Bring Your Own Device:

Parental Guidance (PG)

Suggested
By Derick Kiger, Oconomowoc Area School District
Dani Herro, Clemson University
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Abstract
Educators are incorporating students
mobile devices into the schooling experience
via Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives.
This is advantageous for many reasons, most
notably, improving access to Internet resources
and digital tools in support of teaching and
learning. Obtaining parental support is
key to BYOD success. Therefore, this study
examined variables associated with a parents
decision to allow their child to bring personal
technology devices to school for educational
purposes. Parental guidance regarding BYOD
implementation also was solicited. Results
showed most parents permitted their child to
BYOD. Significant BYOD predictors included
the students home mobile technology index
score (+), overall school rating (+), school
technology rating (-), and whether the student
was at the intermediate/high school level.
Implications for practice and future research
are discussed.
Keywords: mobile learning, bring your own
device, byod

ring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs

are on the rise. Driven by the popularity
of mobile computing and the dilemma
of providing students greater access to technology within increasingly tighter budgets, the initiatives are fueled by predictions that students
own and can bring their devices to school (Norris & Soloway, 2011). Norris and Soloway point
to three principles driving BYODs success: the
hyper-connected nature of students, affordability of devices, and global use of smartphones.
Schools, notorious for banning cell phones and
student-owned equipment, are now faced with
Volume 59, Number 5

a host of issues surrounding pedagogy, responsible use, adequate broadband and Wi-Fi, policy
changes - and even theft, when implementing
BYOD. Another important factor from our
perspective, parental support and guidance of
BYOD initiatives, is not sufficiently addressed
in the literature. This study addresses this research gap.

Mobile Learning
Mobile device ownership in North America
has been referred to as staggering (Fritschi
& Wolf, 2012). In fact, when considering the
entire population in the United States, mobile
phone subscriptions outnumbered people with
327.6 million mobile phone plans activated in
2011 (Rainie, 2011, as cited in Fritschi & Wolf).
Teen use and ownership of mobiles continues to
rise. The latest Pew Internet and American Life
survey data depict a portrait of highly connected
teens with 37% of 12-17 year olds owning a
smartphone, and 50% of those owners accessing
the Internet primarily through it (Madden,
Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi & Gasser, 2013).
This represents a 14% rise in ownership in two
years, and typically cuts across demographics
of gender, race, and income, with Hispanics
and Black teens slightly ahead of their White
counterparts. Nearly one-quarter of teens own
tablets, and they continue to lead the charge
in terms of always-on mobile connectivity
(p. 3). Parents approve of mobile device use,
purchasing smartphones, tablets, readers,
and laptops for their children believing
communication and learning via the Internet
will improve (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, &
Purcell, 2010). Prolific ownership does not
necessarily translate to broad educational
adoption; however, schools are progressively
experimenting with mobiles as means of

TechTrends September/October 2015

51

providing digital access to learning (Fritschi &

Wolf, 2012; Herro, Kiger, & Owens, 2013).
Many educators believe mobiles engage
students, extend learning, improve communication, offer valuable feedback, and reduce
costs (Allen, 2011; Kolb, 2011; Quillen, 2010;
Shuler, 2009). Although conducted primarily outside of classroom settings, research
supports a positive impact on student learning with mobile technologies (Shin, Norris &
Soloway, 2011; Traxler, 2009). Teen ownership
and use of mobiles is impacting how schools
consider structuring learning opportunities
(Eisele-Dyrli, 2011; Park, 2011).
Teachers use mobiles to increase fluency
and time spent reading (Purcell, Heaps,
Buchannan & Friedrich, 2013), practice and
explore math problems (Banister, 2010),
do scientific research and digital mapping
(Johnson, Adams, & Haywood, 2011) and even
create mobile games (Kiger, Herro & Prunty,
2012). Innovative educators teach using world
as classroom pedagogy, drawing on mobiles
ability, when properly scaffolded, to offer a
host of multimodal and production-oriented
experiences (Rodrigo, 2011). In sum, educators
see the potential of mobiles to engage,
communicate, and teach students (Purcell
et al., 2013), and students use them as digital
powerhouses to access, store, create, and share
data (Johnson et al., 2011).

Mobile Learning Defined

Broadly defined, mobile learning is the
use of mobile or wireless devices for the
purposes of learning while on the move
(Park, 2011, p. 79). Despite limited research
efforts or wide-scale adoption of acceptable
use policies and standards to guide mobile
learning, a handful of school districts around
the country are piloting and then scaling
mobile device initiatives. Fritischi and Wolf
(p. 17) outline three approaches to program
design and implementation commonly seen
with early efforts:
School-provided device initiatives: schools
purchase and distribute similar devices to
all students
Bring-your-own-technology (BYOT) initiatives:
students purchase and bring various devices
to school following District guidelines
Shared-expense plans for devices and broadband
access: a combined approach of the above
models in which expenses are shared based
on ability to contribute
There is little consensus whether to accept
or reject particular models of mobile learning
52

in schools, undoubtedly because of its novelty

and the various stages of research regarding
implementation, effectiveness, and evaluation
(Foulger et. al, 2013). This paper reports findings
from a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
initiative in a Midwest public school district.
Synonymous with BYOT, the instance involves
students bringing personally owned mobile
devices to school under the guidance of District
policies to enhance learning. We begin with
an overview and definition of BYOD and then
describe the current status through examples
detailing pros and cons, and implementation
successes and failures.

BYOD: From inception to practice

The term BYOD was proposed in a
conference paper in 2004 (Ballagas, Rohs,
Sheridan, & Borchers, 2004), and coined
shortly thereafter in the business world to
describe a novel practice allowing employees
to bring their own smartphones and mobile
devices to work. BYOD in the workplace
raises similar concerns experienced by early
adopters in education: distractibility, security,
ownership of data, and the organizations
ability to adapt to supporting multiple devices
(Morrison, 2013; Weinstein, 2013).
The term, BYOD, held significance as it
meant the line between professional and personal
tools to access and disseminate information
was blurring. By 2009, it gained attention in
the higher education community, and a couple
years later emerged as a controversial trend in
K-12 environments (Quillen, 2011; Purcell et
al., 2013). School districts around the country
began grappling with the reality that students
had access to mobiles, and thus potential
learning, at a rate much greater than their
ability to provide mobile devices. One-to-one
laptop initiatives began making their way into
education with some promise, however they
were fraught with challenge and instability
as the high cost of maintenance, broadband
access, data plans, and replacement cycles fell to
school districts (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke,
2007; Wallace, 2011).
Once adequate infrastructure is in place,
BYOD offers solutions towards increased access
and lower costs (Devaney, 2012; Raths, 2012). It
also raises numerous issues surrounding equity,
minors accessing school-sanctioned Internet
resources, and professional development.
Hockley (2012), cites the advantage of BYOD
programs as lower-cost, increased equity
alternatives to access information, and then
summarizes three main challenges of the
programs as (1) non-standard device/hardware

TechTrends September/October 2015

Volume 59, Number 5

posing a range of functionality, battery-life and

technical support issues; (2) safety concerns
both online and via theft; and (3) classroom
management issues keeping students on-task.
Examples of BYOD initiatives from around
the United States illuminate the successes and
challenges of the endeavor. Briefly, we outline
two representative cases:
In 2011, Forsyth County Schools
(FCS) in Cummings, Georgia,
implemented BYOD among all 36 of
its schools. Low per-student spending
and high demand for technology access
in the large District underscored the
need for a bold plan. FCS estimates that
35% of its 39,000 PK-12 students are
regularly engaged in BYOD activities
using smartphones and tablets to
enhance literacy instruction, access
Web 2.0 tools, and facilitate projectbased instruction. Teacher buy-in and
paradigmatic shifts in instruction (less
direct instruction, more teacher-asfacilitator) have offered the biggest
challenges, along with the necessity to
provide adequate infrastructure (Intel
Corporation, 2012).
Fairfax County Public Schools
(FCPS), in Virginia, is the 11th largest
school district in the United States with
over 180,000 students and 23,000 staff
members at 194 schools. In 2013, the
District won a Governors Technology
Award for their recent BYOD initiative
- one of the largest, most successful
deployments in the country. Personally
owned laptops, smartphones, netbooks
and tablets are all welcome in K-12
classrooms. The District piloted
before scaling BYOD to alleviate
significant logistical, technical and
pedagogical frustrations. Stakeholders
were considered as integral to the
plans success. Community members,
administration, network support,
parents and students were consulted
or informed frequently from the plans
inception to rollout. To that end, a
student advisory council helped plan
the initiative (Chamberlein et al., 2013),
and their extensive BYOD webpage
communication (http://www.fcps.edu/
woodsonhs/academics/byod.html)
establishes the basis for BYOD and
assists families in learning about District
BYOD policies and practices. Initially
security, policies, device configuration
and teacher training presented obstacles
Volume 59, Number 5

to overcome. Teacher professional

development to support pedagogical
shifts in practice i.e. addressing multifunctionality of devices, equity, and
student-centered tasks offered through
mobile learning, continues to challenge
the District.
Currently there are a few models, but little
research, on the effectiveness of BYOD. To that
end, Foulger et al. (2013), acknowledges, school
districts are in various stages of evaluation and
implementation (p. 22) as they consider how
to integrate mobiles with curriculum. Research
is necessary to inform pilots, effectively scale
initiatives, and measure increased learning and
achievement.

Research Problem and Questions

While little or no research exists linking
parental support and BYOD success, one can
assume their role analogous to that of other
technology initiatives where parents can help
foster digital citizenship (Ribble, 2009), provide
access and monitoring of devices, sanction use of
educational media (Rideout, 2014), and support
school-to-home learning and responsible use
(CommonSense Media, 2010). Parents also are
influential in how media is used (Rideout, Foehr
& Roberts, 2010) and offer encouragement
based on perceptions of educational value
(Rideout, 2014). Mobile device ownership
by parents with young children (ages 2-10)
now exceeds 70%, with 41% owning iPod or
iPad-like devices (Rideout, 2014). In short,
similar to their adolescent counterparts, young
children increasingly have access. However,
when compared to other media platforms,
many parents of young children believe mobile
devices are least likely to encourage subject-area
learning. Understanding parents decisions on
whether to allow children to bring technology to
school, the types of devices owned and preferred,
and soliciting input towards ways to improve
BYOD initiatives may deepen understanding
of the tools learning potential, and assist in
planning and implementation of digital media
and learning programs.
This study adds to the literature by identifying predictors of a parents decision to participate in a Midwestern school districts BYOD
initiative. It also collects parent feedback for
improving the effort. Specifically, this study addresses the following questions
1. What variables are associated with a parents
decision to allow his/her student to bring
personal technology devices to school for
educational purposes?

TechTrends September/October 2015

53

2. What mobile devices do BYOD students

usually bring to school and does it vary by
grade level?
3. How do parents perceive BYOD including
classroom use, pros and cons, and areas for
improvement?

Context
This study was conducted in a growing
Midwestern public school district that serves
students spread across three counties. There are
five elementary schools (4K-4), two intermediate
schools (5-8), and one high school (9-12). Student
enrollment is approximately 5,200 (White=92%,
Female=49%, Economically Disadvantaged=19%,
Disabilities=13%). The communitys median
household income (~$68,500) and educational
level (Bachelors degree or higher=37.5%) are
above national averages.
Districts BYOD Initiative
The district initially piloted several
1:1 programs with school technology in its
elementary, intermediate, and high schools
with limited success. The 1:1 programs proved
unsustainable due to cost, network/ wireless
limitations, and available technical support. A
quick implementation schedule also limited
timely and comprehensive teacher professional
development. Further, the provided laptops
lacked true portability as they were large, and
plagued with connectivity, battery, and software
compatibility issues.
After the Instructional Technology
Administrator participated in a national
consortium promoting innovation in schools
through dialogue and best practices (http://
www.cosn.org/ParticipatoryLearning), BYOD
was seen a viable alternative. By 2012, four of the
13 participating school districts had piloted or
enacted BYOD programs and the district began
formulating a plan modeled after the successful
programs. Advice from the consortium included
presentations, discussions and document sharing
aimed at (1) infrastructure considerations;
(2) professional development and pedagogy;
(3) communication with stakeholders; (4)
sustainability plans and (5) garnering support.
One aspect of creating a viable BYOD program
included soliciting parental input regarding
perceptions, their ability to provide access to
devices, and suggestions for BYOD within local
schools.
Data Collection and Analysis
The district conducts an online parent
survey of randomly selected households each
spring for continuous improvement purposes.
Perceptions of school climate, programming, and
54

instructional technology are collected. As part of

the most recent survey, parents were also asked
to provide BYOD-related feedback including
their childs home technology environment
and whether they permitted personal devices
at school for educational purposes (Figure 1).
Parents of BYOD students were asked how
devices were used in the classroom, BYOD
pros and cons, and ways to improve the BYOD
experience. Respondent demographic data
(e.g., parent education, etc.) were collected and
included in the analytic model as predictors of
BYOD decisions.
SurveyMonkey was used to create
the questionnaire and collect responses.
Approximately 95% of parents provided an
email address during registration. The hyperlink
was emailed to the parent sample. A follow-up
email reminder was sent a week later. The final
survey data were exported to SPSS for analysis.
Data Analysis
Frequencies, percentages, and means were
used to describe the survey data. Binomial
Logistic regression analysis was used to identify
significant predictors of an affirmative BYOD
decision (Peng, Lee, & Ingersoll, 2002). Chisquare and the phi coefficient were used to
assess device preference by grade level. Typed
feedback were coded, counted, categorized, and
displayed for qualitative analysis.

Results
Survey Respondents. 482 parents completed
the survey yielding a +4% margin of error. Key
respondent demographic variables approximate
the overall community characteristics (Table
1 on the next page). The sample also appears
proportionately distributed by school and grade
level further suggesting representativeness
(Table 2 on page 56).
Home Technology. Parents were asked
about their childs home technology environment. Approximately 90% indicated highspeed internet and a wireless network. 76.8%
reported a laptop/tablet/netbook and 69.5%
indicated a desktop computer. More than half
reported a smartphone or gaming device. (Table 3 on page 57).
Question 1. What variables are associated
with a parents decision to allow his/her student
to bring personal technology devices to school
for educational purposes?
Binomial logistic regression analysis
was used to identify significant predictors of
parents decision to BYOD. This technique is
appropriate given a dichotomous outcome
variable that violates the linearity assumption

TechTrends September/October 2015

Volume 59, Number 5

Does your child use the following technologies at home? (Yes / No)
a. Smartphone w/ Internet capability
b. Desktop computer
c. High-speed Internet
d. Wireless home network
e. iPad
f. iPhone
g. iPod
h. iPod Touch
i. Kindle or other e-Reader
j. Laptop / tablet computer / netbook
k. Portable gaming device
l. Other
Do you allow your student to bring his/her personal technology to school for educational purposes?
(Yes / No)
Which device(s) does your child usually bring to school? (Yes / No / NA)
a. Smartphone w/ Internet capability
b. iPad
c. iPhone
d. iPod
e. iPod Touch
f. Kindle / e-Reader
g. Laptop / tablet computer / netbook
h. Portable gaming device
i. Other
Thinking about a typical week at school, how does your child usually use his/her personal technology
in the classroom?
In your opinion, what were some benefits of your child bringing his/her technology to school?
What problems, concerns or issues has your child experienced bringing his/her technology to school?
How might the school improve the bring your own device experience for students?
Figure 1. Parent questionnaire: BYOD excerpts

of ordinary least squares regression. The logistic

regression estimates the odds of a certain event
occurring (i.e., BYOD or Not). The impact of
predictor variables is usually stated in terms of
odds ratios.
Predictor variables. The predictor
variables comprising the analytic model
were collected via the parent questionnaire
including a calculated index score for home
mobile technology (Table 4 on page 58).
Other predictors included overall school
rating, school technology rating, grade level
of youngest student, parent education level,
and parent role. Parent income was excluded
from the analysis due to the high percentage of
prefer not to respond responses.
Overall model evaluation. The overall model
is well-fitted to the data (2 (7) =232.577, p<.001;
Hosmer-Lemeshow test yielded a 2 (8) =12.592,
p=.127). The overall correction prediction
(81.7%) is an improvement over the null model
(56.2%). Table 5 on page 58 displays the observed
and predicted frequencies.
Volume 59, Number 5

Evaluation of individual predictors. The

Wald statistic is used to assess the significance
of individual predictors. In this study, parents
of high school (Wald=97.697, p=.000) and
intermediate school students (Wald=114.177,
p=.000) were 26 to 29 times more likely to
make an affirmative BYOD decision controlling
for the other predictors (Table 6 on page 59).
Parents with higher home mobile technology
index scores, higher overall school ratings, and
a 4-Yr College Degree+ were also more likely
to support BYOD. Conversely, parents with a
higher rating of school technology were less
likely to support BYOD.
Question 2. What mobile devices do BYOD
students usually bring to school and does it vary
by grade level?
Overall, the most popular BYOD devices
were Smartphones, iPod Touches, and Laptops/
Tablets/Netbooks. High school students brought
smartphones, laptops, iPhones, and iPods to
school at a greater than expected frequency

TechTrends September/October 2015

55

Table 1. Parent Survey: Respondent Characteristics

1. Household Income
$0 to $49,999
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
>$150,000
Prefer Not to Respond

46
115
129
77
115

9.6
23.9
26.8
16.0
23.9

2. Parent Education
High School
Some College
2-Year College Degree
4-Year College Degree
Graduate School Degree
Post-Graduate/Doctoral Degree
Prefer Not to Respond

35
75
59
181
87
27
18

7.3
15.6
12.2
37.6
18.0
5.6
3.7

3. Parent Role
Mom
Dad

359
123

74.5
25.5

4. Race/Ethnicity
White
Black or African American
Hispanic
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Isl
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Other
Prefer Not to Respond

442
1
4
2
1
1
3
28

91.7
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
5.8

Note. n = 482.

compared to elementary and intermediate

students as indicted by large (>2.5) adjusted
residuals (Table 7 on page 60). Conversely,
elementary students brought Kindles/other
e-Readers at a greater than expected rate.
Question 3. How do parents perceive
BYOD including classroom use, pros and cons,
and areas for improvement?
Classroom Use
According to parents who permitted their
child to BYOD, devices were typically used
for project-based research, collaboration, and
communication. As one respondent commented,
She uses ideas from the internet, YouTube,
pictures (images), etc. for project ideas. She
will use her phone (internet) for finding facts
and information needed on papers. Another
56

parent indicated, Internet research, projects

such as the house architecture, google apps for
assignments.
Pros and Cons
Parents cited several BYOD benefits
frequently. Most notably, personal devices were
viewed as improving access to the Internet,
data, and other digital tools. Facilitating
communication among students, teachers, and
coaches, and student engagement were also
perceived benefits. Sample comments include
Communication between home,
teachers and coaches. As well as internet
research.
He was able to have his own
computer since there were not enough
computers for all the students.
No books!! I believe the most
beneficial reasons for using his
technology at school is that it prepares
them for life/work in the real world.
This technology is everywhere. Id want
him to use it for learning, etc. I believe
that if he uses technology in school that
reinforces the positive uses for it.
It was used for recording a
science project, for taking photos in
photography club, and recording notes
during book club.
Concerns
Parents cited several concerns about BYOD
including device theft, device security, losing a
device, classroom distractions, and inappropriate
use. As expressed by one parent, The devices
my children have are expensive (I think) and
therefore I worry about them being lost or
stolen or broken. I am not about to replace 2 or 3
laptops in a year...or ipods etc.... Another parent
stated, Kids using phones and texting during
class, losing items or things getting stolen.
Improvements
Parents made several suggestions for
improving BYOD including making schoolowned devices available to students who do not
have a personal device, secure storage options for
students who bring their technology to school,
a robust wireless network, and appropriate
use guidelines. According to one parent, The
problem that I envision is that not every student
will be able to afford their own devices. So as
this becomes more widely implemented some
students will be left out. Another respondent
indicated, Clearly defined rules regarding when
it is appropriate/acceptable to use devices and
when it is not. Also, rules for downtime and the

TechTrends September/October 2015

Volume 59, Number 5

use of devices for music/social media.

And Have a secure place to store
them and be sure they are trained in an
educational, positive way.

Table 2. Distribution of Parent Sample and Student Population: School and Grade Level

Parent Sample
n

Discussion
The prevalence of student mobile
technology creates an opportunity
for schools to leverage these devices
for instructional purposes. Parents
make significant investments in their
childs personal technology and are
key stakeholders in school use. This
study examined variables associated
with a parents decision to allow his/
her student to bring personal technology devices to school for educational
purposes. Parental guidance regarding BYOD implementation was also
solicited.

Key Findings

Student Population
n

Elementary #1
Elementary #2
Elementary #3
Elementary #4
Elementary #5
Subtotal (K4-4)

34
19
43
40
57
193

7.1
3.9
8.9
8.3
11.8
40.0

410
211
508
468
557
2,154

8.0
4.1
9.9
9.1
10.8
41.9

Intermediate #1
Intermediate #2
Subtotal (Gr. 5-8)

75
74
149

15.6
15.4
31.0

819
698
1,517

16.0
13.6
29.6

High School (Gr.9-12)

140

29.0

1,445

28.2

482

100

5,116

100

Total

1. Most students had access to a variety

of technologies at home including Note. Parents indicated school and grade level of youngest child.
High-speed Internet, a wireless home
Table 3. Parent Survey Results: Home Technology Environment
network, and a mobile device like a laptop
Home Technology
n
computer, Smartphone or iPod device.
2. Most parents (56.2%) permitted their child to
BYOD. Significant BYOD predictors included
High-speed Internet
444
the students home mobile technology index
Wireless
home
network
433
score (+), overall school rating (+), school
technology rating (-), and whether the student
Laptop /Tablet / Netbook
370
was at the intermediate/high school level.
Desktop computer
335
Parent education (+) was also a significant
Smartphone w/ Internet
284
predictor of BYOD.
Portable gaming device
274
3. High school students brought Smartphones,
iPod
Touch
238
laptops, and iPods to school at a greater than
expected frequency while elementary students
iPad
217
favored Kindles/e-Readers.
iPod
205
4. Parents viewed BYOD benefits in the form of
iPhone
195
improved accessibility to Internet resources
Kindle or other e-Reader
171
and digital tools. However, concern was
Other
42
expressed about device equity, security,
classroom distraction, and appropriate use.
5. Parents suggested making school-owned Note. n = 482.
devices available to students who do not have
a personal device, secure storage options for technology at home. Nationally, a digital
students who bring their technology to school, divide still exists between wealthier, educated
a robust wireless network, and appropriate use families and those less educated with lower
socio-economic status, however these gaps
guidelines.
are narrowing, especially between whites and
minorities (Madden et al., 2013). Increased
Implications
connectivity, broadband speed, and mobile
The current study has several implications Internet access continues to drive ownership
for schools considering a BYOD initiative.
of smaller, portable mobile devices (Duggan &
Relying on home-to-school technology Smith, 2013). With teen ownership of mobile
access. In this study, most families had adequate devices pervasive (Madden et al., 2013), the
Volume 59, Number 5

TechTrends September/October 2015

%
92.1
89.8
76.8
69.5
58.9
56.8
49.4
45.0
42.5
40.5
35.5
8.7

57

Table 4. Predictor Variables for a Parents BYOD Decision

Predictor

Code

1. Home Mobile Technology Index Score (0-9)

Smartphone w/ Internet
iPad
iPhone
iPod
iPod Touch
Kindle or other e-Reader
Laptop /Tablet / Netbook
Portable gaming device
Other

1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0

2. Overall School Rating

0=F, 1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A

3. School Technology Rating

0=F, 1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A

4. Grade Level of Youngest Student

Elementary (K4-4)
Intermediate (Gr. 5-8)
High (Gr. 9-12)

1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0
1=Yes, No=0

5. Parent Education
4-Year College Degree or Greater

1=Yes, No=0

6. Parent Role

1=Mom, 0=Dad

Note. Dependent variable: Do you allow your student to bring his/her personal technology to
school for educational purposes? Yes or No. Missing data for the School Technology Rating were
replaced with the mean item response. 18 respondents chose prefer not to respond to parent
education. These cases were coded as 0. Home Mobile Technology Index M = 4.20, SD = 1.90.
Overall School Rating M = 3.33, SD = 0.72. School Technology Rating M = 3.47, SD = 0.72.
Table 5. The Observed and the Predicted Frequencies for BYOD Decision by Logistic
Regression with the Cutoff of 0.50

Observed

Predicted
No
Yes

No

159

52

75.4

Yes
Overall % Correct

36

235

86.7
81.7

% Correct

Note. Sensitivity = 159 / (159 + 52) = 75.3%. Specificity = 235 / (36 + 235) = 86.7%.
False positive = 36 / (36 + 159) = 18.5%. False negative = 52 / (52 + 235) = 17.9%.

potential for technology access connecting home-toschool learning is greater than ever.
This research also aligns with national trends implying
educators can steadily include instructional activities with
access in mind, and consider ways to scale BYOD planning
and implementation. It further implies school purchases
of devices to level-the-playing-field, will decrease over
time. However, schools may benefit by suggesting parents
58

TechTrends September/October 2015

consider minimum specifications

or particular personal devices to
adequately
support
educational
applications and reinforce instruction.
Parent perceptions matter. This
study demonstrated parents were
more likely to allow BYOD if they
had a positive perception of their
childs school, and if they believed
the technology at school inadequate.
Parents of secondary students also
were more likely to encourage
BYOD. This implies schools would
be well served to shape positive
perceptions towards the overall
school environment and find ways to
include parents as partners to increase
technology education and access.
Since parents of young children,
who otherwise sanction educational
media use such as television, are
least likely to equate mobile devices
with learning (Rideout, 2014),
educators may want to demonstrate
the value of these technologies (e.g.
creating podcasts, digital books,
playing educational games, accessing
child-friendly productivity tools).
Educators also can promote these
devices by establishing how multifunctional mobiles can support
a multitude of learning. Parent
education (e.g. school-owned sets
of iPod Touches for home-to-school
projects or demonstrated in online
communications so parents can see
the potential) is key to fostering
understanding. In the short-term, this
also suggests schools may need to plan
ways to provide shared mobile access
to younger students.
Supporting a variety of devices.
Findings in this study align with
national trends suggesting teens own
laptops and Smartphones at a much
higher rate than elementary-aged
students (Lenhart, 2012; Madden
et al., 2013). In this instance, young
students typically owned e-readers
or gaming devices, indicating schools
might adjust their BYOD plan and
pedagogical approaches to support
devices students own or can access.
This, in turn, means professional
development cognizant of context
(environment, age of students, access
to devices) is necessary. Educators
likely find e-readers intuitive;
Volume 59, Number 5

Table 6. Predictors of Parental BYOD Decisions

95% CI EXP (B)

Lower
Upper

S.E.

Wald

df

Exp(B)

Home Mobile Technology Index

.256

.067

14.503

.000

1.291

1.132

1.473

Overall School Rating

.395

.188

4.387

.036

1.484

1.026

2.147

School Technology Rating

-.546

.224

5.966

.015

.579

.374

.898

High School Student

3.274

.331

97.697

.000

26.417

13.802

50.562

Intermediate School Student

Parent Education: 4-Yr College
Degree+
Parent Role: Mom

3.373

.316

114.177

.000

29.160

15.708

54.135

.531

.264

4.044

.044

1.701

1.014

2.854

-.036

.291

.015

.902

.965

.545

1.709

Constant

-2.434

.852

8.157

.004

.088

Note. Variables entered on step 1: Home Mobile Technology Index, Overall School Rating, School Technology Rating, High School
Student, Intermediate School Student, Parent Education: 4-Yr College Degree+, Parent Role: Mom.
Predicted logit of (BYOD) = -2.434 + (0.256) * Home Mobile Technology Index + (0.395) * Overall School Rating + (-0.546) * School
Technology Rating + (3.274) * High School Student + (3.373) * Intermediate School Student + (0.531) * Parent Education: 4-Yr College
Degree + (-0.036) * Parental Role: Mom.

directed professional development for teachers

to understand how to best integrate gaming
devices, laptops and other mobiles should offer
resource and time support, while considering
the context in which the innovation will occur
(Clark & Dede, 2009). Furthermore, keeping
abreast of rapidly changing trends of media use
such as Joan Ganz Cooney Center (http://www.
joanganzcooneycenter.org/publications/)
or
the Pew Research Internet Project (http://www.
pewinternet.org/offers school districts informed
planning based on research and trends.
Planning with parents. Parents in this study
were concerned with issues of equity, ethical
use, safety and device security. Since parents
already sanction mobile device use outside of
school (Lenhart et al., 2010), this study implies
schools may benefit from including parents in
planning, education and implementation by
detailing policies, protocols, and appropriate
use guidelines. The success of large-scale
technological innovation in schools such as
BYOD requires shared goals from invested
stakeholders who understand the environment
and available resources (Halverson & Shapiro,
2012). By its nature, BYOD broadens the
learning environment and access to various
resources. Furthermore, effective policies
promote generous access to a variety of mobiles
(Cramer & Hayes, 2010) meaning schools might
be wise to address parental concerns over device
equity, access, and ethical use before scaling
Volume 59, Number 5

BYOD implementations. Understanding and

addressing parental concerns may also serve to
increase resources as well as support teaching
digital citizenship. Enlisting parental support on
advisory boards, classroom volunteers during
BYOD roll-outs, and to raise funds supporting
the have-nots is likely to bolster success rates
for BYOD programs.

Limitations of the Study

Predictors of a parents BYOD decision
were limited to variables collected via the
school districts annual parent survey. Including
additional predictor variables like student
gender, student GPA, etc. may improve the
predictive capacity of the analytic model. This
study also was conducted in a school system
that serves students with sufficient personal
technology. Transferability of results may be
limited to like contexts.

Recommendations for
Future Research
Future research should study BYOD
initiatives as implemented in various school and
community settings. For instance, our findings
suggest BYOD may be less viable at elementary
grade levels. Is there a BYOD-variant that might
be more effective for these students? Is there an
interaction among predictor variables? Future

TechTrends September/October 2015

59

Table 7. Which Device Does Your Child Usually Bring to School?

Elementary

Smartphone w/ Internet
iPod Touch
Laptop /Tablet / Netbook
iPhone
Kindle/other e-Reader
iPod
iPad
Portable gaming device
Other

n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual
n
Adj. Residual

3
-3.7
14
1.1
2
-3.3
2
-3.4
14
2.4
4
-0.7
5
.0
4
2.3
0
-0.9

Intermediate High
42
-3.6
43
-0.2
35
-1.3
32
-2.3
32
1.2
18
-2.1
21
1.0
4
-1.1
3
0.1

73
5.8
36
-0.6
51
3.5
48
4.5
11
-3.0
29
2.5
11
-1.0
4
-0.4
3
0.6

Total

Phi

118

.428

.000

93

.082

.505

88

.280

.000

82

.372

.000

57

.254

.003

51

.180

.039

37

.079

.562

12

.164

.074

.085

.612

Note. Parents who permitted their child to BYOD (n = 271 or 56.2%).

research also should consider cost-effectiveness,

in general, and in contrast with alternatives like
1:1 initiatives.
Our study did not address BYOD impact
on technical support, although we acknowledge
significant planning, piloting, and collaboration
is necessary to support successful initiatives.
Future research is needed to probe issues surrounding technical support to suggest infrastructure and support to guide programmatic
decisions.
Another area of considerable interest and
value is measuring BYOD impact on classroom
teachers. Research is needed to address the
impact of pedagogical approaches necessitated
by varying devices, functionality, operating
systems, and access to non-standard digital tools.
The research would serve to guide differentiated
instruction and non-standard ways to
demonstrate learning (e.g. creating various
types of media, using multiple presentation
or production tools). Finally, measuring the
influence of BYOD on student achievement is
an ambitious, but important direction for future
researchers.
Derick Kiger is the Director of Research Technology and
Assessment for the Oconomowoc Area School District,
Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. His research interests include
applied research and program evaluation in school settings,
quantitative methods, and survey research.
Address
correspondence regardings this article to him at: kigerd@
oasd.org.

60

Dani Herro is an Assistant Professor of Digital Media

and Learning in the Eugene T. Moore School of Education
at Clemson University. She teaches courses centered on
integrating social media, games and emerging technologies
in classrooms. Dani is a recent recipient of the Edmund W.
Gordon MacArthur Foundation/ETS Fellowship for 21st
Century Learning and Assessment. Her research interests
include examining game play and game design, app
development, and digital media in teaching and learning
environments.

References
Allen, R. (2011). Can mobile devices transform education?
Education Update, 53(2), 2-7. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.Ballagas, R., Rohs M., Sheridan, J., &
Borchers, J. (2004) BYOD: Bring your owndevice. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on Ubiquitous Display
Environments, Ubicomp 2004.
Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod touch in K-12
education: Visions and vices. Computers In The Schools,
27(2), 121-131. doi:10.1080/07380561003801590
Chamberlain, A., Dronenm, M., Herro, D., Keen, M., Kelley
D., Mathews, A., Mundy D.,Tenney L., Vinogradov P.,
& James Bosco (ed.). (2013). Seven keys to unlocking
school transformation with digital media. Consortium
for School Networking (CoSN), MacArthur Funded
whitepaper series.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case
study of the River City
curriculum. Journal of Science Education and

Technology,18(4), 353-365.
CommonSense Media (2010.) Hi-tech cheating: Mobile
phones and cheating in schools: A national poll.

TechTrends September/October 2015

Volume 59, Number 5

Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.

org/blog/cheating-goes-h`i-tech
Cramer, M., & Hayes, G. (2010). Acceptable use of
technology in schools: Risks, policies, and promises.
Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 9(3), 37-44.
Devaney, L. (2012). How to make BYOD work for your
school. eSchool News.
Retrieved

from
http://www.eschoolnews.
com/2012/10/29/how-to-make-byodwork-for-your-schools/
Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013). Cell internet use 2013.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/16/cellinternet-use-2013/
Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S. and Heinecke, W.F. (2007), What
added value does a 1:1student to laptop ratio bring to
technology-supported teaching and learning?Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5) 440452.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.
Eisele-Dyrli, K. (2011). Mobile goes mainstream. District
Administration, 47(2), 46-48.
Foulger, T., Walker, M., Burke, D., Hansen, R., Williams, M.,
Slykhuis, D. (2013).Innovators in teacher education:
Diffusing mobile technologies in teacherpreparation
curriculum. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 30(1).
Fritschi, J., & Wolf, M.A. (2012). Turning on mobile learning
in North America.Working Paper Series on Mobile
Learning (WPS ML) authored for the UnitedNations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). Paris, France.
Halverson, R., & Shapiro, R. B. (2012). Technologies
for education and technologies for learners: How
information technologies are (and should be) changing
schools. WCER Working Paper no. 2012-6. Wisconsin
Center for Education Research. Madison, Wisconsin.
Herro, D., Kiger, D., & Owens, C. (2013). Mobile
technology: Case-based suggestionsfor classroom
integration and teacher educators. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education (JDLTE), 30(1).
Hockley, N. (2012). Tech-savvy teaching: BYOD. Modern
English Teacher, 21(4).
Intel (2012). BYOD case study: Forsyth county school
district. Intel Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.k12blueprint.com/sites/

default/files/Case-Study-FCS_0.pdf
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC
horizon report: 2011 K12 edition. Austin, Texas: The
New Media Consortium.
Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012, September).
Examining the influence of a mobile learning
intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE), 45(1).
Kolb, L. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational
Leadership, 68(5), 39.
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones & texting. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/19/teenssmartphones-texting/
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S. & Purcell, K. (2010).
Teens and mobile phones. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/
Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx

Volume 59, Number 5

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser,

U. (2013). Teens and technology, 2013. Pew Internet
& American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx
Morrison, C. (2013). Growth in mobile learning brings design
and delivery challenges.T+D Magazine,67(8), 19.
Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling
in the age of mobilism. Educational Technology, 51(6), 3.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile
learning: Categorizing educational

applications of mobile technologies into four
types.The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning,12(2), 78-102.
Peng, Lee, and Ingersoll (2002). An introduction to logistic
regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of
Educational Research, Vol. 96(1), 3-14.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich L. (2013).
How teachers are using technology at home and
in their classrooms. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology.aspx
Quillen, I. (2010). Left to their owned devices. Digital
Directions, 30-35.
Quillen, I. (2011). Districts tackle questions surrounding
BYOT policy. Education Week,5(1), 22-23.
Raths, D. (2012). Are you ready for BYOD? . T H E
Journal,39(4), 28-32.
Ribble, M. (2009). Raising a digital child: A digital
citizenship handbook for parents. International
Society for Technology in Education. Eugene, OR.
Homepage Books
Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families educational
media use in America. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/
publication/learning-at-home/
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation
M: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-Olds. Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park: CA.
Rodrigo, R. (2011). Mobile teaching versus mobile
learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved
from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mobileteaching-versus-mobile-learning
Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). Mobile gaming
environment: Learning and motivational effects. In
P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving
learning and motivation through educational
games: Multidisciplinary approaches. 467481.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch022 Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile
technologies to promote childrens

learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at
Sesame Workshop.
Traxler, 2009. Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally
(Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming delivery of
education and training. Edmonton, Alberta Canada:
Athabasca Press.
Wallace, P. (2011). M-learning: Promises, perils, and
challenges for K-12 education.
Johns Hopkins University School of Education New

Horizons Learning Journal, Winter.
Weinstein, M. (2013). To BYOD or Not
BYOD.Training,50(5), 20-22.

TechTrends September/October 2015

61

Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the property
of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.