You are here:

Teacher Implementation of Co-Designed iPad Integrated Science Instruction

, , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Technology alone is not enough to guarantee student engagement and learning, teachers are essential in the integration of technology in the classroom. Classroom technology is integrated into content and pedagogical practices at the teacher’s discretion; not all teachers will integrate technology into their practice, and those that do use technology adopt the technology in varying degrees of integration. This poster will detail the theoretical framework and current progress of a one-to-one iPad initiative at an urban middle school in the southeastern United States. This study will look specifically at the implementation of a co-designed iPad integrated instructional design with a grade 8 teacher in her first year with one-to-one technology. We hope to generate conversations around iPad-integrated instruction in science at the middle grades level.


Minshew, L. & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher Implementation of Co-Designed iPad Integrated Science Instruction. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1685-1690). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
  2. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implemtation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.
  3. Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61. Doi:10.1007/BF02299597
  4. Guzey, S.S., & Roehrig, G.H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
  5. Haddon, L. (2004). Information and Communication Technologies in Everyday Life: A Concise Introduction and Research Guide (New Technologies/New Cultures).
  6. Ifenthaler, D. & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525-534.
  7. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers and Education, 55, 1259-1269.
  8. Kim, C., Kim, M.K., Lee, C., Spector, J.M., & DeMeester K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. Doi:,C.,Seow,P.,Zhang,B.,So,H.,Chen, W., & Wong, L. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 154-169.
  9. Looi, C., Wong, L., So, H., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., Zhang, B., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2009). Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers and Education, 53, 1120-1132.
  10. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  11. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
  12. Schoenfeld, A.H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the What Works clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13-21.
  13. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371-413.
  14. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge.
  15. Zhang, B., Looi, C., Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L., Chen, W., So, H., Soloway, E., & Norris, C. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers& Education, 55, 1504-1523.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact