The document summarizes research conducted by a team on the topic of tablet use in classrooms. It describes focus groups that explored the use of portable technology and acceptance of new technology in classrooms. Surveys were distributed to 200 students at Miami University to collect descriptive data on demographics and technology usage. Inferential statistical tests found relationships between class rank, major, and views on clickers and tablets. The team recommends launching an "iClass" tablet at the university, including its cost in tuition, and having incoming students purchase it to gain experience with the technology.

1. THE ICLASS
Team Shorthanded:
Andy, Katie, Molly, Kyle and Matt

2. RESEARCH QUESTION
 Studied tablet use in the classrooms through focus groups and a
survey
 Use of portable technology
 Acceptance of new technology in classrooms
 We chose the topic because:
 Relevant
 Beneficial to students
 Provides teachers more control over technology in the classroom
 Allows for more technology use in the classroom

3. SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP
FINDINGS
 Clickers are not beneficial to classroom experience
 Cheating, system failures, forgetting them
 Technology through Apple
 Capabilities to work with dual operating systems i.e. Windows
 Portable Keyboard
 Use of online textbooks
 Low retina display
 Compliment to a laptop

4. SAMPLING PLAN
 Non-probability sample
 200 Miami University Students:
 Greek organizations
 Large lecture classrooms
 Shriver, King
 Clubs / Organizations
 Participants from all majors and class rank

5. DESCRIPTIVE DATA
 Number of surveys filled out: 200
 Gender: Equal distribution
 Female: 94
 Male: 106
 Class Rank:
 Freshman: 65
 Sophomores: 53
 Juniors: 53
 Seniors: 27
 Senior +: 2

6. DESCRIPTIVE DATA CONTINUED
 On Campus / Off Campus:
 On-Campus: 120
 Off-Campus: 80
 Residency:
 In-State: 124
 Out-of-State: 72
 International: 4

7. DESCRIPTIVE DATA CONTINUED
 Majors / Schools:
 Arts and Science: 58
 Business: 86
 Education: 30
 Engineering: 14
 Fine Arts: 8
 Other: 4

8. INFERENTIAL DATA
 Nearly certain statistical evidence that:
 Class rank effects whether a student owns a dell
 Students who would rather type an exam than handwrite it believe the iClass would be
beneficial
 Students that believe the iClass would be beneficial would want the price to be included in their
school’s tuition
 Strong statistical evidence that:
 Class rank effects whether a student owns an HP or an Apple
 The higher a student’s class rank, the more have used clickers
 A student’s major effects whether or not they have used clickers in the classroom
 Students that like to use clickers as a method of participation would also find the iClass
beneficial
 There is a relationship between student’s preference of having the iClass price included in their
tuition and whether a student is in-state, out-of-state, or an international student (In-state
students prefer to have the iClass price included in their tuition more often than out-of-state
students)

9. INFERENTIAL DATA CONTINUED
 Managerial Evidence that:
 Class rank effects whether a student owns an Acer
 The higher a student’s class rank, the more classes they can bring laptops to
 Upper class students prefer a smaller screen size for the iClass, while underclass
students would prefer the screen smaller
 If a student thinks the iClass would be beneficial, they would usually like the ability to
purchase a larger hard drive

10. CHI-SQUARED DATA
Female Students
Male Students
40
35
40
30
35
30 25
25 20
15 Count
20
15 Count 10 Expected Count
10 Expected Count 5
5 0
0 Kindle (6 iPad (9.7 Net book MacBook
Kindle (6 iPad (9.7 Net book MacBook inches) inches) (10.5 (13.3
inches) inches) (10.5 (13.3 inches) inches)
inches) inches)
Ho: Variables are independent
Ha: Variables are dependent
P-Value = .561
We fail to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, a student’s preference in
screen size for the iClass has nothing to do with whether they are male or
female.

11. CHI-SQUARED ANALYSIS
RESIDENCY & ICLASS PRICE INCLUDED IN TUITION
Students that answered "No" to having Students that answered "Yes" to having
iClass price being included in tuition iClass price being included in tuition
50 100
40 80
30 60
Count Count
20 40
Expected Count Expected Count
10 20
0 0
In-state Out-of-State International In-state Out-of-State International
Student Student
Ho: Variables are independent P-Value =
.011
Ha: Variables are dependent
We reject the null hypothesis. We have strong statistical evidence that a
student’s preference of having the iClass price included in their tuition is
affected by whether a student is in-state, out-of-state, or an international
student.
In-State students prefer to have the iClass price included in their tuition

12. FURTHER ANALYSIS
HANDWRITING PREFERENCES ANOVA
Given an essay exam, would you rather
type it?
Lowe
Std. Std. r
Major N Mean Upper Bound
Deviation Error Boun
d
Arts and 58 3.55 1.273 .167 3.217 3.886
Science
Business 86 3.64 1.264 .136 3.369 3.911
Education 30 3.40 1.429 .261 2.866 3.934
Engineering 14 3.93 1.141 .305 3.270 4.587
Fine Arts 8 3.50 1.414 .500 2.318 4.682
Other above chart indicates the mean response of
The 4 4.25 1.500 .750 major. Utilizing an
each 1.863 6.637
ANOVA table, we can test the following hypotheses:
Ho: There exists no difference between the mean response of each major
Ha: There exists a difference between the mean response of each major
T Score -.456
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 197.86
Between Groups 4.746 5 .949 .567 .726 DF 1
P Value .649
Given the high p-value of .726 we do not have enough managerial or
statistically significant evidence to conclude that there exists a difference
between the mean response of each major.

13. “I believe that the iClass will be beneficial in my classroom experience when taking
tests, taking notes, focusing and accessing related material.”
Answer: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Senior + Total
Strongly disagree Count 2 2 3 1 0 8
Expected 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.1 .1 8.0
Count
Disagree Count 7 4 2 1 0 14
Expected 4.6 3.7 3.7 1.9 .1 14.0
Count
Neither agree nor disagree Count 8 13 6 7 0 34
Expected 11.1 9.0 9.0 4.6 .3 34.0
Count
Agree Count 34 22 31 16 1 104
Expected 33.8 27.6 27.6 14.0 1.0 104.0
Count
Strongly agree Count 14 12 11 2 1 40
Expected 13.0 10.6 10.6 5.4 .4 40.0
Count
Total Count 65 53 53 27 2 200
Expected 65.0 53.0 53.0 27.0 2.0 200.0
Count
This table places class rank as the independent variable, and the students’ answers as the
dependent. We have tested the following hypotheses:
Ho: There exists no relationship between class rank and indicated agreement
Ha: There exists a relationship relationship between class rank and indicated agreement
A x2 test provides the following statistics: Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.650a 16 .625
Given the high p-value of .625, this analysis suggests that there is no relationship between class rank
and indicated agreement. We have very low managerial evidence to even consider the alternative
given the x2 analysis.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS
 In all of our analysis of the data it is clear that students think that that the iClass would be
a beneficial product to have in the classroom
 We recommend that:
 the iClass be launched at Miami
 The cost included in tuition for students, especially in-state students because they tended to
support this strategy more strongly
 Have incoming students purchase the iClass so that they benefit from the technology earlier and
gain the experience with it that older students have
 Include features that allow for extensive note taking capabilities, clicker technology and different
modes for in and out of classroom use

15. ANY QUESTIONS????