Running head: BYOD Webibliography

BYOD Webibliography Kelley Gaines Liberty University EDUC !"

BYOD Webibliography

BYOD Webibliography Mobile Digital Devices Summary $ill %#&''( su))ari*es several intervie+s ,ro) edu-ational leaders in an e,,ort to add to the dis-ussion on the use o, )obile devi-es in the -lassroo). /he author e0a)ines various vie+points about Bring Your O+n Devi-e %BYOD(. 1he -ites resear-h that suggests that "2 o, all s-hools banned -ell phone use in #&&"3 but )any s-hools are ta4ing the opposite approa-h. /he author points out that 5uantitative resear-h on the e,,e-tiveness o, BYOD is la-4ing in the literature. /he arti-le -onveys the ,a-t that -ell phone and )obile devi-e use is prevalent a)ong students3 and the i)ple)entation o, these te-hnologies in edu-ation is a natural progression. While so)e +ould argue that the digital divide bet+een the haves and the have6nots hinders BYOD initiatives3 $ill %#&''( points out that )ost students have so)e sort o, )obile devi-e that provides 7nternet a--ess. /his trend is a-tually di)inishing the te-hnology gap that e0isted prior to the s)artphone innovation. 7n addition to the a--ess dis-ussion3 the author points out that BYOD aids s-hool distri-ts in integrating te-hnology at lo+er -osts to di)inishing budgets. /he arti-le provides various -o))ents about ho+ BYOD is trans,or)ing the +ay tea-hers edu-ate today8s learners as +ell as so)e barriers to i)ple)entation. 1tudents are able to learn -ontent outside the -lassroo) and re-eive individual instru-tion during -lassroo) +hen 9,lipped -lassroo): )odels are in pla-e. 1o)e tea-hers report a higher level o, student engage)ent +hen using their o+n devi-es. 1till3 other tea-hers indi-ate a higher level o, learning that )obile devi-es provide +hen students -an use the) to analy*e and synthesi*e in,or)ation.

BYOD Webibliography $o+ever3 tea-hers do report ,rustrations +ith BYOD +hen students are unable to a--ess

in,or)ation due to stri-t ,iltering or blo-4ing by syste) net+or4s. 1uggestions are )ade to provide edu-ation to students about digital -iti*enship and ,or syste)s to )igrate to 9responsible use: poli-ies and )ove to+ard )ore a--essibility. Critique /he arti-le provides a good basis ,or the dis-ussions surrounding BYOD initiatives. /he )ost i)portant point this revie+er ,ound ,ro) the arti-le is that very little resear-h e0ists to ba-4 up +hat edu-ators and students are saying about BYOD. While the revie+er hersel, believes strongly in the BYOD )ove)ent3 ane-dotal resear-h alone is truly not reliable. O, -ourse3 ,irsthand e0perien-e o,ten spea4s volu)es -o)pared to resear-h3 but 5uality resear-h is needed on the sub;e-t. /he issue at hand is that te-hnology in-reases e0ponentially every day and ti)e ,or resear-h is li)ited by the -hanging nature o, )obile devi-es and the appli-ations that a--o)pany the). 1o3 in retrospe-t it )a4es sense that resear-h is la-4ing. 1tudent learning +ith )obile devi-es has the potential to revolutioni*e edu-ational institutions and the +ay in +hi-h tea-hers tea-h. 1o)e tea-hers +ould argue that nothing is +rong +ith the +ay they tea-h. What +or4ed in '""" still +or4s in #&'!. <s the author suggests3 BYOD trends +ill not go a+ay3 be-ause )obile devi-es are not going a+ay. Edu-ational leaders need to reevaluate their purposes and pro-edures ,or supplying 5uality edu-ation to students. With =o Child Le,t Behind and the adoption o, high sta4es testing ,or a--ountability3 the )ultiple6-hoi-e test too4 over edu-ational pra-ti-e. Over the -ourse o, the past several years3 )any students have been )ade to ,o-us on test ta4ing s4ills rather than -riti-al thin4ing. Edu-ation is on-e again at a pre-ipi-e and )obile devi-es are at the ,ore,ront. Utili*ing these

BYOD Webibliography

>

devi-es to en-ourage -reativity and higher order thin4ing s4ills -an and +ill trans,or) +hat is happening in -lassroo)s around the globe. Reference $ill3 R. %#&''(. ?obile digital devi-es: Dipping your toes in te-hnologi-al +ater. Teacher Librarian, !"%'(3 ##6# . Retrieved ,ro) http:@@go.galegroup.-o)@ps@i.doAidBG<LE 2CC<#C#>>>'DEFvB#.'FuBvi-GlibertyFitBrFpB<O=EFs+B+FasidBd!eEC''" -># bd""CCE "baa'&e, '-

Blending echnology in !nformal and "ormal #earning Summary /his arti-le suggests that te-hnology -an be used to bridge the gap bet+een in,or)al and ,or)al learning. <--ording to the arti-le3 ,or)al learning is de,ined as learning that o--urs in ,or)al settings su-h as s-hools and is stru-tured in -urri-ulu)3 a-tivities and assess)ent. 7n,or)al learning has varying de,initions ranging ,ro) learning that ta4es pla-e outside o, s-hool to learning that o--urs a--identally. /he authors suggest in,or)al learning o--urs +hen the learner has )ore -ontrol over +hat is learned and ho+ it is assessed. Lai3 Khaddage and Kne*e4 %#&'!( -ite several sour-es indi-ating ho+ in,or)al learning has an e,,e-t on ,or)al learning and vi-e versa. Both types o, learning -an in,luen-e the learner to delve deeper into a-5uiring 4no+ledge i, a -onne-tion -an be )ade bet+een the t+o. /he authors indi-ate that )obile te-hnologies -an be used to provide a positive lin4 bet+een in,or)al and ,or)al learning. 7, edu-ators are trained in ho+ to e,,e-tively use )obile apps and pro;e-t6based learning3 then in,or)al and ,or)al learning -an be blended to provide better learning environ)ents ,or students. /he authors propose a )odel %the ?obile6Blended Collaborative Learning )odel( ,or

BYOD Webibliography

doing so. /he ?BCL +ould use )obile devi-e appli-ation tools designed ,or -ollaboration3 -oordination and -o))uni-ation in order to -onne-t ,or)al and in,or)al learning. 1tudents -ould use Google <pps %-ollaboration( to share do-u)ents both in and out o, s-hool3 use /+itter %-oordination( ,or assign)ent instru-tions or updates and use Ha-eboo4 %-o))uni-ation( ,or dis-ussions outside the -lassroo). /he arti-le i)plies that )ost tea-hers do not understand ho+ in,or)al learning situations in,luen-e ,or)al learning and are not -urrently developing strategies on ho+ to in-orporate )obile te-hnologies into the -lassroo). =o resear-h is given to ba-4 this assu)ption. Critique /he arti-le gives great insight into de,ining in,or)al and ,or)al learning environ)ents3 +ith an obvious negative attitude to+ard ,or)al learning settings. /he authors also display an adverse rea-tion to tea-hers in ,or)al settings in general. 1tate)ents )ade regarding the la-4 o, tea-hers to in-orporate )obile te-hnologies are not indi-ated by any real resear-h on the )atter. /hese are si)ply opinions o, the authors. /his revie+er has been e0posed to )any edu-ators +ho are integrating )obile te-hnologies along +ith pro;e-t6based learning into their -lassroo)s. While the pra-ti-es )ay not be +idespread3 they are o--urring and to )a4e general state)ents is )isleading to the reader. /he revie+er does agree +ith the assu)ptions )ade by the authors that ,or)al and in,or)al learning do indeed have an e,,e-t on the learner. 1tudent )otivation is a 4ey -o)ponent to student learning and has been so prior to the invention o, any te-hnology. $o+ever3 te-hnology does indeed give edu-ators an open door to lin4ing the t+o types o, learning3 +hi-h -an have a large i)pa-t on students. When students are able to )a4e -onne-tions bet+een the outside +orld and +hat happens inside the -lassroo)3 learning is enri-hed and is o,ten ti)es

BYOD Webibliography prolonged. /he days o, learning ,or the sa4e o, passing a test should be laid to rest3 and the ?BCL )odel provides a ,ra)e+or4 ,or doing so. < )ore detailed arti-le about the ?BCL )odel is needed to provide edu-ators +ith spe-i,i- instru-tional pra-ti-es using the approa-h. While so)e strategies are )entioned in the arti-le3 a thorough e0planation o, the )odel is la-4ing. Edu-ators +ill bene,it ,ro) su-h strategies and training as they prepare students to thin4 -riti-ally in the #'st -entury. Reference Lai3 K. W.3 Khaddage3 H.3 F Kne*e43 G. %#&'!(. Blending student te-hnology e0perien-es in ,or)al and in,or)al learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, #"%E(3 >'>6>#E. doi: '&.''''@;-al.'#&!&

eaching and #earning $ith i ouch Summary /his study +as -ondu-ted to add to the li)ited resear-h on utili*ing ne+ te-hnologies in the higher edu-ation -lassroo). 1i0 ne+ ,a-ulty )e)bers at the University o, the Ia-i,i- +ere given 7pod /ou-hes to use as a tea-hing tool. <long +ith re-eiving the devi-es3 the university provided ideas3 a resour-e library and both ad)inistrative and te-hnology assistan-e +ith the devi-es. /he parti-ipants -onsisted o, volunteers ,ro) various depart)ents in-luding )ath3 s-ien-e3 politi-al s-ien-e and art. Ea-h ,a-ulty )e)ber utili*ed the te-hnology in di,,ering +ays3 but all in-orporated a-tive learning strategies +ith the use o, the devi-es. Ha-ulty )e)bers reported their ,indings via e)ail throughout the study. < -ontrol group +as not established ,or this study and no -o))on data -olle-tion )ethod +as established. Ea-h ,a-ulty )e)ber agreed to -olle-t his or her o+n data during one a-ade)i- ter)J both 5ualitative and 5uantitative data

BYOD Webibliography

+as obtained. E0a)ples in-lude student surveys3 -ourse evaluations3 test data and narratives o, per-eptions. /he arti-le provides a revie+ o, ea-h ,a-ulty )e)ber8s use o, the 7pod /ou-h. /he devi-es +ere used to e)ail3 a--ess and update Google Do-s3 ta4e photos3 upload videos to You/ube3 re-ord audio and )i-roblog using /u)blr. Ea-h parti-ipant provides spe-i,istrategies and student ,eedba-4 results. ?any students reported that iIod /ou-hes aided in their ability to learn )aterial and@or ,ind the )aterial interesting. 1o)e students did not -are ,or the devi-es and pre,erred a )ore traditional approa-h to learning. Critique While this study is not +ide in nature or parti-ularly reliable3 +ith no -ontrol group or -onsistent )easuring tool3 it does indi-ate a need ,or )ore data on the i)ple)entation o, )obile devi-es in the edu-ational environ)ent. With BYOD gaining popularity3 )ore data is needed to e0a)ine its e,,e-tiveness in the -lassroo). /oo o,ten distri-ts or universities ;u)p on the band+agon +ithout truly evaluating the need or e,,e-tiveness o, a tool. /he ,eedba-4 provided by students in this study suggests that not all students bene,it ,ro) BYOD initiatives. /his is not surprising as not all students are e0a-tly ali4e. Ierhaps3 edu-ators should be )ore a+are o, +hat types o, students they are +or4ing +ith be,ore adopting a blan4et poli-y ,or everyone. /his is not to say that BYOD should not be i)ple)ented but that all students should not be e0pe-ted to learn using the sa)e e0a-t )ethods. 1o)e students )ay bene,it ,ro) te-hnology tools +hile others )ay be hindered ,ro) learning by using a devi-e. <n i)portant -o)ponent this study brought to )ind is the need ,or ,a-ulty )e)bers to be involved in the pro-ess. /he edu-ators here +ere given ,ree reign on ho+ to initiate the use o, the 7pods and ho+ best to assess student out-o)es. =ot all data boiled do+n to student

BYOD Webibliography

a-hieve)ent. While a-hieve)ent is essential to evaluating learning3 so)e aspe-ts o, learning are not indi-ated by student a-hieve)ent. 1tudent )otivation and en;oy)ent o, learning is also a valuable tool in assessing tea-hing and learning. /his ,a-t is o,ten overloo4ed in today8s +orld o, high sta4es testing and tea-her evaluations. BYOD is not a ,i06it all poli-y3 but i, given the opportunity3 )any students -an bene,it ,ro) its i)ple)entation. /his arti-le supports the opinion o, the revie+er that )ore resear-h is needed on BYOD initiatives and all sta4eholders need input on the de-ision6)a4ing pro-ess.

Reference ?ayberry3 K.3 $argis3 K.3 Boles3 L.3 Dugas3 <.3 O8=eill3 D.3 Rivera3 <.3 F ?eier3 ?. %#&'#(. E0ploring tea-hing and learning using an i/ou-h )obile devi-e. Active Learning in Higher Education, '!%!(3 #&!6#'C. doi: '&.''CC@'> "CDC>'#>E#"D>

%e$ echnologies and &edagogy Summary Ihilip and Gar-ia %#&'!( assert the i)portan-e o, assessing +hy ne+ te-hnologies3 espe-ially the use o, s)artphones and other si)ilar devi-es3 should be introdu-ed in the -lassroo) environ)ent. /hey argue that -lose e0a)ination needs to be )ade into ho+ a te-hnologi-al devi-e +ill i)prove learning. /he reasons o,ten given ,or i)ple)enting Bring BYOD initiatives are tied to student engage)ent and individuali*ed learning. /he authors suggest3 based on their o+n resear-h3 that +hile 4ids )ay have interests in ne+ te-hnologies3 these ,as-inations )ay not trans,er ,ully into utili*ing the te-hnology ,or a-ade)i- purposes. /he

BYOD Webibliography

"

idea that te-hnology in itsel, +ill help trans,or) ho+ students learn and in-rease a-ade)ia-hieve)ent are also brought to the ,ore,ront o, dis-ussion in this arti-le. 7n light o, the +ave o, BYOD poli-ies a-ross the nation3 re-o))endations are )ade to analy*e the purpose ,or adoption and to loo4 at the la-4 o, resear-h on the sub;e-t. 1o)e dis-ussion is presented about ho+ te-hnology is supposed to -hange tea-hing but in reality good tea-hing is not a produ-t o, te-hnology but rather pedagogy. $o+ tea-hers intera-t +ith their students in the -onte0t o, te-hnology i)ple)entation is -onsidered the )ost i)portant ,a-tor in deter)ining +hether to adopt a ne+ te-hnology into the -lassroo) environ)ent. Critique Ihilip and Gar-ia %#&'!( )a4e valid points in regards to te-hnology adoption ,or te-hnologies sa4e. While the )ethods o, tea-hing )ay -hange3 the role o, the tea-her is still vital to the edu-ation o, today8s students. /he revie+er agrees +ith the authors8 points that te-hnology does not tru)p good tea-hing. /o assu)e that all tea-hers and students +ill be )ade better by the i)ple)entation o, )obile te-hnologies is not only irrational but also irresponsible. /he revie+er8s o+n distri-t has adopted a BYOD poli-y and has seen the ,rustration o, tea-hers and the )isuse by students in utili*ing devi-es. /ea-hers are not al+ays -o),ortable +ith ne+ te-hnologies3 and there )ay not be a need to use devi-es +hen ob;e-tives -an be )et using other pro-esses. ?any people -an ;u)p to inappropriate assu)ptions about these tea-hers be-ause o, their un+illingness to parti-ipate in BYODJ ho+ever3 good tea-hing is good tea-hing no )atter +hat ,or) it )ay -o)e in. 1tudents3 on the other hand3 have been -aught )isusing the devi-es3 even though stri-t poli-ies are in pla-e. One -ould argue that this +ill al+ays be the -ase3 regardless o, the situation. 1tudents -an and do brea4 the rules3 but that alone is not enough to abandon the BYOD initiative.

BYOD Webibliography 1o)e students are also not as ,a)iliar +ith the te-hnology as one +ould assu)e3 espe-ially in an a-ade)i- setting. /he authors suggest this is another reason to ree0a)ine

'&

te-hnology i)ple)entationJ ho+ever3 the revie+er +ould argue the i)portan-e o, pushing students to be-o)e ,a)iliar +ith ne+ te-hnologies. /he #'st -entury is here +ith all o, its te-hnology and innovation in ,ull s+ing. 1ure3 students still need to be taught the basi-s and be-o)e good -riti-al thin4ers3 +ith or +ithout te-hnology3 but students also need to be ,a)iliar +ith a-ade)i- purposes ,or te-hnology. Using te-hnology ,or purely so-ial reasons -an li)it students8 abilities to be-o)e li,elong learners. /he opinion o, this revie+er is that a ne+ role ,or edu-ators is to ,a-ilitate te-hnologi-al learning using )obile devi-es. Reference Ihilip3 /. ?.3 F Gar-ia3 <. D. %#&'!(. /he i)portan-e o, still tea-hing the iGeneration: =e+ te-hnologies and the -entrality o, pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 8 %#(3 !&&6!'"3>&&6>&'. Retrieved ,ro) http:@@sear-h.pro5uest.-o)@do-vie+@'!""!#C'""A a--ountidB'#&DE Security vs' (ccess Summary /his boo4 provides a thorough su))ary o, issues asso-iated +ith net+or4 se-urity ,or s-hools in relation to the need ,or 7nternet a--ess ,or students and ,a-ulty. 7n )any distri-ts a-ross the nation3 net+or4 se-urity is so stri-t that tea-hers o,ten ,rustrated +ith i)ple)enting te-hnology and re,rain ,ro) doing so. /he authors e0a)ine eight se-urity threats and brea4do+n ea-h threat in ea-h -hapter. /hey in-lude the realities surrounding ea-h threat and identi,y -o))on )is-on-eptions as +ell as give suggestions ,or ho+ to e,,e-tively address the proble) +ithout deterring tea-hers ,ro) utili*ing digital tools and )edia in the -lassroo).

BYOD Webibliography Critique

''

/he -hapter on )obile devi-es is o, parti-ular interest to the revie+er3 sin-e the topi-hosen ,or resear-h is BYOD. /he authors8 point out that the )isuse o, )obile te-hnologies by students is a viable threat in -lassroo)s. 1tudents )ay and o,ten +ill -hoose to a-t inappropriately +hen )obile devi-es are allo+ed and even )ore so +hen they are banned. O,tenti)es3 tea-hers are bla)ed ,or the behavior o, students in the -lassroo). /ea-hers have realisti- -on-erns ,or ;ob se-urity and student sa,ety +hen -ertain )isuses o--ur3 su-h as students a--essing inappropriate or pornographi- i)ages3 se0ting or -yberbullying. While these situtations do arise3 ;ust ho+ +idespread the proble)s are is un4no+n. ?ass )edia o,ten plays a role in spreading ,ear a)ong parents3 ad)inistrators and tea-hers. 7n the opinion o, this revie+er3 a si)ple -o))on sense approa-h to the )atter is )ost appropriate. 1-hool syste)s +ill o,ten ban )obile devi-es all together to avoid issues +ith )iuse. /his ta-ti- is not only -ounterprodu-tive to the digital )ove)ent and #'st -entury learningJ it is also rarely '&&2 e,,e-tive. 1tudents +ill use )obile devi-es on s-hool grounds even +hen they do not have privileges to do so. <llo+ing students a--ess to )obile devi-es ,or edu-ational purposes +ith set guidelines and rules is e0tre)ely bene,i-ial to all parties involved. 1tudents )ust be trained on appropriate use o, te-hnology3 espe-ially )obile devi-es. Edu-ators have a uni5ue opportunity to share sa,ety -on-erns and )odel proper use to students +hen BYOD is allo+ed in s-hools. Banning )obile devi-es is a grave error i, students are to be prepared ,or #'st -entury living and learning. Reference Robinson3 L. K.3 Bro+n3 <. $.3 F Green3 /. D. %#&'&(. !ecurit" vs# access$ %alancing safet"

BYOD Webibliography and productivit" in the digital school# Washington3 DC: 7nternational 1o-iety ,or /e-hnology in Edu-ation %71/E(.

'#