Student Perceptions of Classroom Engagement and Learning using iPads

Main Article Content

Timothy T. Diemer
Eugenia Fernandez
Jefferson W. Streepey


Many colleges and universities have launched iPad initiatives in an effort to enhance student learning. Despite their rapid adoption, the extent to which iPads increase student engagement and learning is not well understood. This paper reports on a multidisciplinary assessment of student perceptions of engagement and learning using iPads. Student reactions following single and multiple classroom activities using iPads were measured via a survey asking them to rate their learning and engagement using a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to the questions were grouped into thematic categories of Perceived Learning and Perceived Engagement. Students who reported a high level of engagement while using iPads reported a high level of learning as well. No effects due to age, gender, or language were found. Students who characterized themselves as comfortable with modes of e-learning reported significantly greater levels of perception of learning and engagement. Those who reported being comfortable were more likely to use iPads for learning and professional development in the future. Furthermore, a number of students who initially described themselves as somewhat uncomfortable with e-learning technology also reported interest in continuing to use iPads.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2013). Student Perceptions of Classroom Engagement and Learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 1(2), 13–25. Retrieved from
Author Biographies

Timothy T. Diemer, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Assistant Clinical Professor of Organizational Leadership & Supervision

Eugenia Fernandez, IUPUI

Associate Professor of Computer and Information Technology

Jefferson W. Streepey, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Associate Professor of Kinesiology


Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Annansingh, F., & Bright, A. (2010). Exploring barriers to effective E-learning: Case study of DNPA. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 7, 55-65. doi:10.1108/17415651011031653

Axelson, R.D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43, 38-43.

Carini, R.M., Kuh, J.D., & Klein, S.P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

Chen, P.S.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 12221232.

Chyung, S.Y. (2007). Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy and academic performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8 (3), 213-222.

Fischman, J., & Keller, J. (2011). College tech goes mobile. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58, 50.

Githens, R.P. (2007). Older adults and e-learning: Opportunities and barriers. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 329-338.

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York: Routledge.

Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Pew Internet Research Project. Retreived from

Kane, Y. (2010, June 1). Apple s iPad sales pass two-million mark. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, p. B7.

Kinzie, J. (2010). Student engagement and learning: Experiences that matter. In Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (139-153). J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Kingston, Canada: School of Policy Studies, Queens University at Kingston.

Kuh, G.K. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson Laird, T.F., & Kuh, G.D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233.

Parker, R.E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors of influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 274-293.

Pike. G.R., Kuh, G.D., & McCormick, A.C. (2008, November). Learning community participation and educational outcomes: Direct, indirect, and contingent relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Jacksonville, FL.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Rice, A. (2011, October 18). Colleges take varied approaches to iPad experiments, with mixed results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

Rovai, A.P., & Baker, J.D. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6, 31-44.

Sherr, I. (2011, August 12). Tablet war is an Apple route. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, p. B1-B2.

Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93-135.

Thompson, L.F., & Lynch, B.J. (2003). Web-based instruction: Who is inclined to resist it and why? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 375-385.

Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., & Wang, H.Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 92–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x

Wieder, B. (2011). iPads could hinder teaching, professors say. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(28), A22-A23. Retrieved from

Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 12–22.