One of the early decisions that needed to be made in this project is which technology to use. To start with, the cost of purchasing hardware meant having to select one initial device to test, so this is an explanation of sorts as to the selection process and the reasons for choosing an iPad Pro as the first test device.
The first consideration when selecting a device was how best to match the question at the focus of the pilot study. Since the main discovery to be made at this early stage is whether teachers who use paper and/or desktop computers for marking will be willing to switch to another device, it makes sense to pick a device with the least difference to their current workflow. This will hopefully provide the path of least resistance to making the change.
The iPad Pro and the Microsoft Surface, according to their product marketing, both offer a paper-like interface for markup of documents using a stylus to write on the screen. On the face of it, the Surface seems to be placed closer to the realm of desktop computing than it is to paper imitation, offering large keyboards and traditional mice as accessories, whereas the iPad Pro marketing and accessories seem to have a more paper-like orientation.
Future exploration of the pen-like hardware interface may involve testing the Microsoft surface as well, but the iPad’s strong lean towards a paper-like experience over a computer-like experience, coupled with the researcher’s familiarity with older iPad devices, makes it the appropriate device for the pilot study.
Interface suitability aside, the iPad does pose some challenges for this use case. For example, Apple devices like this are designed to be used exclusively by one individual and as such are difficult to share amongst a group of study subjects without either presenting privacy issues or requiring some careful setup. There is no way to create a guest login, for example, and iOS requires an Apple ID to set up, which involves synching the user’s private data. Fortunately, the focus of the pilot study enables a work-around for these problems, and future implementation of iPads for marking, if results are favourable, would likely involve one device per individual anyway.
Another thing to think about when setting up the pilot study is how to reduce workflow overheads so as not to cloud the results of testing the actual hardware usability. This means the researcher must develop a workflow that stays out of the way as much as possible, which will likely involve setting up and testing several options.
Initial trials with an older iPad suggest that restricting user access to a single markup application on the device could help to solve both the workflow challenge and the privacy drawbacks mentioned above. This will involve some work on the part of the researcher to prepare student work for marking in this application, but that preparation stage is not part of the focus of the pilot study so needs to be hidden from subjects in order for them to answer questions about the hardware alone. Future research will then involve devising the ideal workflow if acceptance of the hardware is sufficient for migrating the subjects from their previous paper-based or computer-based workflows.