Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs  Volume 16
doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12252
USING TABLET TECHNOLOGY FOR
PERSONALISING LEARNING
David Ryan
Apple Education Trainer and Adviser for Special Educational Needs and Inclusion
Key words: Personalised learning, planning for pupils with SEN, educational technology, individual education
plans.
This paper begins with examining the origins of
Individual Educational Plans, before taking a criti-
cal approach to the concept, to highlight the short-
comings and flaws that can now be found with the
concept. The call is made to move toward Person-
alised Planning models, which will have a greater
impact on pupil outcomes, before reporting on
how the Apple iPad can be used as an effective
intervention for pupils with Special Educational
Needs and/or disabilities. The iPad accessibility
features are highlighted to show how pupil barriers
to learning can be addressed, before making sug-
gestions as to how Personalised Learning Plans
can be created using the iPad, and how Person-
alised Learning can be delivered.
Introduction – individual education plans
The idea of creating an individual education plan (IEP)
for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) is not
recent. Rodger (1995) traced the origin in the United
States to 1975, and Tod, Castle and Blamires (2013) sug-
gested that IEPs arrived in the UK around 1994. The IEP
can be found in a number of jurisdictions and educational
systems across the world, for example, Canada, Sweden
(Hirsch, 2011; Sj€oberg, 2014) and New Zealand (Mitch-
ell, Morton and Hornby, 2010).
The literature on IEPs tends to fall into two main camps:
the first suggests that the creation of the document is
important and can have a meaningful impact on the educa-
tion of pupils with SEN, for example Shelton-Quinn (2011,
p. 802), describes the IEP as ‘a solid, legally binding com-
mitment of resources spelled out in measurable goals and
objectives that the district must provide to meet the child’s
needs reflective of the special education eligible disability.’
On the other hand, both Rodger (1995) and Cooper (1996)
suggested that dedicating scarce educational resource to the
writing of an IEP was a waste of paper.
Problems with individual education plans
In terms of application to practice, I have yet to meet
a teacher who is enthusiastic about writing an IEP;
ª 2016 NASEN
 Number s1  2016 1071–1077
instead, I have found that IEPs are fraught with diffi-
culties:
The requirement to produce an IEP is often directed from
authority, either Government, for example, in Northern Ire-
land the Department of Education makes provision through
it's Code of Practice for an IEP to be established for children
with special educational needs (DENI 1998) or Local Edu-
cation Authorities or senior managers in schools. This can
lead to psychological resistance from professionals, who
view the approach as something being done to them, rather
than being done with them. (Drasgow, Yell and Robinson,
2001). This same criticism could be applied to writing IEPs
by the teacher as there is often with no discussion with the
pupil (Johnson, 2009; Shevlin and Rose, 2003).
To produce a quality IEP can take time, which is often a
pressure for teachers (Tod, Castle and Blamires, 2013).
Where a large number of IEPs have to be produced, the
plan becomes a group plan or general/watered down ver-
sion that merely describes the normal classroom practice
and pedagogy, with the only difference being the name of
the child (Hayden, 2005).
Concern is often expressed where software is used to
generate IEPs; the software’s pre-packaged targets are just
applied to the SEN, with little attention having been
given to specific targets relevant to the unique needs of
the child. A report from OfSted (2004) found that target-
setting has the greatest impact when it focuses on precise
curriculum objectives for individuals and when it forms
part of a whole school improvement process.
In a majority of cases, IEPs are negative, only recording
the problems the pupil has and omitting to mention the
pupil’s strengths, what interests the pupil may have which
could be developed to unlock learning potential or what
‘big plans’ the pupil may have. In my career, I encoun-
tered a pupil who struggled with numeracy and literacy,
but was gifted at MotoCross, and his teachers were una-
ware of the ‘gift’. Only when this was discovered was his
curriculum made relevant by basing the learning on his
areas of interest. This young person’s ‘big plan’ was to
enjoy a professional career in MotoCross.
1071
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077
On another occasion, Stephanie told me of her wish to
become a lawyer. However, she experienced many barriers
related to dyslexia, including struggles with reading, writ-
ing, and spelling, alongside low self-esteem and a fear of
speaking in public. The issue was that becoming a lawyer
relied on these skills. Stephanie’s ‘big plan’ seemed to be
out of kilter with the struggles she experienced.
The pupil may be unaware they have a SEN or an IEP,
let alone the targets they should be working toward. It is
then unsurprising that the pupil doesn’t meet their targets
(Fish, 2010). Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene,
Gardner, and Lovett. (2006) called for greater pupil
involvement in the IEP process, including their engage-
ment in the IEP meeting. To not involve the child in the
process may be a contravention of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) and
United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (UN, 2006) for jurisdictions that are signato-
ries to these covenants.
The targets set tend to be for the medium term, that is to
say, over a period of months. In cases where the targets are
met earlier than anticipated, they are not usually revised or
rewritten (Pawley and Tennant, 2008; Shotton, 2009).
The targets are often linked to the scores from standard-
ised tests in numeracy or literacy, and then teaching is
pitched at the level the child achieved, rather than stretch-
ing and challenging the child by pitching the teaching
above the child’s current attainment level (Boaler, Wil-
iam and Brown, 2000).
A need exists for the child, the school, and the home all
to be on board to ensure the child progresses, with the
input from home being the most important, but this is
often the one that educators know least about (Bell,
2000). Falk and Dierking (2010) suggest that as much as
95% of what a child learns actually doesn’t take place in
school or formal learning environments, but in the home.
There are a number of suggestions in academic literature
as to how the home learning potential can be unlocked,
including through teacher’s conducting home visits (Rose,
2010) or the establishment of home–school agreements
(Halgarten, 2001; Macbeath, 1989). However, whilst pre-
school and nursery school teachers may conduct home–
school visits, this practice rarely, if ever extends to pri-
mary or secondary education.
Parents complain that their opinion is often ignored, that
the process is over their heads, that professionals make
the decisions regardless of their views (Anderson and
Minke, 2010; Zeitlin and Curcic, 2014).
Perhaps, it is now time to move the approach forward by
using technology to create a more personalised experience
for the pupil.
1072
Personalising learning
Personalising learning for pupils with SEN is a more
recent approach. There are two main aspects to the
personalised approach, firstly creating a personalised learn-
ing plan, and then to deliver a personalised education.
Using tablet technology
The author has published guidance for teachers on writing
IEPs and SMART Targets (Ryan, 2010), but now advo-
cates for the use of tablet devices to create more mean-
ingful plans.
Whilst many tablet devices can be used for creating
personalised plans, the Apple iPad is considered to have
the greatest potential, as it can use on-board features and
one application (or app), rather than having to use a
number of apps to achieve the same thing. The paper
will draw on first-hand experience of using the iPad as
an Apple Education Trainer between 2013 and 2015,
including devising personalised Learning Plans for a
wide range of pupils with SEN. Prior to working direct
with pupils, informed consent was sought from the
parents, pupils and teachers to ensure ethical standards
were maintained.
The iPad comes with two built-in cameras, the Facetime
Camera on the side facing the user and the iSight Camera
on the rear. Both cameras can be used for still and video
recording.
A number of schools use iPad as a learning and teaching
tool, with a number of the schools using it on a one–to-
one basis. However, in terms of making a difference for
pupils with SEN, the iPad may have the greatest impact.
(For example, Harrell, 2010).
iPad features for personalised learning
The starting point is to identify a suitable application
to host the personalised plan. A starting point for per-
sonalised learning is that if the approach is to be truly
personalised, a template should not be used, as the user
will choose the application used and format. This may
include word-processing applications (Microsoft Word
or Pages), Powerpoint or Keynote, spreadsheets, mind
mapping applications (Popplet or Simple Mind), or
applications based on Sticky Notes. The main drawback
of these is that they tend to rely on traditional media
such as words and to a lesser extent, photographs.
However, the most versatile applications can include
where multimedia options. I have found Book Creator
(Red Jumper Studios) to be the best for this being able
to combine multimedia resources on the iPad.
Book Creator
The starting point is to provide training to pupils with
SEN as to what a personalised plan is, and how to use
the technology to design their plan. I have found that
children in general tend to pick this up relatively quickly,
ª 2016 NASEN

and through training the children this is the best way to
save teacher time. It is recognised that for some pupils
with severe and complex SEN they may not have the
aptitude to create their plan, and the process for these
pupils will need to be teacher or assistant led.
The title page can be created, and Book Creator offers
a number of possibilities in terms of colours and fonts
that can be used. The pupils can have a photograph of
themselves on the cover, or favourite character they
can relate to. The pupils should be encouraged to have
important information on the cover as well, such as the
dates the plan will be operational from, and their class.
Niall (a pupil with Asperger’s Syndrome) chose to
have pictures of himself, his school, his classroom
assistant and a stress toy he used on the front cover of
his plan.
The next stage is to get the pupil to provide background
information about themselves, which can include pho-
tographs, video, sound files, or traditional text. To take
account of the triangulation approach, the following
points have been useful prompts in the process:
• A photograph of the child
• ‘All about me’ – which can include family background,
interests or hobbies etc.
• Child strengths – what they are good at or achieve-
ments.
• What the child finds difficulty with, or, in more child
friendly language ‘what I would also like to be good at’
• Parental comment – home background / relevant infor-
mation from home
Figure 1: Accessibility Features on the iPad (iOS 9.2.1) in the Settings menu
ª 2016 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077
• Big picture idea – what the child is aspiring to at the
end of the current phase of education they are in.
• Teacher or support assistant comment.
The information can be made available to the class
teacher, who can include relevant educational data
and standardised test scores to add to background
information, and then create targets alongside the child
and his/her parents to address what has been found to
be areas of difficulty. The targets can be written in a
way that meets the needs of teachers, and create child-
friendly versions.
Accessibility features
The iPad has a wide range of accessibility features which
benefit pupils SEN. The features are accessed via Set-
tings, and include options for those with visual impair-
ment, hearing impairment, and dyslexia. It is
recommended that potential users explore the features in
some detail to gauge the benefits for pupils (Fig. 1).
Dictation
Dictation can be switched on in the Settings and once
enabled, a microphone icon will appear beside the
spacebar on the on-screen keyboard. As long as the
iPad is connected to the Internet, once the microphone
button is pressed, the pupil can speak into the micro-
phone and the iPad will then type what is being said
(Figs 2 and 3).
Speak selection
This can be turned on in Accessibility settings, and then,
when text is encountered more or less anywhere on the
1073
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077
Figure 2: Switching on ‘Enable Dictation’ in the General Settings
Figure 3: Showing the Microphone key beside the
spacebar on the Keyboard (with dictation enabled)
iPad, if the user holds down their finger on the text, a
selection can be chosen by extending the amount of text
selected and an option appears to speak. The advantages
of this are enormous, as pupils who struggle with literacy
and writing can use headphones to engage with text in a
fairly unobtrusive way (Fig. 4).
Predictive keyboard and dictionary
The predictive keyboard can be enabled in Settings.
When a pupil is typing and is unsure of the spelling,
the three suggestions are provided in the space above the
keyboard. If an unfamiliar word is encountered by the
1074
pupil, using the same approach as mentioned previously
of holding the finger on the word, one of the options that
appears is ‘define’ which will take the user to the
dictionary (Fig. 5).
Evidence gathering
Once the targets are shared with the child, encouragement
should be given to gathering evidence of learning that the
target has been met. Again, this can include evidence
from any of the media outlined already, and over time a
digital portfolio of evidence can be created.
Reviews
A difficulty with IEP reviews is proving progress of
what pupils have achieved over the course of the year.
By having digital evidence available of what the
child can do, the revision of targets should be straight-
forward.
At parent–teacher meetings, it is possible to show video
of the pupil’s performance at the start of the school year,
a midpoint and at the end of the school year.
Benefits for transition
Ross and Brown (2013) highlight that what is already
known about a pupil’s strengths or weaknesses at primary
school are not well communicated to secondary school
teachers and the secondary school teachers then take time
getting to know the pupil. Summerfield (1986) suggested
that they become the least known pupils in school.
The Personalised Learning Plan and evidence can be
shared with the new school, so more time becomes avail-
ª 2016 NASEN
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077

Figure 4: When in a text-based document, by holding down your finger you can have the iPad speak the text (with
speak selection enabled) (Brief Encounters. Ryan, 2015)

Figure 5: In this example, the words ‘I am typing’ are being typed on the keyboard. Before the word ‘typing’ is
complete, the predictive keyboard offers three possible words, one of which is ‘typing’ and the other ‘type’. To
choose the correct word, the user simply clicks on the desired word

able for teaching that which is relevant and builds on
existing skills, knowledge and expertise.
Personalising learning
Delivering a personalised curriculum for the child with
SEN can be achieved in a relatively straightforward way
by using iPad.
Using applications
At the time of writing (May 2015), the App Store (the
site where applications can be downloaded from) has over
1.3 million applications. Whilst it may appear relatively
straightforward to search for an app linked to what the
teacher wishes to teach, the process can be difficult.
There is the sheer volume of Apps and then deciding

ª 2016 NASEN 1075

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077
between paid for Apps, Apps with ‘In App Purchases’ or
free Apps. Other considerations when choosing a relevant
App include which age, ability and aptitude the App is
relevant for, and the specific area of learning that is being
targeted.
One way through which teachers can overcome the diffi-
culty is by using an educational review site such as the
Educational App Store (www.educationalappstore.com)
which reviews Apps to ensure appropriateness for differ-
ent sectors, and allows smart searches based on a range
of parameters, including the device that the App is to be
used on, prices, categories (including SEN) and the age
group. This quality assurance mechanism is valuable
when it comes to choosing Apps to personalise learning.
iTunesU
Originally, iTunesU was to facilitate Higher Education
Institutions deliver courses to remote users, and this has
now been opened to the general educational marketplace.
It is possible to search the iTunesU Store for courses rele-
vant to teacher CPD, or for more able pupils to access
courses that will stretch and challenge them in their
learning. However, the particular strength of iTunesU is
when it comes to both differentiation and Personalising
Learning.
Using the iTunesU Course Manager (which is an Internet
browser-based tool), the teacher can design course content
and lessons that can then be pushed out to either individ-
ual or small groups of pupils. The iTunesU course can
contain many and varied multimedia resources to fully
engage the learner with SEN. If the pupil finds difficulty
in accessing written material, the instructions can then be
delivered through video or sound files, as well as using
the accessibility features outlined.
Conclusion
The iPad in education is still in its infancy, which means
the teaching profession is at the early stages of exploring
its potential. It is perhaps for this reason that academic
literature is somewhat limited in terms of reporting empir-
ical research as to the use of iPad. Whilst this remains an
under-researched area, and there is a need for many more
studies as to the benefits of the device in education, the
initial anecdotal evidence from teachers, parents and their
children tends to be extremely positive as to the benefits
and gains now being made.
To conclude, let me return to Stephanie, the secondary
school pupil with dyslexia who wanted to be a lawyer.
After using iPad for a year I met with Stephanie again,
and she said that she no longer wished to be a lawyer,
explaining that she could be a lawyer, but it would require
hard work. However, with what she had been able to gain
in terms of skills, knowledge and expertise in using the
iPad, Stephanie informed me that she now wished to work
in the area of movie and media production and film
1076
making, as that was what she was now developing skills
for on her iPad. This is but one example of the transfor-
mational power the iPad brings to pupils with SEN, when
it is used for Personalising Learning.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Address for correspondence
David Ryan,
Education Authority:
40 Academy Street. Belfast. BT1 2NQ.
Northern Ireland.
Email: david.ryan@eani.org.uk
00 44 2890 564118
References
Anderson, K. J. & Minke, K. M. (2010) ‘Parent
involvement in education: toward an understanding of
parents’ decision making.’ The Journal of Educational
Research, 100 (5), pp. 311–23.
Bell, M. (2000) Attitudes and Responses to the
Underachievement of Boys in a Belfast Primary
School. Belfast: MEd, Queen’s University.
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D. & Brown, M. (2000) ‘Student’s
Experiences of Ability Grouping – disaffection,
polarisation and the construction of failure.’ British
Education Research Journal, 26 (5), pp. 631–48.
Cooper, P. (1996) ‘Are individual education plans a
waste of paper?’ British Journal of Special Education,
23 (3), pp. 115–9.
DENI (1998) ‘The code of practice for the identification
and assessment of special educational needs.’ [online]
<http://www.deni.gov.uk/the_code_of_practice.pdf>
(accessed 28 May 2015).
Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L. & Robinson, T. R. (2001)
‘Developing legally correct and educationally
appropriate IEPs.’ Remedial and Special Education,
22 (6), pp. 359–73.
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2010) ‘The 95 percent
solution. School is not where most Americans learn
most of their science.’ American Scientist, November
– December, pp. 486–93.
Fish, W. W. (2010) ‘The IEP meeting: perceptions of
parents of students who receive special education
services.’ Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 53 (1), pp. 8–14.
Halgarten, J. (2001) Parents Exist, OK!?. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research.
Harrell, A. (2010) ‘iHelp for Autism.’ San Francisco
Weekly. [Online] <http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-08-
11/news/ihelp-for-autism/> (accessed 28 May 2015).
Hayden, C. (2005) ‘More than a piece of paper? Personal
education plans and ‘looked after’ children in
ª 2016 NASEN

England.’ Child & Family Social Work, 10 (4), pp.
343–52.
Hirsch, A. (2011) ‘A tool for learning? An analysis of
targets and strategies in Swedish Individual Education
Plans.’ Nordic Studies in Education, 31 (1), pp. 14–
29.
Johnson, K. (2009) ‘No longer researching about us
without us: a researcher’s reflection on rights and
inclusive education in Ireland.’ British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37 (4), pp. 250–6.
Macbeath, A. (1989) Involving Parents: Effective Parent-
Teacher Relations. Oxford: Heinemann.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R.,
Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E. & Lovett, D. L. (2006)
‘Increasing student participation in IEP meetings:
establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-
based practice.’ Exceptional Children, 72 (3), pp.
299–316.
Mitchell, D., Morton, M. & Hornby, G. (2010) ‘Review
of the literature on individual education plans.’
University of Canterbury, School of Educational
Studies and Human Development. [Online] <http://
ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5766/1/
12625188_Literature-Review-Use-of-the-IEP.pdf>
(accessed 28 May 2015).
OfSTED (2004) Setting Targets for Pupils with Special
Educational Needs. HMI 751. London: Ofsted.
Pawley, H. & Tennant, G. (2008) ‘Student perceptions of
their IEP targets.’ Support for Learning, 23 (4), pp.
183–6.
Rodger, S. (1995) ‘Individual education plans revisited: a
review of the literature.’ International Journal of
Disability Development and Education, 42 (3), pp.
221–39.
Rose, R. (ed) (2010) Confronting Obstacles to Inclusion:
International Responses to Developing Inclusive
Education. London: Routledge.
Ross, H. & Brown, J. (2013) ‘Teachers’ perceptions of
pupil active citizenship and the transition from
ª 2016 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1071–1077
primary to secondary school.’ University of
Edinburgh. [Online] <http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/
portal/files/12564933/RossBrown2013_GCFProject
Report_AsDelivered.pdf> (accessed 28 May 2015).
Ryan, D. (2010) Getting Smarter: Teacher Guidance for
Writing IEPs and SMART Targets. Raleigh, NC: Lulu
Press.
Ryan, D. (2015) Brief Encounters. Maitland, FL: Zulon
Press.
Shelton-Quinn, A. (2011) ‘Individual Education Plans’
Enclyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development.
New York. Springer. pp. 802–804.
Shevlin, M. & Rose, R. (2003) Encouraging Voices:
Respecting the Insights of Young People Who Have
been Marginalised. Dublin: National Disability
Authority.
Shotton, G. (2009) Pupil Friendly IEPs and Target
Sheets. London: Sage Publications.
Sj€oberg, L. (2014) Confessions of an Individual
Education Plan.’ Chapter 5. In A. Fejes & K. Nicoll
(eds), Foucault and a Politics of Confession in
Education, pp. 62–76. London: Routledge.
Summerfield, M. (1986) Academic Performance after
Transfer. Mid-schooling Transfer: Problems and
Proposals. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Tod, J., Castle, F. & Blamires, M. (2013) Individual
Education Plans: Implementing Effective Practice.
London: David Fulton Books.
United Nations (1989) The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child. New York: The United
Nations. [Online] <www.un.org> (accessed 15 May
2010).
United Nations (2006) the United Nation Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York:
The United Nations.
Zeitlin, V. A. & Curcic, S. (2014) ‘Parental voices on
individualized education programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting
tomorrow? Rum tonight.’ Disability and Society, 29
(3), pp. 373–87.
1077