assessment focuses on process as well as the nished artefact.
The predominant teaching and learning practices in art and design tend to be
student-focused rather than teacher-centred. However, there are a number of factors
not unique to art and design education that increasingly impede the signature pedagogies of the related disciplines. These include the increase in student numbers in
recent years owing to the widening participation agenda, the increase in international
students, the modularisation of curricula and the regime of quality assurance. To
these factors can be added continued technological, social and economic pressures
upon higher education in general. As Shreeve (2011, p. 123) argued, owing to these
impeding factors, art and design education is in a state of ux and teaching and
learning in these disciplines is increasingly adapting to new realities.
N. Souleles et al.
4. Facilitating
conditions
Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of
students?
How easy do you consider it is to use the iPad for teaching and
learning?
Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use
the iPad for teaching and learning?
Do you consider that you have access to the right institutional
infrastructure to support your use of the iPad for teaching and
learning?
Category B comprises views that the iPad has the potential for both positive and
negative inuences on academic performance. An indicative statement is:
Table 2. Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of students?
Categories
A
B
C
D
Referential (What)
Positive inuence
Both positive and negative
inuences
Doubtful if it can inuence
Negative inuence
Structural (How)
Practical ways to facilitate learning
Signicance of good instruction versus
distracting potential
Unawareness of potential inuence
Emphasis on potential obstructions to
performance
[If] each student has their own iPad and they start using social media then it can
become distracting it can be hidden from the teacher The point is that pedagogy
is what makes the difference [for example] the teacher can encourage students to
use new technologies to comment on something regarding the lesson. (Interviewee 1)
In Category C, the view of the iPad vis--vis inuence on student academic performance is expressed in doubtful terms. A characteristic statement is:
I am not sure if it actually helps their learning. I cannot tell for sure. (Interviewee 9)
Lastly, Category D comprises views that the iPad can have a negative inuence
on the academic performance of students.
I dont see the iPad as enhancing the [learning] experiences of students it could lead
them to become isolated from the rest of the group it can harm [their] creative
thinking students can get lost in this enthusiasm for technology. (Interviewee 10)
From the emerging themes, it is obvious that there are divergent perceptions among
faculty members on the performance expectancy of iPads. Some interviewees identied ways that this tablet can support practical learning tasks (Category A), but none
stated that it could enhance intellectual skills and competencies or student-centred
learning. The latter may have to do with the parameters of the methodology design
as faculty members were not provided with instructions on how to use their iPad.
Unawareness of how more complex learning can be supported (Category C) with
the use of this tablet could indicate a lack of appropriate instructional design.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that in Category B, one interviewee emphasised the signicance of having appropriate pedagogies in place to enhance academic performance,
otherwise the iPad may have distracting potential (Category D).
Effort expectancy
Three distinct categories were identied (Table 3). Category A consists of perceptions that the iPad is easy to use for certain teaching and learning tasks. An indicative statement is:
the physicality of drawing almost demands that you touch a surface [the iPads
enable] a very quick way of drawing something without any pretence. (Interviewee 36)
Category B comprises views that effort expectancy varied depending upon the
required tasks. An indicative statement is:
It has its pros and cons. Its easy from the point of view of illustration tasks You
cant use it [for presentations] as all the documents that youve got are in a memory
stick. (Interviewee 25)
Referential (What)
Structural (How)
Very easy
Depends upon the task
Not easy
N. Souleles et al.
I felt like it might be time-consuming to teach using the iPad. You must spend time to
nd the right apps that will suit your learning objectives and of course, you must test it
to see if it works. (Interviewee 23)
The main inference from the above is that the different views on effort expectancy
with regard to incorporating the iPad into teaching and learning depend upon the
perceived degree of effort required to complete specic instructional tasks. Some
interviewees considered the task of drawing with an iPad to be easy (Category A),
while others stated that the search for apps to address specic learning outcomes is
a complex and time-consuming task (Category C). Lastly, high effort expectancy
was associated with the technical limitations of the tablet (Category B).
Social inuence
Four distinct categories were identied (Table 4). Category A comprises views that
social inuence from peers and students would affect the adoption and use of the
iPad for teaching and learning. An indicative statement is:
I would say it did had an impact on me that someone else was using it [the iPad]
around the department I guess we were kind of inspired by each other, hence probably why I went on board with using it I had seen a colleague starting to use [it] and
I wanted to try it and see if it works And then, you have the students who are so
excited about new technologies [the students] expect you to use these tools nowadays. (Interviewee 15)
In Category B, the level of social inuence was dependent upon how the instructional value of the iPad was presented. If peers argued for the educational benets
of this tablet, then the degree of social inuence would be greater. A characteristic
statement is:
I would listen to someones opinion, like a colleague or student to use it if I nd productivity gains. (Interviewee 24)
It is indicative of Category C that interviewees expressed doubts as to the potential to be inuenced by peers or students on the use of the iPad for teaching and
learning. For example:
I am not sure if I am inuenced by others because we do not actually discuss these
issues. (Interviewee 9)
Lastly, Category D comprises views that social inuence from peers or students
would not affect their decision to adopt the iPad for teaching and learning. For
example:
Table 4. Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use the iPad for
teaching and learning?
Categories
A
B
C
D
Referential (What)
Social inuence is a factor
Social inuence is conditional
The impact of social inuence is
doubtful
Social inuence is not a
determinant
Structural (How)
Peer and student views matter
Peer views on instructional value
Lack of discussion on the use of new
technologies
Preference for own experience with the
technology
I dont think it would affect me, this is not a criterion I believe that each person is
entitled to his own opinion and I would want to try something and decide for myself if
it is useful or not. (Interviewee 8)
From the above, it can be inferred that there are varied reasons that can affect social
inuence. While for some interviewees, the perceptions of peers and students can be
of signicance for the adoption of iPads in teaching and learning (Category A), in
other cases social inuence is dependent upon the appraisal of the tablet by peers
(Category B). In addition, the effect of social inuence was expressed in doubtful
terms because of the lack of exchange of views among interested parties (Category
C). Lastly, social inuence provides no replacement for ones own experience with
the technology (Category D).
Facilitating conditions
Four distinct categories were identied (Table 5). Category A consists of views that
there is appropriate technological infrastructure to support the use of iPads for teaching and learning. An indicative statement is:
We have wireless Internet so thats OK our department especially and IT [information technology] support are of a good standard. (Interviewee 16)
In Category C, there is lack of awareness of whether there is an appropriate technological infrastructure in place to support the use of the tablet. A characteristic
statement is:
I cannot really say I didnt really seek any help. (Interviewee 23)
Table 5. Do you consider that you have access to the appropriate institutional infrastructure
to support your use of the iPad for teaching and learning?
Categories
Referential (What)
B
C
Structural (How)
Emphasis on good IT support and
wireless Internet
Focus on some technical obstacles
Support was not sought
Lack of sufcient technological
infrastructure
10
N. Souleles et al.
2. Effort
expectancy
3. Social
inuence
4. Facilitating
conditions
Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of
students?
Positives
Obstacles
Conditional on whether the tablet
Faculty members identied a
would be used as part of an effective
number of ways to facilitate
instructional process and the tablet
learning.
would not distract from the latter.
How easy do you consider it is to use the iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
iPad easy for the completion of
Determined by the ease of
certain instructional tasks.
completing some learning tasks.
Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use the
iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
Social inuence is dependent on
Social inuence from peers and
students can affect their decision to whether peers perceive some
instructional value in using the iPad.
adopt the tablet.
Do you consider that you have access to the right institutional
infrastructure to support your use of the iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
Some institutions need to
Appropriate facilitating conditions
communicate what the infrastructure
can positively impact the decision
can provide, while others need to
to adopt the tablet.
address technical obstacles that
impede the use of iPads.
Table 5 indicates that for some interviewees, the facilitating conditions are sufcient
and appropriate (Category A), while for others there are limiting factors (Category
B). There is also a level of unawareness of the extent to which facilitating conditions
are in place to support teaching and learning with iPads (Category C). Finally, some
interviewees stated that they had no access to an appropriate technological infrastructure that could support their adoption of the tablet (Category D).
Discussion and conclusion
This study investigated the range of perceptions on how art and design faculty perceive the iPad and the factors that inuence their attitude towards adopting this
tablet for teaching and learning. The UTAUT model was used as a predictor of
acceptance and the art and design signature pedagogies provided an instructional
benchmark to compare potential educational benets. As expected from the phenomenographic methodology, varied themes emerged for each of the four key determinants of the model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social inuence
and facilitating conditions). For each determinant, there is a range of faculty perceptions that inform potential acceptance or non-acceptance of the iPad. To make explicit the contribution of this study, the range of faculty perceptions is mapped against
the UTAUT model (Table 6).
If we take a horizontal view across all the tables in the data presentation section
to identify positive attitudes for each of the four determinants as well as potential
connections with the signature pedagogies characteristic of art and design education,
we see that: (a) some faculty members identied a number of ways to facilitate
11
learning; (b) others found the iPad easy for the completion of certain instructional
tasks; (c) for some faculty members, social inuence from peers and students can
affect their decision to adopt the tablet; and (d) appropriate facilitating conditions
can positively impact the decision to adopt the tablet. The data indicates minimal
connection to the signature pedagogies and social learning characteristic of art and
design education. For example, interviewee 8 noted the potential of the iPad to function as a depository of audiovisual material and as a portfolio of student work, while
interviewee 36 noted how easy it is to draw something quickly. There is no explicit
or strong connection on the use of the iPad for the development of student intellectual skills and competencies associated with art and design education, such as the
promotion of competencies like innovation and risk-taking. Nor was there any use
of the tablet to support learning how to manage uncertainty, unknown outcomes and
making judgements about ideas, practices and values to inform actions. This
highlights the signicance of embedding the instructional use of iPads within welldened educational strategies that are informed by the signature pedagogies of art
and design.
Another group of faculty members consists of those who are either undecided or
sceptical about whether they would adopt the iPad for teaching and learning. In
terms of the rst three key determinants, the common denominator for this group is
that emphasis was placed on instructional matters. For example, performance expectancy is conditional on whether the tablet would be used as part of an effective
instructional process and the tablet would not distract from the latter. Effort expectancy is determined by the ease of completing learning tasks, and social inuence is
dependent upon whether peers perceive instructional value in using the iPad.
Healthy scepticism dominates this group. The inference is that within this group of
views, the need for appropriate pedagogies is the primary concern and something
that could prove decisive for the adoption of the tablet. Lastly, in terms of facilitating conditions for the same group of views, it is apparent that some institutions need
to communicate what the infrastructure can provide, while others may need to
address technical obstacles that impede the use of iPads.
Finally, it is possible for the last group of views, i.e. those who are reluctant to
adopt the iPad, to identify a common thread between performance expectancy and
effort expectancy. Here the emphasis is on the challenges associated with the iPad
per se. It is perceived as potentially obstructing the learning process, and for some
faculty members it is time-consuming to undertake instructional tasks with this
tablet. For the same group of faculty members, the common thread for the other two
key determinants, i.e. social inuence and facilitating conditions, is that attitudes are
not associated directly with the iPad. For example, for some faculty members it is
their own experience with the tablet that matters and not social pressure, while for
others the lack of appropriate technical infrastructure is a major obstacle towards
adoption.
An important inference from this study is that any notion of inherent and
obvious educational affordances associated with the use of this tablet in art and
design education is not widely evident. It is noteworthy that the challenges towards
adoption were not associated with aspects of the art and design signature
pedagogies. The varied obstacles identied by faculty (Table 6) point mostly
towards the need for appropriate and meaningful instructional design, i.e.
educational contexts that promote intellectual development, curiosity, personal innovation, risk-taking, self-directed enquiry and effective management of skills, i.e. the
12
N. Souleles et al.
signature pedagogies of art and design. The provision of strategies that attempt to
embed the use of iPads in appropriate instructional methods can be investigated
through action research that is informed by the prevalent view among students that
the iPad does have communicative potential, although such research would need to
consider the different student attitudes towards this tablet, not all of which are supportive for teaching and learning (Souleles et al., 2014).
Disclosure statement
Notes on contributors
Nicos Souleles is Assistant Professor at Cyprus University of Technology (Limassol) in the
Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts, where he coordinates the research Art +
Design: elearning lab. Nicos was awarded a PhD in Educational Research from Lancaster
University (UK) and is a member of the reviewer panels for the MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching and Higher Education Studies.
Stephania Savva is a research assistant at the Art + Design: elearning lab (http://www.
elearningartdesign.org) at Cyprus University of Technology and a doctoral student at University of Leicester in the UK.
Hilary Watters is a lecturer in Widening Participation Educational Development at Falmouth
University, Falmouth, UK.
Angela Annesley is a senior lecturer in the School of Film & Television, Falmouth University, Falmouth, UK.
References
Akerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 321334.
Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., & Kerns, R. L. (2006). The drivers for acceptance of tablet
PCs by faculty in a college of business. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17,
429440.
Bagozzi, R. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a
paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 243254.
Braxton, J., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1999). Afnity disciplines and the use of principles
of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39,
299318.
Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers
private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2,
251254.
Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments
and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). Indiana
University.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The nal frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 2539.
Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 525534.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report, 2012 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kennedy, G., & Welch, E. (2008). Subject benchmark statement, art and design. Gloucester:
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
13
Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Kirschner, P. A., Buuren, H. V., & Acker, F. V. (2013). Adopting
the Integrative Model of Behaviour Prediction to explain teachers willingness to use
ICT: A perspective for research on teachers ICT usage in pedagogical practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 5571.
Lefoe, G., Olney, I., Wright, R., & Herrington, A. (2009). Faculty development for new
technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers. In J. Herrington, A.
Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers (pp. 1527). Wollongong:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong.
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established
and emerging technologies in higher education: A unied theory of acceptance and use
of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 2234.
Li, L. (2010). A critical review of technology acceptance literature. Retrieved from Southwest Region of the Decision Sciences Institute: http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2010/
SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA104.pdf
Lofstrom, E., & Nevgi, A. (2008). University teaching staffs pedagogical awareness displayed through ICT-facilitated teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 101116.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography Describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10, 177200.
Pang, M. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 145156.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in
higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University.
Shreeve, A. (2011). The way we were? Signature pedagogies under threat. In E. Bohemia, B.
Borja de Mozota, & L. Collina (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
for Design Education Researchers (pp. 112125). Paris: Cumulus.
Shreeve, A., Sims, E., & Trowler, P. (2010). A kind of exchange: Learning from art and
design teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 125138.
Snyder Bulik, B. (2011). A survey on how women are using technology today. New York: Ad
Age Insights. Retrieved from http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/pdf/1114WP.pdf
Souleles, N. (2012). Phenomenography and elearning in art and design. In V. Hodgson, C.
Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 466473). Maastricht: Maastricht
School of Management.
Souleles, N., Savva, S., Watters, H., Bull, B., & Annesley, A. (2014). A phenomenographic
investigation on the use of iPads among undergraduate art and design students. British
Journal of Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1111/bjet.12132/abstract
Sundaravej, T. (2010). Empirical validation of unied theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13, 527.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425478.
Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides?
Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers
& Education, 54, 12021211.