PROTOCOL: A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and its impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment

Campbell Systematic ReviewsVolume 17, Issue 2 e1155 PROTOCOLOpen Access PROTOCOL: A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and its impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment Claire Dorris, Corresponding Author cadrain01@qub.ac.uk School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK Correspondence Claire Dorris, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, 69-71 University Street, Belfast, County Antrim, BT7 1HL, UK. Email: cadrain01@qub.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorKaren Winter, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLiam O'Hare, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UKSearch for more papers by this authorEdda Tandi Lwoga, College Of Business Education, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaSearch for more papers by this author Claire Dorris, Corresponding Author cadrain01@qub.ac.uk School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK Correspondence Claire Dorris, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, 69-71 University Street, Belfast, County Antrim, BT7 1HL, UK. Email: cadrain01@qub.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorKaren Winter, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLiam O'Hare, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UKSearch for more papers by this authorEdda Tandi Lwoga, College Of Business Education, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 April 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1155AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 Description of the condition Children today are born into a world surrounded by technology. For this "i-Generation" (Twenge, 2017), most aspects of daily life can be conducted online, including socialising, shopping, learning and engaging with the world around them, and the lines between the online and offline life are becoming increasingly blurred. OFCOM, (2019) reports that 82% of 5–7-year-olds go online regularly, averaging 9.5 h per week, while for 12–15-year olds, 99% go online regularly, averaging 20.5 h per week. This increasingly technological world has influenced educational practice, with the use of technology in classrooms evolving from desktop computers, to interactive whiteboards, to the more recent use of tablets and other mobile devices to deliver the school curriculum. A recent development (UNCRC, 2021) has seen the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopt General Comment 25 which recognises children's rights in the digital world. This includes children's right to the educational benefits that technology can bring, and places responsibilities on States to ensure schools are equipped with the infrastructure, knowledge and skills to support this. Access to technology in the classroom is increasing, however remains disparate across the globe. OECD (2015) reported that in 2012, 72% of 15-year-olds in OECD countries use a computer, laptop or tablet at school (unchanged from 2009), although usage in some countries was as low as 50%. The latest OECD (2020) figures report a global average of almost one computer for every 15-year-old pupil, with variation between 1.25 computers per pupil in countries such as UK or United States, and 0.25 computers per pupil in countries such as Brazil or Greece. While these figures do not reflect practice in primary-aged schools, they give some idea of the scale of usage and the potential impact for children and young people around the world. For this reason, the role and impact of technology in the classroom has been a growing area of interest for researchers, spanning topics including the impact on educational outcomes (such as reading, numeracy attainment and critical thinking) (e.g., Bebell & Pedulla, 2015); classroom interaction and pupil motivation to learn (e.g., Campbell & Jane, 2012; Ciampa, 2014) and teacher skills and attitudes to technology (e.g., Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013; Lincoln & Barney, 2017). As technology has advanced, so too has the range of classroom activities it can be used for. Technology can be used to enhance and support teacher presentation, or can directly engage each child with an individual device or in groups. The integration of technology with pedagogical approaches is therefore of critical importance. Baskerville (2012); Grieffenhagen (2004); Murcia (2014), and others, have considered the ways in which technology can be used to enhance and indeed transform pedagogy, rather than to deliver the same activities with new tools (e.g., a teacher writing a question on a blackboard versus writing it on an interactive whiteboard—the activity has not changed, just the means by which it is presented). The most recent technological advances, specifically mobile devices, provide an unprecedented opportunity for transformative pedagogy. While tablet-style computers have been available since the early 2000s, the introduction of the user-friendly and innovative Apple iPad in 2010, closely followed by similar tablets of other brands, made these tools more accessible to the wider population. Children are particularly skilled in the use of mobile devices from an early age; OFCOM (2019) report that 58% of 3–4-year olds, and 76% of 5–15-year olds use a tablet device regularly, while just under half of 5–11-year olds own one of their own. Additionally, while only 35% of 7–11-year olds own a smartphone, this figure has been steadily rising (from 24% in 2015). Research by the British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA, 2015) found that 71% of UK primary schools surveyed reported using tablets in the classroom. This was a significant increase from the previous year, with figures predicted to rise significantly by 2020. More recently, and as individual ownership of tablets and indeed smartphones rises, "bring your own device" policies are beginning to be seen across schools to harness the resource now available in pupils' own pockets. The intuitive nature of tablets and smartphones, coupled with affordability and the potential to "bring your own", make them ideally placed to influence traditional teaching methods. The NMC Horizon Report K-12 Edition (Johnson et al., 2014) identified such "intuitive technology" as having the potential to significantly impact educational practice over the next 5 years. Children now learn through game-playing, use the endless body of information available to research topics of interest, and are adept at recording, editing and presenting videos as part of the ordinary school day. Literacy and numeracy are a central focus of primary education, and not only provide the tools through which a child can engage in wider curricular subjects, but also have far-reaching application across the life-course. Indeed, research by the National Literacy Trust (Clark & Teravainen-Goff, 2018) shows that children who are more engaged with literacy have better mental wellbeing. Yet the National Literacy Trust website also reports that 16.4% of adults in England, 26.7% in Scotland, 17.9% in Northern Ireland and 12% in Wales have "very poor literacy skills", while OECD (2016) finds that UK young adults (age 16–24) have lower basic literacy and numeracy skills than young adults in many other countries. The 2018 round of PISA tests (OECD, 2019), designed to assess reading, science and maths skills of 15 year-olds globally, show the UK moving up the rankings in maths (18th, up from 27th in 2016) and in reading (14th, up from 22nd in 2016), yet still falling below many other countries. It is clear that a focus on literacy and numeracy must be a priority for primary age children. Mobile devices are one way in which teachers in primary schools are enhancing literacy and numeracy education, and there is a general feeling amongst teachers that this is a positive development. The National Literacy Trust (Picton, 2019) surveyed 219 teachers across the UK, and found that just under 60% believe technology can help pupils to overcome learning barriers, and over three quarters feel technology should be available for pupils right across the curriculum to support their literacy development. However despite this belief, trends in technology access and training do not follow. Just under half of the sample of teachers stated that their pupils had access to technology (either laptops or tablets) in the classroom, around 20% of teachers said they never use technology to support literacy, and a quarter reported never having had training to make use of technology to support literacy. Similarly, BESA, 2015 reported that 34% of schools felt their technology implementation was poor, citing an ineffective infrastructure and lack of adequate training and support as barriers. Given the rapid increase in use of mobile devices in the classroom, it is critical that teachers are adequately equipped with the skills, resources and guidance to enable them to effectively and safely embed such mobile technology within pedagogy. Ultimately, this technology must benefit pupils and support learning. The OECD (2015) report also found that those countries reporting heavy investment in technology in schools demonstrated no significant improvement in reading, writing or maths. While mobile device usage in the classroom continues to grow, its application therefore remains an area of uncertainty, particularly in terms of the impact on pupils' educational experience, and, critically, learning outcomes and attainment. It is important that we can identify what works, for whom, and why. For this reason, this systematic review of existing research on mobile devices in the classroom (specifically tablet devices, smartphones and handheld games consoles), and their impact on attainment, is timely, with an important contribution to make towards ensuring that future developments across educational policy and practice, and in the professional development of educational practitioners, are informed by evidence of good practice. 1.2 Description of the intervention There are three key elements for consideration in how mobile technology is used in the primary school classroom: 1. Devices 2. Activities 3. Outcomes A logic model has been developed to demonstrate how these key components interact (see Figure 1). Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Logic model representing implementation of mobile technology in the classroom 1.2.1 Devices The most common mobile devices used in schools are tablet computers. On first introduction, Apple was the device of choice in US schools, reporting a 95% education market share (Apple, 2013), and while Apple remains the market leader in tablet sales with 36.5% of sales (International Data Corporation, 2020), advances from other brands using Android or Chrome operating systems, and producing less expensive devices, have seen Apple market share in education drop (Futuresource Consulting, 2019). Smartphones are less commonly used in schools; indeed, there is ongoing discussion in the media as to whether children should be permitted to bring such devices to school. In late 2018, the French government passed legislation to ban children and young people (up to age 15) from using their phone in the school grounds during the school day. This move has prompted much debate; those in agreement with this approach feel it addresses concerns such as cyber-bullying and distraction from studies. Research from the London School of Economics is commonly cited; Beland and Murphy (2015), reviewed exam results following mobile phone bans in schools across England and found not only an improvement in results, but a more significant improvement for those pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, therefore contributing to a reduction in educational inequalities. Yet the increase in children's ownership of mobile devices undoubtedly presents an opportunity for schools. As ownership of smartphones and tablets increases among children, schools are now considering how they can harness the opportunities presented by children having an Internet-enabled device in their own pockets (e.g., Rae et al., 2017). Such "Bring your Own Device" approaches also bring challenges, with online safety, appropriate behaviour policies, infrastructure capacity and ensuring equality of access only some of the necessary considerations. Definition of mobile device For the purposes of this systematic review, the focus will be on mobile devices. These are defined as handheld computing devices, including: tablet computers of varying sizes (iPad and other brands) smartphones (defined as those with a touch screen interface which can connect to the Internet) small handheld games consoles, such as a Nintendo Switch or Nintendo 2DS (again, with a touch screen or integrated buttons and can connect to the Internet or have games loaded). Within the classroom, the mobile devices will either directly access the Internet, or make use of device applications ("apps") or inbuilt device functions. While overall, the functionality of these different types of mobile devices will be similar, the screen size of a tablet is likely to be larger than on smartphones or games consoles. Tablets are typically anything between 7 and 10 inches, with some of the more professional models measuring up to 12 inches, while smartphones range in size from 3 to 6.5 inches. There is some evidence that screen size may impact effectiveness, depending on usage. Alghamdi et al. (2014) found that it took longer to read the same information on a small screen than a larger one, however there was no difference in information understanding or retention, while Albó et al. (2019) found there was less opportunity for pupils to collaborate on a small smartphone when used in class, as compared to a larger tablet. 1.2.2 Activities Mobile devices have applicability right across the curriculum, and can be used in any number of ways, both individually by pupils or in groups. There are also many ways in which the teacher can use mobile devices to support his or her teaching, however these will not be included within the scope of this review. From a brief review of relevant publications, a summary of potential usage and types of activities is included below. Aims of activity: Examples of activities involved Types of websites or apps accessed To take in new information or practice new skills Reading and writing Word processing software To communicate with friends, classmates or class teacher Researching topics of interest Watching instructional videos Youtube or other video sites To present information learned Playing games Online dictionaries To demonstrate understanding or knowledge of information Playing or making music Specifically designed educational apps and websites, such as: Mathletics, Motion Maths or the Learning Bug Club (details included later in this protocol) Drawing pictures or creating art Taking and editing photographs or videos. Undertaking formal tests or informal quizzes Puentedura's SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) In any discussion on the impact of mobile device usage in the classroom, the activities undertaken, and the context in which they occur, rather than the device itself, are the important factors. Given the breadth of potential activities, researchers and practitioners have sought a framework to help classify and therefore compare activities. One such model is the SAMR model, developed by Puentedura (2006) (Figure 2). The SAMR model compares activities undertaken using technology with the everyday activities they are replacing (e.g., reading an e-book rather than a paperback), and asks what the use of technology has added to the learning experience. Puentedura proposes four levels of activity: Substitution: Technology is used in substitution for the usual classroom tools or activities, for example, reading an online textbook rather than a paper copy. Augmentation: Technology substitutes for the usual tools however also improves function slightly, for example, a computer word processor used to write an assignment, therefore allowing for inclusion of pictures or diagrams. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Puentedura's SAMR Model (figure taken from Puentedura's web-blog) These are both considered to enhance pedagogy; Modification: Technology allows for an activity to be undertaken significantly differently, for example, accessing the Internet to independently research content for an assignment. Redefinition: Technology allows for new, previously unachievable activities to be undertaken, for example, creating a multimedia assignment using video, audio and other creative tools. These are both considered to transform pedagogy. Puentedura (2013) emphasises that in practical terms, the model should be seen as a spectrum along which classroom activities sit, and proposes that for true transformation of learning, activities using technology should aspire towards redefinition of pedagogy, rather than simply substituting one activity for another. Geer et al. (2017) also note that as mobile devices were not primarily designed as tools for an educational setting, effort will be needed to adapt them to and embed them within existing pedagogy. The SAMR model has duel purpose. While it contributes to the implementation discussion, it has been criticised for its focus on the technology and activities and ignoring wider modifiers such as teacher knowledge and attitudes, pupil skills and knowledge, and wider dynamics within the classroom (Hamilton et al., 2016). More commonly, SAMR is used as a practice framework to describe and categorise activities, and is increasingly being used to influence good practice and to support teaching professionals in their efforts to transform the pupil experience, informing the types of activities undertaken. A number of teaching websites and resources have sought to provide examples of how the SAMR model can be embedded in practice, and the types of activities that might reflect transformation rather than enhancement. TES, a global online resource for teachers and other educational professionals, highlights the model and the potential benefits in the classroom, and provides a number of resources to support teachers in embedding the approach. To encourage thinking around the model in real terms, Puentedura (2013) proposed a number of questions for educators to ask when introducing new technology or a new activity using technology. Substitution: What is or will be gained by replacing old technology with new? Substitution to augmentation: Has an improvement been made to the task process that could not be accomplished with the older technology at a fundamental level? Augmentation to modification: Has the original task been modified? How? Does the modification fundamentally depend on the new technology? Modification to redefinition: What is the new task? Will any portion of the original task be retained? How is the new task uniquely made possible by the new technology? Numerous researchers interested in technology use in the classroom have used the SAMR framework to categorise activities taking place (e.g., Fabian & Topping, 2019; Geer et al., 2017). In this systematic review, the SAMR model will be used during the coding stage to classify activities undertaken within interventions in the selected studies, therefore bringing some homogeneity to what is expected to be a diverse range of activities. 1.2.3 Outcomes Research on the impact of technology in the classroom takes one of two approaches, either focused on the direct impact on pupils' learning outcomes, specifically academic achievement across a range of subjects and measures (primary outcomes), or on the impact that technology has on the teaching environment and pupils' classroom experience, for example, on motivation to learn, engagement, or collaboration with classmates (secondary outcomes). Improvements in secondary outcomes may in turn lead to improvement in primary outcomes. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF, 2019) reports extensive evidence of "moderate learning gains" when technology is integrated in teaching across a wide range of subjects and age groups, resulting in an additional four months progress on average (EEF "toolkit for teaching and learning" calculations based on impact, cost and strength of evidence). However, EEF conclusions suggest that the type of technology, and the way in which it is integrated within the classroom, vary widely. Outcomes of interest in this review: this review aims to identify and synthesise evidence on the impact that mobile devices have on pupil attainment in terms of literacy and numeracy development, given their wide-ranging implications for all areas of education and wider life. Defining literacy and numeracy Early literacy development usually focuses on speaking and listening, before moving onto reading and writing. In supporting children's literacy, there are various components on which the primary school curriculum focuses. The Rose Review (2006), an independent review of the teaching of early reading, carried out on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills, highlighted the need for the systematic teaching of phonics within primary education as a key building block of literacy. This is backed up by a growing body of research, as summarised by the Education Endowment Foundation (2019) Teaching and Learning Toolkit. Other key elements of literacy include vocabulary and spelling, grammar, comprehension (as spelling and grammar knowledge increase), and building fluency, as defined in primary-level curricula (such as the Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum set by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA, 2016); or the National Curriculum for England, set by the Department for Education). In the same way, curricula for early numeracy education focus on concepts such as basic number recognition, counting, sorting, pattern-making, weighing and measuring, and these are usually taught through play-based activities. Once these are mastered, teaching moves on to common mathematical operations such as addition and subtraction, then to application of numeracy skills through such areas as mathematical reasoning, data manipulation and representation. The Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum highlights the need for children's mathematical skills to be relatable to everyday situations and transferable across the curriculum. The elements of literacy and numeracy will be further explored in developing search terms for this review. A rapid review of a sample of studies (Appendix A) shows that for children in the target population (aged 4–11), researchers have a common interest in improvements in numeracy and literacy attainment. The following research examples demonstrate the range of activities undertaken, outcomes of interest, outcome measures and moderating factors identified: Doan and Bloomfield (2014) compared the effects on essay scores of giving children Internet browsing time to research their essay topic before writing. Forty-nine pupils within a school year were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group (business as usual—no Internet browsing time, and 90 min essay-writing time); intervention group one (30 min Internet browsing time, then 60 min essay-writing time) or intervention group two (given three by 45 min lessons on Internet search techniques, followed by 30 min independent Internet research time then 60 min essay-writing time). Essays were scored by independent trained assessors using a scoring rubric developed by the Virginia Department of Education, which assigns a score from 1 to 4 across three domains of composition (ability to express ideas and structure an argument), written expression (tone and "writer's voice") and usage/mechanics (including punctuation, spelling, sentence structure). Hallstedt et al. (2018) used a randomised controlled design to investigate how a maths tablet intervention plus working memory training might affect basic arithmetic for low-performing pupils (age 8) in the short term. Two hundred and eighty-three second-grade pupils across 27 Swedish schools were randomly assigned to one of four groups: control group (no intervention); placebo group (undertook reading activities only); intervention group one (undertook 20 min maths training per day via "Chasing Planets" tablet intervention) and intervention group two (undertook 20 min per day maths training, plus an additional 10 min per day on activities to build their working memory). A combination of standardised tests and national school assessment tests were used, including the Grade Three Math Battery (Fuchs et al., 2003) which measures addition and subtraction fluency; the Heidelberger Recher Test (Haffner et al., 2005) which measures addition, subtraction, missing term recognition and speed; and Diamant AG1 (Swedish National Agency for Education), a Swedish national test which measures addition and subtraction. A number of potential moderating factors were considered in this study, including pupil IQ and socioeconomic status. Mak et al. (2017) used a pre and posttest study design to investigate the effects of ABRACADABRA, a web-based literacy programme, on primary school students in Hong Kong. The programme is aimed at building reading and writing skills in English, either for native English speakers or those for whom English is not their first language. A number of standardised and researcher-developed measures were used, such as GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation), a standardised tool measuring domains such as word reading, listening comprehension and phoneme-grapheme correspondence (accuracy in reading aloud); and the Literacy Instruction Questionnaire (a teacher questionnaire designed specifically for the programme). The researchers also accessed usage data from each individual pupil over the course of the intervention to see if exposure intensity moderated the findings. 1.3 How the intervention might work The focus of this review is on the specific use of mobile devices in the primary/elementary classroom. Children using the devices will therefore be aged between four and eleven. Given the broad age range, there will be a wide variety in the types of interventions, the complexity and skill needed, and the aims and potential outcomes. The use of the SAMR model to classify the types of activities that might be undertaken and what they can add to existing pedagogy has already been discussed. There have also been a number of theories proposed which can help us to understand how digital interventions might contribute to positive learning outcomes. Some of these are discussed briefly below. Play-based learning: Play has a central role in early years and primary education curricula, with a widely established body of research showing the effectiveness of play in learning, from free play through to instructive games. Digital interventions can make learning more fun, creating a positive attitude towards a subject, encouraging creativity (e.g., Livingstone, 2012) and generally enhancing enjoyment of learning (Oliemat et al., 2018). Supporting agency and self-directed learning: Geer et al. (2017) report that teachers found tablets to contribute positively to student-centred learning, with pupils more in control of their learning than traditional teaching could have allowed. This allows students to learn at their own pace, leaving teachers free to provide one to one support where needed and allowing more advanced pupils to move on to more challenging materials. Increasing motivation: a common focus of research is the role of mobile devices in increasing motivation to learn, which can give pupils a more positive attitude to school work, help them engage more actively in lessons and in turn contribute positively to academic achievement (Ciampa, 2014; Clarke & Abbott, 2015). Tasks associated with increased motivation should provide autonomy, be challenging without being impossible, stimulate the senses, build curiosity, and provide an element of competition, with others or one self (Malone & Lepper, 1987). The use of mobile devices provides opportunity across all these elements. Providing opportunity for formative assessment: The use of digital devices in the classroom provides additional opportunities for teachers to review and assess pupil progress in real time, and offer feedback on the spot which can support learning (Dalby & Swan, 2019). Many digital interventions are designed with an immediate feedback function which allows the child to see their mistakes and learn from them. While the content of interventions will vary, the activities (as classified through the SAMR framework) and the characteristics highlighted above, are key factors in how interventions might work, and therefore the potential impact they can have on child outcomes. 1.3.1 Examples of interventions Some examples of the widely available interventions aimed at primary age children are detailed belo