The emerge of the mobile technologies in education is confirmed by both international (Clarke et al., 2014; Fabian–Maclean, 2013; Marés, 2012) and Hungarian researches (Abonyi-Toth – Turcsanyi-Szabo, 2015; Kis-Toth – Borbas – Karpati, 2014; Racsko – Herzog, 2015). Amongst the mobile devices the tablet has an important role due to its size, long-lasting battery and intuitive user interface (Marés, 2012). According to the above mentioned tendencies, our research was organized in a primary school in Budapest, which launched its own “tablet supported education” pilot project. Our research sample covered four classes (first grade: n=28, fifth grade: n=37) and their teachers (n=12) during one school year. Our goal was to study the acceptance of the new device within educational setting and also to investigate the possibilities of its implementation in primary school, therefore we researched the attitudes and the usage profile of the mobile device. The result of the research amongst the pupils was positive; on the basis of the feedback the students felt themselves “very well” during lessons (89,5% of the lower and 91,8% of the upper primary), they “enjoyed that they could use tablets” (88,2% of the lower and 86,4% for the upper primary) and the self-reported results show that the tablet helped their learning “very much” (86% for upper primary). The teachers were satisfied with their results since more than three quarters of them “reached their pedagogical goals” at between 90% and 100%, while 85% of them replied that “the tablets helped them to reach their pedagogical goals” at a high level (90-100%). Kulcsszavak: tablet, education, primary school, attitude

1. TABLET SUPPORTED EDUCATION:
ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
Balazs Czekman
University of Debrecen, Hungary
PhD student
IKT MasterMinds

2. TABLET PC IN EDUCATION
 The Horizon Report 2010 predicts the mobile technology integration to the
education within one year (Johnson et al. 2010)
 New educational technology, tablet
(Mares, 2012), 1:1 access model
 More and more schools integrate mobile technology (Clarke et al., 2013), more
and more researches (Haßler et al., 2015)
 Ownership of devices: smartphone (83% ), tablet (over 50%), notebook (47%),
desktop (37%) (DIA, 2016)
 More and more initiatives, researches in Hungary (Abonyi-Toth – Turcsanyi-Szabo,
2015; Kis-Toth – Borbas – Karpati, 2014; Racsko – Herzog, 2015, Jarosievitz,
2016)
HuCER 2017, Budapest

3. WHY TABLETS?
 Access model: 1:1 (Walling, 2015)
 M-learning, mobile learning (Miskolczi, 2012; Seres, 2008a;
Turner, 2012)
 Possible ways of using tablets (Cheung & Hew, 2009)
 Pros and cons of using tablets in education (Clarke et al., 2014;
Kis-Toth et al., 2014; Mares, 2012)
 What will the future bring? School-organized projects? BYOD?
HuCER 2017, Budapest

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT PROJECT
Duration
Methods and
pedagogy
Professional
training
Participants
HuCER 2017, Budapest

5.  Descriptive research; usage profile, attitude
 Duration: 2015-2016, one year school term (10 months)
 Full sample research
 Teachers: n=12 (174 questionnaires with multiple data gathering)
 Lower primary students: n=28 (153 questionnaires)
 Upper primary students: n=37 (317 questionnaires)
 Data gathering instruments (questionnaire, semi-structured interviews)
 Two different kinds of student questionnaires
 Two different kinds of teacher questionnaires
DETAILS OF THE RESEARCH
HuCER 2017, Budapest

6. HYPOTHESES
 H1: The tablet usage during lessons can increase the motivation
of the students.
 H2: The tablet usage during lessons can help the learning
process.
 H3: The tablets can help the teachers to reach their
pedagogical goals easier.
 H4: As time goes the positive attitude toward the devices will
decrease because of the „novelty factor”.
HuCER 2017, Budapest

7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 (1) What advantages do the teachers experience using tablets
in education?
 (2) What challenges do the teachers experience using tablets
in education?
 (3) How much extra time do teachers need for preparing a
tablet supported lesson?
HuCER 2017, Budapest

8. DISTRIBUTION OF THE TABLET SUPPORTED
LESSONS BY SUBJECTS
subject
class
total
1.a 1.b 1.c 5.a 5.b
Mathematics 31 18 0 0 1 50
IT 6 0 3 18 15 42
English 0 0 0 12 26 38
Geography 0 0 0 1 21 22
Hungarian literature 9 0 0 0 5 14
Biology 0 0 0 3 4 7
Arts 0 0 0 0 1 1
total 46 18 3 34 73 174
by upper, lower yrs 67 107 174
HuCER 2017, Budapest

9. DISTRIBUTION OF THE TABLET SUPPORTED LESSONS
10
14
10
5 5 7
2
7 6
1
11
14 22
8
12 8
10
21
1
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June
lower primary upper primary
HuCER 2017, Budapest

10. HOW DID YOU FEEL YOURSELF DURING THE LESSONS?
very well;
89,5%
half way;
5,9%
not really well;
4,6%
very well;
91,8%
half way;
6,9%
not really well;
1,3%
lower primary upper primary
HuCER 2017, Budapest

11. HOW MUCH DID YOU ENJOY THAT YOU COULD USE
TABLET?
very much;
88,2%
half way;
6,5%
not too much;
5,2%
very much;
86,4%
half way;
10,4%
not too much;
3,2%
lower primary upper primary
HuCER 2017, Budapest

12. HOW MUCH DID THE TABLET HELP YOU?
very much;
86%
half way;
10%
not too much;
3%
upper primary
HuCER 2017, Budapest

13. HOW MUCH DID THE TABLET HELP YOU?
(NOVELTY FACTOR)
months
total
October November December
January
2016
February
2016
March
2016
April
2016
very much
N 23 31 21 36 37 46 57 251
% 62,2% 72,1% 87,5% 69,2% 94,9% 82,1% 86,4% 79,2%
half way
N 13 12 3 13 2 9 6 58
% 35,1% 27,9% 12,5% 25,0% 5,1% 16,1% 9,1% 18,3%
not too
much
N 1 0 0 3 0 1 3 8
% 2,7% 0,0% 0,0% 5,8% 0,0% 1,8% 4,5% 2,5%
total
N 37 43 24 52 39 56 66 317
% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square: p=0,008
HuCER 2017, Budapest

14. EXTRA PREPARATION TIME: 39 MINUTES
23,5
34,3
20,6
43,8
41,2
57,0
60,0 59,3
26,4
10,0
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June
Extrapreparationtime(min)
HuCER 2017, Budapest

15. EXTRA PREPARATION TIME BY SUBJECTS
15,79 20,71
31,36
53,93
81,36
158,57
ANOVA (p<0,001)
HuCER 2017, Budapest
(38) (42)
(50)
(14)
(22)
(7)

16. TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE PEDAGOGICAL
GOALS REACHED?
1 1 1
5
17
26
50
0 10 60 70 80 90 100
proportionofanswers(%)
reached pedagogical goal (%)
HuCER 2017, Budapest

17. TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TABLETS HELP TO
REACH THE PEDAGOGICAL GOALS?
1 1 1 3 3
7
20
65
0 10 20 60 70 80 90 100
proportionofanswwers(%)
the help of tablets reaching the goals (%)
HuCER 2017, Budapest

18. PEDAGOGICAL, METHODOLOGICAL COMMENTS
HuCER 2017, Budapest
 It was easy to realize the different abilities and speed of the students. The
tasks were based on attention focus.”
 It can be very useful for revision. We can reuse the drills again, we don’t
have to photocopy again.”
 I used it on study circle, where we worked with applications. We used the
dictionary. There was an interesting comment as we have to write and spell
correctly, because the computer only accepts the right way. It develops two
different fields: the writing and the language vocabulary.”

19. TECHNICAL COMMENTS
HuCER 2017, Budapest
 „The projector is a great help.”
 „We tried the tablets for the first time in the English class. They worked well, even
YouTube videos streamed flawlessly.”
 „We had technical issues with the „Lapozo”, the students had to wait a lot for each
other.”
 „The students are able to solve the technical issues alone. They wait for each other.”
 „We had a lot of difficulties with the „Lapozo” in the beginning. We couldn’t succeed
with a multiplayer game because of technical reasons.”

20. OTHER COMMENTS
HuCER 2017, Budapest
 „First tryings.”
 „I used it for revision in the beginnig of the school term. The tablet
was perfect for specific tasks, and moreover for motivation. The
students learnt to use the device fast, they weren’t afraid of them.
They got familiar with them easily.”
 „We love them!”
 „That was the first time when I could integrate them into the lesson.”
 Ufortunately the kids were useless.”

21. SUMMARY, FUTURE OF THE PROJECT
 Continuation of the project (mobile device acceptable use
policy, school-organized professional training, knowledge
sharing, increase the numbers of the users, action researches)
 Continuation of the research
 learning outcomes, by subjects
 true-experiment, quasi-experiment research methods
 PPC research model
HuCER 2017, Budapest

22. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Balazs Czekman
balazs.czekman@gmail.com
puskas.kispest.hu
edumobil.hu