Computers in the Schools

Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research

ISSN: 0738-0569 (Print) 1528-7033 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Experienced iPad-Using Early Childhood Teachers:

Practices in the One-to-One iPad Classroom

Ya-Huei Lu, Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Ai-Chu Ding & Krista Glazewski

To cite this article: Ya-Huei Lu, Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Ai-Chu Ding & Krista Glazewski
(2017) Experienced iPad-Using Early Childhood Teachers: Practices in the One-to-One iPad
Classroom, Computers in the Schools, 34:1-2, 9-23, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2017.1287543

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1287543

Published online: 03 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 886

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcis20
COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS
, VOL. , NOS. -, –
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Experienced iPad-Using Early Childhood Teachers: Practices

in the One-to-One iPad Classroom
Ya-Huei Lu, Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Ai-Chu Ding, and Krista Glazewski
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Although many elementary schools have adopted one-to-one Developmentally
programs, we still lack information on how teachers integrate appropriate practice; early
iPads or other tablets into their daily instruction, especially in early childhood education; iPads;
one-to-one; teacher practice;
childhood settings. The purpose of this case study was to present
technology integration
how four experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers inte-
grated one-to-one iPads into their literacy instruction. Based on
observations and interviews, we found that these four teach-
ers’ used iPads in both teacher-directed and developmentally
appropriate practices. The teacher-directed approaches focused
on using iPads to practice basic literacy skills in different learn-
ing stations, while the developmentally appropriate approaches
engaged students in child-centered digital production projects.

K–12 schools across the United States have been adopting one-to-one computing
initiatives (Poll, 2014). In early childhood classrooms, one-to-one initiatives often
use the iPad (or another similar tablet). In comparison to computers, tablet tech-
nology has been identified as particularly suitable for young students due to its light
weight, mobility, and ease of design (Michael Cohen Group & U.S. Department of
Education, 2011). For example, the big touch screen, the tactile-based interface, and
child-friendly operating and navigational features allow young students to interact
with the digital world by simply touching or tapping the screen (Neumann, 2014;
Plowman, Stevenson, Stephen, & McPake, 2012).
Prior research studies have shown that using iPads in early childhood education
has positive effects on student learning outcomes, such as early literacy skills (e.g.,
Bebell, Dorris, & Muir, 2012; D’Agostino, Rodgers, Harmey, & Brownfield, 2015)
and social development (Beschorner & Hutchison, 2013). For example, Neumann
(2014) examined 109 3- to 5-year old preschoolers’ use of touch screen tablets at
home and found a positive relationship between students’ use of touch screens
and their letter sounds and name writing skills. Wohlwend (2015) described the
mobility of the iPad and how a digital puppetry application (app), Puppet Pals,
encouraged young students’ collaborative literacy because they could manipulate

CONTACT Ya-Huei Lu [email protected] Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education, Wright Edu-
cation, Indiana University,  N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN , USA.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
10 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

on a touchscreen together to create digital literacy practices. The features of iPads

and a wide range of educational apps allow early childhood teachers to overcome
technology barriers (Blackwell, 2014) and design more hands-on, child-centered,
collaborative activities for young students (Couse & Chen, 2010).
Given that technology use is becoming popular in early childhood education,
early childhood teachers need to know how to use it to support students’ learning
and to help them develop skills they will need for the future (Wartella, Schomburg,
Lauricella, Robb, & Flynn, 2010). Although policy stakeholders, such as the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Fred Rogers
Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media (FRC), have provided recommenda-
tions to guide teachers toward developmentally appropriate technology use in early
childhood settings (NAEYC & FRC, 2012); early childhood teachers are still strug-
gling with how to integrate technology into their classrooms. One key issue for the
teachers has been what constitutes developmentally appropriate practices when it
comes to using technology in early childhood classrooms (Blake, Winsor, Burkett,
& Allen, 2012).
In addition to the issue regarding developmentally appropriate practices, research
has found that early childhood teachers are struggling with finding and selecting
appropriate applications to support student learning since there is a plethora of
applications targeting preschool or elementary-aged students (Blackwell, 2014). For
example, in Blackwell’s study, teachers complained about the difficulties of finding
applications that were content appropriate and materials that allowed them to track
student progress. McManis and Gunnewig (2012) suggested that future research
should examine the types of applications teachers and students are using and how
these inform teachers about the best use of tablets to support early learning.

Teacher practices in early childhood education

Since the NAEYC published the developmentally appropriate practice guide-
lines (Bredekamp, 1987), many studies in the field of early childhood education
have examined how developmentally appropriate—or inappropriate—practices are
established in classrooms (Dunn & Kontos, 1997). Researchers typically categorize
teacher practices into one of two categories: (a) teacher-directed practices oriented
toward basic-skills, and (b) developmentally appropriate practices, also known as
child-centered methods. Given the fact that technology is widely available to young
students (Common Sense Media & Rideout, 2013), it is important to examine what
constitutes developmentally appropriate practices when using technology in early
childhood classrooms.

Teacher-directed practices
Traditionally, early childhood teacher-directed practices (TDP) were based on the
premise that certain basic skills must be mastered before more advanced learning
can occur. These basic skills were acquired through teacher-directed instruction
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 11

(Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006). Teachers typically kept the time schedule, rou-
tine, and fixed purposes of the activities that students needed to follow and accom-
plish. TDP typically focused on using worksheets, whole-group instruction, teacher
demonstrations, and teacher presentations at the front of the classroom (Parker &
Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006). For example, a TDP teacher used a subject projector to
project a worksheet while all students sat and listened. She then asked all students
in the same groups to work on the same worksheet at the same time. Students were
not allowed to choose to do other activities.

Developmentally appropriate practices

In contrast to TDP, developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) focus on child-
centered instruction (Charlesworth, 1998). Teachers still provide direction and
guidance as they assist students in developing their knowledge, but they also pro-
vide opportunities for students to direct their own explorations of objects and aca-
demic topics. Students are encouraged to interact with other students and teachers
through activities, such as practicing new skills collaboratively with their peers, to
facilitate physical, social and emotional, and cognitive development (Jambunathan,
2012; Siegler & Alibali, 2004). Teachers in a DAP classroom ask questions and pro-
vide feedback to promote students’ higher order thinking, and observe how students
apply the knowledge learned into real-world contexts (Downer, Sabol, & Hamre,
2010; Stipek & Byler, 2004). For instance, a DAP teacher might ask students to take
pictures of different plants around the campus and then provide a list of questions
and a variety of media to prompt them to present their discoveries to the class.

Early literacy instruction and technology

Young children’s early literacy skills, especially for those entering kindergarten and
first grade, are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling (West, Den-
ton, & Reaney, 2001). Given that kindergarten through third-grade students enter
the school setting with a range of developmental levels and varied literacy skills
(Ackerman & Barnett, 2005), teachers must use a variety of instructional activities to
address different skill areas (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency,
reading comprehension) in their literacy instruction (Kelcey & Carlisle, 2013). For
example, a teacher may start a literacy block with whole-group instruction, reading
a big book with the entire class and then incorporating “The Daily 5” framework
(Ackerman & Barnett, 2005).
Interactive technologies, such as computers, interactive whiteboards, and iPads
or other tablet devices, have been used to support literacy instruction as a peda-
gogical tool to enhance student engagement and comprehension in literacy activi-
ties (Beschorner & Hutchison, 2013; Neumann, 2014; Vasquez & Felderman, 2013).
Beschorner and Hutchison (2013) found that one of the benefits of using iPads
in literacy instruction is that many iPad apps allow young students to practice
reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills within a single app. When used in
12 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

developmentally appropriate ways, technology can facilitate more personalized

learning to enhance learning opportunities for every student (Hutchison &
Beschorner, 2015). For example, the features of iPad apps allow young students to
type and write, record audio or video, add pictures, and/or insert symbols or stamps
(Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012). Multimedia authoring and
storytelling apps (e.g., Storywheel or Puppet Pals) have been used to encourage
students to represent their ideas through both audio/video recording and image-
selection/drawing (Couse & Chen, 2010; Wohlwend, 2015). This kind of process
creates meaningful student learning, and young students can express themselves
(even with limited literacy capabilities) and connect their learning to the real world
(Wohlwend, 2013).

Purpose of the study

Although early childhood teachers in one-to-one schools have access and may have
basic skills using technology like iPads, they may not know how to use the devices
and find quality apps to specifically use to create developmentally appropriate dig-
ital environments (Blackwell, 2014; Blake et al., 2012). Teachers need support and
concrete examples to show them how to integrate technology into their academic
instruction while creating child-centered environments to support student develop-
ment. Providing teachers with examples of successful technology integration seems
to be one approach to help teachers overcome barriers and develop positive attitudes
toward integrating technology in the classroom (Hew & Brush, 2007; Hutchison &
Reinking, 2011). Thus, drawing on classroom observation and teacher interviews,
we hope to provide early childhood teachers with examples of how experienced
iPad-using teachers integrated one-to-one iPads and different educational apps to
support their daily literacy instruction. The research questions framing this study
were as follows:
r How did experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers use iPads with young
students in their teaching practices?
r What apps did the experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers use to sup-
port daily literacy instruction?

Method

Research design

A case study method (Yin, 2014) was selected for its particular orientation toward
understanding early childhood teachers’ uses of iPads in the classroom. More specif-
ically, we used this method to gain a deep understanding of how experienced iPad-
using early childhood teachers integrated iPads into their teaching practices and
what specific apps they chose to support daily literacy instruction. We focused on
literacy instruction since our participant teachers expressed a particular interest in
literacy, and because two researchers conducting the observations had expertise in
this area.
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 13

Table . Demographic information about participants of the study.

Years of using iPads in the classroom
Teacher Grade level Years of teaching (in )

First grade  
Mrs. H Kindergarten  
Mrs. T First grade  
Mrs. W Kindergarten  (kindergarten) and . (middle school  (pilot teacher)
special education)

Participants and context

Four early childhood teachers (see Table 1) participated from the kindergarten and
first-grade classes of a suburban Midwestern elementary school. These four experi-
enced iPad-using teachers were selected because they had been implementing one-
to-one iPads in their classrooms for more than two years. In addition, since the
school district adopted the one-to-one iPad program in 2011, they had attended an
annual meeting each summer to discuss what apps should be kept and what should
be abandoned for the next school year. The school had three kindergarten classes
and three first-grade classes. One kindergarten and one first-grade teacher opted
not to participate. The school district was selected because their one-to-one iPad
program had been established since 2011 and was recognized by the state’s Office
of Educational Technology as an exemplary iPad initiative district. Each classroom
had one iPad cart that teachers used to store and charge all students’ iPads. Each stu-
dent had a designated iPad. Both parents and students were asked to sign a contract
acknowledging the responsibilities of taking care of the iPads.

Procedures and data collection

We collected data from classroom observations and teacher interviews. For each
teacher, we conducted two classroom observations to examine how iPads were used
in daily literacy instruction. Prior to entering the teachers’ classrooms, we decided
our main focus was on teacher instructional practice rather than student learning.
Thus, in each classroom observation, we sat at different corners of the classroom,
taking notes on what the teacher said and did while using iPads in instruction.
After each observation, we then compared and discussed notes with regard to the
ways teachers used iPads in the classroom. Observations ranged from 30 minutes to
60 minutes. Eight classroom observations occurred in Spring 2014. Two additional
classroom observations with one teacher (Mrs. W) were conducted in Spring 2015
to document a student digital production project using DAP.
Apart from eight classroom observations, one semi-structured interview was
conducted with each teacher. Three were conducted immediately after the sec-
ond classroom observation and one was conducted before the first classroom
observation (due to the teacher’s availability). Interviews were used to triangulate
data and clarify teachers’ perceptions on how and why they used iPads in their class-
rooms. Example questions included the following: How often do you use iPads in
your class for literacy purposes? How do you use iPads in your class? We noticed
14 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

Table . Coding scheme for field notes and interview transcripts.

Teachers’ instructional practices when using iPads in
Teacher instruction the classroom Examples

Codes
Teacher-directed . Teachers’ use of repetition, direct instruction, and The teacher said a word slowly and asked
practice (TDP) tasks taught in small sequential steps and students to spell it by selecting the
behaviors magnet letters on the application.
. Students work on basic skills that involve rote Students used the application that has
memorization and drill and practice different levels of games for them to
. The role of technology is for drill and practice or recognize words by taping the words
direct instruction. they heard.
Some iPad or computer stations
Developmentally . Teacher’s instruction is relative to students’ lives, The teacher designed an ebook creation
appropriate integrated across content areas, and guided by project that integrated literacy and
practice (DAP) student choice and interest. science, such as writing a book about
. Students are given opportunities to work with frog life cycle.
peers and explore with different tools or Students worked with their reading
manipulatives and hands-on activities. buddies from higher grade and could
. The role of technology is for student choose different applications available
communication, exploration, and knowledge to create a presentation.
construction. The book creation project

that you used XYZ apps in class; how and why did you pick these apps for use in
your class? What additional apps did you use in class for literacy? From a teacher’s
perspective, what are the advantages of using iPads for early literacy activities?

Data analysis
Classroom observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed using con-
tent analysis procedures (Berg, 2007). First, based on the research question, “How
did experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers use iPads with young students
in their teaching practices?” we holistically read through the data multiple times
and then used two analytic categories—TDP and DAP—to examine the data. The
operational definitions of TDP and DAP were guided by Gestwicki’s (1999) list of
contrasting DAP and developmentally inappropriate practice. Ertmer, Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur’s (2012) categories of classroom practices
with technology were adopted to develop the coding scheme for teachers’ instruc-
tional practices in their classrooms (see Table 2). After we individually reviewed one
transcript and observation notes from the same teacher, the coded data were com-
pared in order to discuss disagreements and develop a shared coding scheme. Then,
we read the data again and sorted data chunks into the categories. Subsequently, we
read through the data and established emerging themes for each category.

Findings
Findings of teachers’ practices were categorized into two teaching approaches iden-
tified from the literature: TDP and DAP. The iPad applications were categorized
based on how teachers used them in their instruction rather than the original design
or contents of the applications. Table 3 summarizes the iPad applications teachers
used in their teaching practices.
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 15

Table . The use of iPad applications in teacher practices.

Instructional practices
Teacher- Developmentally
directed appropriate
iPad applications Literacy activities practices practices

Hungry Monster Learn vowels and distinguish distinct words 

Magnetic Alphabet Gain alphabet knowledge and phonic/letter-sound 
recognition
Rainbow Sentence Complete sentences 
Endless Alphabet Learn alphabet and pronunciation 
Word Wizard Recognize words and learn pronunciation 
Vocabulary Spelling City Learn vocabulary and spelling 
TeachMe Kindergarten Contains six subjects: sight words, addition, subtraction, 
spelling and now writing letters and numbers
TeachMe First Grade Contains four subjects: sight words, addition, 
subtraction and spelling
Balloon Stickies Add speech balloons to the image/photos 
Story Creator Create a storybook contained images, texts and voices 
My Story Book Creator Create a storybook containing images, text, and voices 
Scribble Press Create a storybook containing images, texts, music, and 
voices

Teacher-directed uses of iPads

In this study, we found instances of teacher-directed practices. In our classroom

observations, teachers used iPads in their daily instruction and each use had a fixed
purpose for the activity that students needed to accomplish during the time. The role
of technology was for student work on basic skills that involved rote memorization
and drill and practice. To support TDP, iPads were used in learning stations and
students’ busy work/transition tasks.

Learning stations
In each of the classrooms and documented in seven of the observations, iPads were
used in different stations as a supplement for students to practice a variety of liter-
acy skills, such as letter recognition, phonemic awareness, or spelling. According to
our observations and teacher interviews, students participated in learning stations
multiple times throughout the day. Teachers typically provided an overview of each
station in a whole-group setting. We observed that the teachers used different appli-
cations in each station and usually had students rotate through the stations every
10 minutes to 15 minutes. In one observation, Mrs. H also incorporated non-iPad
literacy instruction, such as shared reading between the stations. Mrs. W described
how iPads aided in the success of her learning stations:
[The iPad] just offers us a different way to teach. That helps tremendously for me because I
know when I put them with iPads, they are gonna be on task and engaged and I don’t have
to worry about it.

During learning stations time, teachers decided which applications students

should work on and frequently walked around the classroom to monitor student
progress. Some of the teacher-selected applications were not limited to practice on a
16 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

single skill but had different levels of exercises for students. For example, our obser-
vation notes indicated when students completed a level of practicing spelling and let-
ter writing on the TeachMe Kindergarten/First Grade app, they were able to advance
to another new app. Interestingly, even though these were drill-and-practice apps, it
seemed that the teachers used them in light of students’ development. Mrs. H (first-
grade teacher) talked about why she used iPads in this way:
It really depends on what skills we are practicing. So all of them [students] have already
used all of these apps. The lower kids also go on the TeachMe Kindergarten too. So they’ve
used that app too. I don’t think there is any app they have not used. But I kinda look at my
groups and see which skills need more practicing, and I might use that one more. So the
focus is more on that skill.

Students’ busy work/transition task

In two classroom observations, the teacher asked her students to use iPads to prac-
tice skills, such as sight words or spelling for literacy and addition or subtraction
for math, while she multitasked on other important duties. In another observation,
as soon as students arrived in the morning, the teacher asked students to grab their
iPads and practice either math or literacy skills using certain applications. During
this time, the teacher was able to collect students’ homework, prepare teaching mate-
rials, and help students order their lunches. Mrs. T stated how she managed the class
with iPads in the morning:
I usually use them for morning work and I have a little sheet that I put under my ELMO
and tell them [the students] that first you use this app and after you are done, you work
on this app. I have pictures of all the apps like you saw. That’s how I manage the class. You
don’t have to tell them 10 times every day. They can just look up there and see what they
are supposed to do.

Developmentally appropriate uses of iPads

In this study, we found instances where teachers used iPads to design child-centered
tasks. When using DAP with the iPads, teachers still provided basic guidance and
instruction. However, students also had the opportunity to direct their own explo-
rations based on their interests and to collaborate with their peers. The iPads were
used to support student communication, exploration, and knowledge construction.
We found the iPads were used to support DAP in student digital production projects
as well.
From interviews and observations, we found that when the iPad was used for
DAP, it was usually as a student production project placed at the end of a lesson
unit for formative assessment purposes. One teacher, Mrs. W, had established a
weekly 30-minute session as digital production project time. During this time, her
kindergarten students created products on the iPad showcasing their knowledge on
a particular project. In two of our observations, she had students create a storybook
after learning about ocean animals. Mrs. W gave each student a paper worksheet
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 17

to include information required for the book. The worksheet included questions to
help students decide what ocean animal to select, the characteristics to include, and
space for taking notes on what to include. Once the students had selected an ocean
animal, they used the Safari app to search for images. During the creation project,
Mrs. W did not limit students on the contents or the app that they would use to
create the storybook. She provided several application options (Story Creator, My
Story Book Creator, and Scribble Press). To support her students, Mrs. W paired
her kindergarteners with a class of fifth graders as their “project buddies.”
During this observation, we noted that the students seemed to already have expe-
rience using those apps and were able to quickly decide which app would best fit
their storybook project. Kindergartners were focused on the task and chatted with
one another about what images they wanted to use and why they liked their ani-
mals. The fifth-grade buddies assisted the kindergartners with finding appropriate
images, using the apps, and spelling words. In Mrs. W’s interview, she described
this project as a fun and effective way to assess her students’ knowledge. She stated
that the features of the apps, like Story Creator, enabled her students to add pic-
tures from the Internet or photo album, as well as record their voice to narrate
their stories easily (regardless of their literacy capabilities). She also mentioned
that she felt the collaboration between kindergarten and upper-elementary stu-
dents enhanced her students’ learning experiences, as well as developed their social
skills.
In another example of DAP with the iPads, we observed Mrs. T’s first-grade class-
room. She had students use an application called Balloon Stickies to demonstrate
their factual knowledge about the scientist Alexander Bell: “You will select the cam-
era roll and select Alexander’s picture.” While students were performing this task,
she walked around the classroom to help the struggling students. After a few min-
utes, she said to the whole class: “Then, you will need to tap and tap twice. Then
the bubble will show up. You can move the bubble to near his mouth.” She looked
around and said, “Now we are going to pretend that we are Alexander Bell! You
can do this with this one.” As she was talking, she typed the first sentence: “My
name is Alexander Bell!” into the text box on her iPad, which was projected on the
Apple TV.
In her interview, she described why she implemented this activity:
Last week we looked at a story about Alexander Bell. We had research facts on Alexander
Bell so I figured he can be saying those facts about himself. And today it is just a different
way to show the facts. I really like it. I think it’s a new way for the kids to do things. It’s
something for them to learn … [and] makes the research a little bit more fun, more than
just writing down facts, making it more interesting and interactive.

As Balloon Stickies allowed students to add speech balloons to images and photos,
Mrs. T stated that this approach enabled students to demonstrate their knowledge
in a more engaging way, compared to the traditional way of writing down the facts
on a handout or worksheet. In turn, she was able to assess student understanding
using a different approach.
18 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

Discussion and implications

This study explored four early elementary teachers’ instruction with one-to-
one iPads. Based on the results, we found that these experienced iPad-using
teachers used iPads to support both a teacher-directed approach and a devel-
opmentally appropriate approach. The teachers in our study used iPads in TDP
for students to practice basic literacy skills during literacy learning station. The
teachers used iPads in DAP to support student learning through student digital
production projects. These findings align with Wien (1995), who found that the
two approaches are often times intertwined in early childhood teachers’ daily
instruction. The teachers in our study integrated iPads into literacy stations
to support teacher-directed activities, as well as to use them in student digi-
tal production projects to provide more hands-on and child-centered learning
experiences.

Incorporating iPads into learning stations to support teacher-directed activities

Most commonly iPad TDP was used in stations. According to the teachers in this
study, they found that one-to-one iPads were useful in literacy learning stations to
keep young students on task, differentiate instruction, and assess their students. As
stated by Pica (2004), instructional activities for younger students need to remain
short and active. As a result, early childhood teachers usually incorporate many
shortened activities so students can remain focused (Roskos & Neuman, 2012).
Learning stations are a heavily used instructional strategy in early childhood class-
rooms because they allow teachers to differentiate instruction and allocate time for
small-group instruction (Bates, 2014). Therefore, it was not surprising that these
four teachers used iPads to support learning stations for young students to practice
different skills.
In addition, early childhood students enter school with a range of developmen-
tal levels and varied literacy skills (Ackerman & Barnett, 2005), as well as different
experiences with technology (Common Sense Media & Rideout, 2013). As a result,
schools and teachers face challenges with providing effective instruction to meet the
needs of each student (Levy, 2008). All four teachers indicated that one-to-one iPads
allowed them to provide various difficulty levels of content and learning tasks for
students. Since each student had one iPad, teachers could assign students to work
on different applications depending on their literacy levels. The applications pro-
vided different levels of literacy learning tasks and allowed the students to work at
their own pace to practice the specific literacy skills they needed. This differentiated
instruction was easily facilitated since each student had his or her own device and the
apps provided each student with different levels for practicing specific skills. In other
words, teachers in this study used stations for differentiation instruction. This is a
commonly documented practice in early childhood education and one that has been
in use long before one-to-one iPads ever entered the classroom. This suggests that
these teachers seamlessly integrated technology into already existing approaches,
which speaks to both their flexibility and the flexibility of tablet technology to
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 19

be useful for a wide range of purposes, especially for early childhood classroom
settings.
Finally, as early childhood teachers face more pressure to meet increased aca-
demic expectations (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016), teachers need to track and
assess students’ progress. For early childhood teachers, it is challenging to con-
duct individual assessments without finding meaningful tasks for engaging other
students. In our study, all four teachers reported that iPads for each child meant
they were able to have more time to work on individual assessments or prepare
class materials because iPads functioned like an extra teaching assistant, providing
feedback to their students. In addition, one teacher also reported that the tracking
progress system on some of the apps enabled the tracking of each student’s perfor-
mance. Based on those performance records, the teacher adjusted different activities
to accommodate student needs. In this respect, one-to-one iPads could be used to
help teachers meet curricular goals and document student progress.

Using one-to-one iPads to support developmentally appropriate practices

During the students’ digital production projects, teachers and students were engaged
in DAP, which enabled students to construct their own knowledge (Rosen &
Jaruszwericz, 2009). In this study, we observed early education teachers implement-
ing one-to-one iPads into student digital production projects with an interdisci-
plinary focus and supported by project buddies. As a result, the teachers were able
to provide more hands-on and child-centered learning experiences to keep young
students engaged and improve student collaboration.

Designing interdisciplinary projects

Based on our study, we observed that these K–1 teachers incorporated iPads to cre-
ate interdisciplinary projects across subject areas (e.g., literacy, science, and social
studies). This practice is in line with the developmentally appropriate approach, as
the teachers recognized that the early childhood curriculum should be integrated
and relevant to real-life experiences (Gestwicki, 1999). The teachers in our current
study stated that this approach enabled their students to apply and construct their
own knowledge (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). In the example of digital produc-
tion projects, students were able to transfer their knowledge about science and then
present what they had learned through writing down stories on the iPad. More-
over, during the process of doing research, planning, and creating a storybook, stu-
dents were able to interact with texts in multiple ways (e.g., printed books, electronic
storybooks, multimedia). In other words, through well-planned digital production
projects, young students were able to apply what they had learned from different
subject areas to authentic tasks like reading e-books.

Utilizing reading buddies

Another approach that teachers used during the digital production projects was that
they invited older students to act as “buddies” or teaching assistants, helping the
20 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

younger students with their digital production projects. For example, Mrs. W used
fifth graders as project buddies to support her kindergarten students as they cre-
ated their digital production projects. This is commonly seen in early childhood
settings where young students have “book buddies” or “reading buddies” to explore
and read books together (Lowery, Sabis-Burns, & Anderson-Brown, 2008). In fact,
three teachers in our study mentioned that they employed this strategy of pair-
ing their younger students with older elementary students to work on the digital
products. Previous studies have found that when older students and younger stu-
dents work together on literacy tasks, such as reading and writing activities, both
groups improve their comprehension process, academic achievement, and attitudes
toward school (Lowery et al., 2008). In addition, we noted that the “buddies” strategy
seemed to facilitate easier classroom management because older students provided
extra hands to assist young students with problem solving on technological issues.
This finding is also consistent with other studies that have shown that using open-
ended and productive applications on iPads in early childhood classrooms could
prompt students’ problem-solving skills and collaborative engagement (Kucirkova,
Messer, Sheehy, & Panadero, 2014; Wohlwend, 2015).

Conclusion
Early childhood teachers are expected to spend more time on academic instruc-
tion and less time on student-selected activities (Bassok et al., 2016). Using tablet
technology and a variety of educational apps within different learning stations or
digital production projects allows teachers to balance academic instruction time
to meet local or state standards and child-centered activities to support children’s
development. This study provides new insights into early childhood teachers’ uses
of iPads. Teachers were able to implement iPads in both TDP and DAP. In addi-
tion to using technology as a supplemental tool like other early childhood materials
in TDP, findings from this study aligned with prior research recommending that
early childhood teachers take advantage of the unique features of tablet technol-
ogy to create developmentally appropriate learning environments (Kucirkova et al.,
2014; Wohlwend, 2015). For instance, teachers could implement iPads into different
project-based learning activities (e.g., creating a digital video or e-book about ocean
animals and sharing with others) to encourage young students to present their ideas
and support their collaboration.
As young students grow up in a digital environment (Common Sense Media
& Rideout, 2013), stakeholders strongly feel that early childhood teachers should
know how to select and integrate technology effectively to support young students’
development. However, less is known about how current early childhood teach-
ers are using technology to achieve this goal. This study contributed to the field
by providing examples of experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers’ use
of one-to-one iPads in practice. As Glazer and Hannafin (2008) have reported,
teachers need teacher-leaders’ modeling and supports to help them make effective
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 21

technology integration decisions. The examples presented in the current study may
be helpful for early childhood teachers and educators to gain insight into how to use
one-to-one iPads to design different literacy instruction in order to create develop-
mentally appropriate learning experiences for young students.

References
Ackerman, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2005). Prepared for kindergarten: What does “readi-
ness” mean? National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255617499_Prepared_for_Kindergarten_What_
Does_Readiness_Mean
Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade?
American Educational Research Association Open, 2(1), 1–31. Retrieved from
http://ero.sagepub.com/content/2/1/2332858415616358
Bates, C. (2014). Flexible grouping during literacy centers: A model for differentiating instruc-
tion. In C. Copple, S. Bredekamp, D. Koralek, & K. Charner (Eds.), Developmentally appro-
priate practice: Focus on children first, second, and third grades (pp. 129–133). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Bebell, D., Dorris, S., & Muir, M. (2012). Emerging results from the nation’s first kinder-
garten implementation of iPads. Auburn, ME: Auburn School District. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/hackedu/Adv2014_ResearchSum120216.pdf
Beschorner, B., & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. Inter-
national Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(1), 16–24.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Blackwell, C. (2014). Teacher practices with mobile technology: Integrating tablet computers into
the early childhood classroom. Journal of Education Research, 7(4), 1–25.
Blake, S., Winsor, D. L., Burkett, C., & Allen, L. (2012). iPods, Internet and apps, oh my: Age
appropriate technology in early childhood. In S. Blake, D. L. Winsor, & L. Allen (Eds.), Child
development and the use of technology: Perspectives, applications and experiences (pp. 78–95).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-317-1
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving
children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC).
Charlesworth, R. (1998). Developmentally appropriate practice is for everyone. Childhood Edu-
cation, 74(5), 274–282.
Common Sense Media, & Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America.
Common Sense Media. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-
to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013
Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability
for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–98.
D’Agostino, J. V., Rodgers, E., Harmey, S., & Brownfield, K. (2015). Introducing an iPad app into
literacy instruction for struggling readers: Teacher perceptions and student outcomes. Journal
of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(4), 1–27.
Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher-child interactions in the classroom: Toward
a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s developmental outcomes. Early Edu-
cation and Development, 21(5), 699–723.
Dunn, L., & Kontos, S. (1997). What have we learned about developmentally appropriate practice?
Research in review. Young Children, 52(5), 4–13.
22 Y.-H. LU ET AL.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education,
59(2), 423–435.
Gestwicki, C. (1999). Defining developmentally appropriate practice: What it is not (2nd ed.).
Albany, NY: Delmar.
Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions dur-
ing technology integration collaborative apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 16(1), 35–61.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
Hutchison, A., & Beschorner, B. (2015). Using the iPad as a tool to support literacy instruction.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 1–16.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for
literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and com-
munication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the U.S. Reading
Research Quarterly, 46, 308–329.
Jambunathan, S. (2012). Developmentally appropriate practices and children’s perception of self-
competence in Head Start classrooms. Education 3–13, 40(3), 271–279.
Kelcey, B., & Carlisle, J. F. (2013). Learning about teachers’ literacy instruction from classroom
observations. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 301–317.
Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Panadero, C. F. (2014). Children’s engagement with edu-
cational iPad apps: Insights from a Spanish classroom. Computers & Education, 71, 175–184.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Help-
ing every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161–164.
Lowery, R. M., Sabis-Burns, D., & Anderson-Brown, S. (2008). Book buddies: Kindergartners
and fifth graders explore books together. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 36(3), 31.
McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in education technology with
early learners. Young Children, 67, 14–24.
Michael Cohen Group & U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Young children, apps & iPad.
New York, NY: Michael Cohen Group. Retrieved from http://sociallyspeakingllc.com/my-
mission-for-socially/free-pdfs/a_study_of_young_children.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), & Fred Rogers Center.
(2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving chil-
dren from birth through age 8. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-
and-young-children
Neumann, M. M. (2014). An examination of touch screen tablets and emergent literacy in Aus-
tralian pre-school children. Australian Journal of Education, 58(2), 109–122.
Parker, A., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in kinder-
garten: Factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Research in Childhood Edu-
cation, 21(1), 65–78.
Pica, R. (2004). Experiences in movement: Birth to age 8. New York, NY: Delmar Learning.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children’s learning with
technology at home. Computers & Education, 59(1), 30–37.
Poll, H. (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. Retrieved from http://www.
pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-K12-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-050914-
PUBLIC-Report.pdf
Rosen, D. B., & Jaruszewicz, C. (2009). Developmentally appropriate technology use and early
childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 162–171.
 COMPUTERS IN THE SCHOOLS 23

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Classroom management for achieving readers. The Reading
Teacher, 65(5), 308–312.
Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2004). Child thinking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2004). The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 375–397.
Vasquez, V., & Felderman, C. (2013). Technology and critical literacy in early childhood. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Wartella, E., Schomberg, R., Lauricella, A., Robb, M., & Flynn, R. (2010). Technology in the lives
of teachers and classrooms: Survey of early childhood teachers and childcare providers. Latrobe,
PA: Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media.
West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2001). The kindergarten source (Report NCES 201–023). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Wien, C. A. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice in “real life”: Stories of teacher practical
knowledge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wohlwend, K. E. (2013). Literacy playshop: New literacies, popular media, and play in the early
childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wohlwend, K. E. (2015). One screen, many fingers: Young children’s collaborative literacy
play with digital puppetry apps and touchscreen technologies. Theory Into Practice, 54(2),
154–162.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.