Thursday, December 4, 2014
BYOD Abstract
Abstract
This study is a review of the literature on the topic, Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). The study examines strategies for implementation of BYOD. Some of these strategies will include security issues and digital citizenship, which is the training of students in the appropriate, proper use of technology. Infrastructure issues are addressed such as solid, fully supported wireless networks for BYOD. The advantages and disadvantages of BYOD will be discussed along with the advantages and disadvantages of one-to-one strategies, where school districts provide devices for all their students. The success of a BYOD program in the classroom is dependent on the attitude and skill level of the teacher. Proper teacher training and a well-defined curriculum are critical for the implementation of BYOD. Lastly, this literature review will examine future trends in BYOD programs.Keywords: BYOD, mobile devices, digital citizenship, teacher education, M-learning, U-learning, one-to-one (1:1)
BYOD Introduction
Implementation of BYOD Technology in Modern Education
No more pens and paper! Learning tools such as these are obsolete. This is the Cyber-Age and the books are electronic. Pens and paper, computation, and reference points are digital. This digital capability enables us to learn by living through various devices and our lives are enriched by the education within elements around us. Technology has changed learning forever. Previously, cell phones were not allowed in classrooms because they were considered a distraction. Policy letters informed parents of confiscation for violation of the rules and students were cautioned to keep devices at home for fear of theft. However, recently, there has been a paradigm shift in perspective and cell phones are not only welcome but encouraged for learning enhancement.Bring your own device (BYOD) is a revolutionary approach to modern education and it “refers to technology models where students bring a personally owned device to school for the purpose of learning. A personally owned device is a technology device brought into the school and owned by a student (or the student’s family), staff or guests” (Alberta Education, 2012, preface). These devices come in many forms; handheld computers, MP3 players, notebooks, smartphones and tablets and they facilitate personalized learning which makes BYOD so desirable. Let’s examine how the BYOD concept has impacted the world of education today.
BYOD Implementation Strategies
Implementation of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) technology needs to be a well thought out process. It should not be haphazardly jumped into without careful consideration of the network implications and security concerns inherent to this technology. The sudden addition of potentially thousands of new devices on a WIFI computer network has the potential to overwork an ill-prepared computer network so badly that all users would suffer. These new network additions can also present many potential security vulnerabilities that did not exist before. These were the most consistent themes with most popular BYOD literature.
Network World Online (2012) offers ten tips for secure and effective implementation of BYOD technology in modern settings. This publication was intended for a more technically savvy audience. The variety of user platforms involved with BYOD technology requires a more robust user security policy than any other form of digital environment. Network World Online (2012) explains that static passwords are not sufficient to protect remote access to secure sensitive data and systems. These passwords need to be augmented by alternate verification methods such as text messages or email. These notification methods are independent of the user network and will ensure user identification validity. In an environment of thousands of users, attempts at network intrusion are a virtual certainty. The access points to the network should therefore be tightly controlled. Utilization of Single-Socket Layer (SSL) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) will ensure that only users on an approved access list are granted permissions to use the network. The use of End Node Control will ensure that any user that has graduated or left the digital environment is removed from the access list. This should be a simple process to ensure that network administrators are able to keep up with the transitional nature of graduating students (Network World Online, 2012). The use of soft tokens which preclude the need for physical security devices should be employed when possible due to the cumbersome nature of most physical measures. These include the use of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) accounts which can be remotely managed. Lastly, appointing a dedicated leader of the network infrastructure will result in a positive benefit because this will ensure that the dedication needed to protect the facility’s network will be in place without sacrificing resources in another function of the organization. One of the shortcomings of this literature is that is does not address the responsibilities of digital citizenship required for users of BYOD networks. Network World Online (2012) provides a comprehensive and effective plan for secure BYOD implementation but only from only an administrative standpoint.
Beach (2014) provides a more school-focused approach to BYOD implementation. She presents an assortment of anecdotal experiences of a Canadian school district’s challenges of integrating BYOD technology into their learning environments. Beach (2014) begins her analysis by explaining the need for good digital citizenship from all users. This would come in the form of adequate training and safeguards. The cost savings that are produced as a result of BYOD implementation are presented as a positive motivator for many school systems contemplating this technology. She goes on to illustrate that BYOD would allow many schools to be able to dismantle any computer labs they may be maintaining. These cost savings would not be immediately realized however because of the need to revamp the school’s network in order to accommodate the influx of thousands of new devices. Teacher support systems will have to be in place to provide the training needed to fully exploit this technology (Beach, 2014). This would be offset by the lack of student training needed because students would be using a device with which they are already familiar. A variety of curriculum delivery adjustments would be needed to fully exploit this technology and teachers would require adequate training in this area by a dedicated professional in the field.
Certain rules need to be in place for young learners using BYOD technology. Beach (2014) explains that these devices should only be allowed in the classroom for curriculum purposes. Using BYOD in common areas such as cafeterias and schoolyards should be disallowed. BYOD use for students is so ubiquitous that clear guidelines need to be in place to ensure appropriate use of school resources. Beach (2014) differs from Network World Online (2012) in that many more user restrictions have to be present in BYOD use by young learners. Naturally, this philosophy is not emphasized as thoroughly by Network World Online (2012). They both illustrate that network security is the most important facet of BYOD implementation.
Network World Online (2012) offers ten tips for secure and effective implementation of BYOD technology in modern settings. This publication was intended for a more technically savvy audience. The variety of user platforms involved with BYOD technology requires a more robust user security policy than any other form of digital environment. Network World Online (2012) explains that static passwords are not sufficient to protect remote access to secure sensitive data and systems. These passwords need to be augmented by alternate verification methods such as text messages or email. These notification methods are independent of the user network and will ensure user identification validity. In an environment of thousands of users, attempts at network intrusion are a virtual certainty. The access points to the network should therefore be tightly controlled. Utilization of Single-Socket Layer (SSL) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) will ensure that only users on an approved access list are granted permissions to use the network. The use of End Node Control will ensure that any user that has graduated or left the digital environment is removed from the access list. This should be a simple process to ensure that network administrators are able to keep up with the transitional nature of graduating students (Network World Online, 2012). The use of soft tokens which preclude the need for physical security devices should be employed when possible due to the cumbersome nature of most physical measures. These include the use of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) accounts which can be remotely managed. Lastly, appointing a dedicated leader of the network infrastructure will result in a positive benefit because this will ensure that the dedication needed to protect the facility’s network will be in place without sacrificing resources in another function of the organization. One of the shortcomings of this literature is that is does not address the responsibilities of digital citizenship required for users of BYOD networks. Network World Online (2012) provides a comprehensive and effective plan for secure BYOD implementation but only from only an administrative standpoint.
Beach (2014) provides a more school-focused approach to BYOD implementation. She presents an assortment of anecdotal experiences of a Canadian school district’s challenges of integrating BYOD technology into their learning environments. Beach (2014) begins her analysis by explaining the need for good digital citizenship from all users. This would come in the form of adequate training and safeguards. The cost savings that are produced as a result of BYOD implementation are presented as a positive motivator for many school systems contemplating this technology. She goes on to illustrate that BYOD would allow many schools to be able to dismantle any computer labs they may be maintaining. These cost savings would not be immediately realized however because of the need to revamp the school’s network in order to accommodate the influx of thousands of new devices. Teacher support systems will have to be in place to provide the training needed to fully exploit this technology (Beach, 2014). This would be offset by the lack of student training needed because students would be using a device with which they are already familiar. A variety of curriculum delivery adjustments would be needed to fully exploit this technology and teachers would require adequate training in this area by a dedicated professional in the field.
Certain rules need to be in place for young learners using BYOD technology. Beach (2014) explains that these devices should only be allowed in the classroom for curriculum purposes. Using BYOD in common areas such as cafeterias and schoolyards should be disallowed. BYOD use for students is so ubiquitous that clear guidelines need to be in place to ensure appropriate use of school resources. Beach (2014) differs from Network World Online (2012) in that many more user restrictions have to be present in BYOD use by young learners. Naturally, this philosophy is not emphasized as thoroughly by Network World Online (2012). They both illustrate that network security is the most important facet of BYOD implementation.
Infographic courtesy of
www.onlinecolleges.net
Infrastructure Considerations
The BYOD concept is the future and the present of learning; it’s a mobile learning (M-learning) smorgasbord. The capabilities are constantly evolving and to address the increase in users, devices, applications and locations, schools need to focus on improving wireless services. Although it’s out of sight and mostly out of the minds of the users, BYOD infrastructure is used in abundance to ensure access. Most learning management systems (LMS) used for M-learning depend on technical infrastructure to support them. A solid wireless network infrastructure is key to a school’s success with BYOD. Yesterday’s wireless network coverage will not work for the M-learning school environment of today. Traditional wireless networks do not have the capacity to handle the coverage needed for massive mobile device access. Administrators have pondered the best approach and ratio for technology upgrade and utilization. A precise formula for bandwidth per student and virtual activity does not exist. However, according Wainwright (2014), schools preparing to implement BYOD should consider wireless networks that can sector users based upon title role and type of mobile device used (Capacity vs Coverage section). Additionally, they should consider streamlined enrollment and low cost connectivity.
In the age of fiscal restraint, many schools have campaigned and crusaded for funding to modernize their e-learning programs. Yet, by the time all the money has been raised, new equipment is purchased and installed; the technology is no longer an advancement but archaic. This challenge has prompted some schools to purchase older and cheaper mechanisms. Nevertheless, in the world of technology, older is not wiser and less is not more! “Older generation wireless technology will degrade the wireless experience for users and necessitate the installation of more wireless access points” (Simmons, 2014, p. 14). Thus, a number of education institutions have elected to add more access points to their wireless network to increase access across their campuses. Additions like these can be centrally managed and have the potential to lower or eliminate additional costs. According to the Center for Digital Education (2013), hundreds of schools have been able to save thousands of dollars per year in carrier fees by replacing fixed-line broadband connections with long-range Wi-Fi connections. One of the most popular wireless solutions for academic institutions is the innovation of miniaturized adaptive antenna array technology. This technology adapts to and learns from the environment to find the best combination of antenna elements to transmit a signal. Essentially, it listens and learns from the response of data traffic from user devices. Additionally, the antenna is able to self-focus the Wi-Fi signals to each client, which creates stronger and more controllable transmissions.
A great majority of schools and businesses chose Cisco Systems as their Wireless Local Area Network (LAN) Controller (WLC). “Cisco wireless bridges to provide cost-effective wireless connectivity to portable buildings on several campuses. Their platform has resulted in significant savings per building connection and the bridges allow the district to quickly adjust to fluctuating student populations while avoiding cable run and tunneling costs” (Cisco Systems Inc., 2010, para 5). Regardless of the type of wireless system used, investing in a solid e-learning infrastructure will allow the school to introduce more mobile device capabilities in the future to continue to support various academic situations within ever-changing technologies. Once the modernized network is in place, schools must find a way to manage mobile learning device using some form of mobile device management (MDM) plan.
A good MDM directs devices and users to the right network partitions and resources. It also helps schools enroll, manage, secure, monitor and support students, faculty and devices on the network. Simply put, it protects students on the network. MDM also comes in handy with preventing security compromises, restricts content as needed, detects and eliminates viruses, and complies with internal and external policies such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and federal privacy laws. “These requirements ensure that the network operates optimally by preventing unlimited access to YouTube and other resources that consume large amounts of bandwidth” (The Center For Digital Education, 2013, p.5). There is software available to implement your MDM and it’s aimed at protecting your education investment and aiding educators with advancing network integration into learning and teaching.
Increasing access for students and teachers also increases anxiety for administrators. Maintaining a secure network is one of the biggest barriers to incorporating the BYOD concept. Schools should plan to restrict access to certain websites and applications on their network; doing so will help detect unauthorized access and minimize security risks. Segmented access has reportedly worked for several schools. Ullman (2011) stated that children can connect their personal mobile devices at home to a commercial network, such as Verizon, and they also their device at school through a monitored Wi-Fi network that filter internet access through the school’s filtering system, which protects students from going to inappropriate websites. Wireless connectivity at school is now the standard not the exception. BYOD lesson plans are on the market and in the classrooms and transforming learning environments. E-learning has officially morphed into M-learning and more change is on the horizon.
Photo courtesy of CultofMac.com
Advantages of BYOD for the Learner
The use of mobile
devices has increased to the point where a majority of teens in the United
States now own a cell phone. According
to Grant & Barbour (2013), 75% of teens own a cell phone. Out of this number, 58% of 12-year-olds own a
cell phone and 83% of 17-year-olds own a cell phone.
As
more schools move toward a technology driven curriculum, more content will be
available for online instruction. For
example, textbook companies are moving toward online versions of their
textbooks and many companies such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt are creating
interactive apps for use with their classroom content (Grant & Barbour,
2013). Students accessing the online
textbook and materials with the use of a mobile device will reduce the number
of paper textbooks that school districts need to purchase.
The
Horizon Report of 2013, indicated some major advantages of BYOD. BYOD allows students to have the same access
to the same device in school as well as in their own home. Therefore, it has the capability of extending
learning beyond the walls of the classroom.
BYOD allows students to work with
their own device, a device that they are already comfortable with and love. This further allows the teacher to focus more
on the content to be learned rather than spending time teaching the students
how to use a device. BYOD also reduces
or eliminates the financial burden placed on school districts because the
number of school-owned technology devices can be reduced (Horizon Report,
2013).
Tim
Clark, an Instructional Technology Specialist for Forsyth County Schools is in
agreement with the Horizon Report. He
observed that Forsyth County teachers spent less time teaching students how to
use their technology, because the students were already experts with their own
devices. Clark said that students appear
to be eager to share with others what they knew about their own personal device
and how that device could be used in education.
Clark indicates that BYOD is all about empowering students to take
control of their own learning experience and progress. It allows them to work collaboratively with
peers, teachers, and the web and to learn more from their own experiences,
successes, and mistakes. BYOD is really
not about the devices, but the learning experiences that occur with the use of
the devices. Forsyth County Schools also
noticed a reduction in disciplinary issues regarding personal devices. Instead of students hiding their devices for
fear of repercussions, the students were able to place their devices on their
desk where they were able to keep better track of them (Nielsen, 2011b).
The
Forsyth County Schools are aware of the pitfalls of student owned devices in
school, but they choose to focus on the positive outcomes and educational
benefits that come with the use of personal devices. They feel that it is detrimental to try to
ban the use of student owned devices in the schools and would rather utilize
the devices for engaging and empowering students to learn more effectively with
their own personal device that they know and love. Clark indicated that the lines of
communication have opened between students, parents, and teachers in a way that
students are now learning in school how to avoid the negative pitfalls of
inappropriate content and how to interact with others online in a respectful
way (Nielsen, 2011b).
Jen
LaMaster, director of faculty development for Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory
School, agrees with some of the findings of the Forsyth County Schools. She feels that students will test the limits
of acceptable use in the school, but she would rather they test the limits in
the safety of the school where they can be addressed and the students can learn
about acceptable use of technology (Fingal, 2012).
Disadvantages of BYOD for the Learner
Many
K-12 schools have banned the use of mobile devices in school because of their
potential to be a disruptive force because students are able to access
non-educational material while in class.
Some districts are reluctant to implement BYOD programs due to
regulations imposed on them regarding Internet use and protecting children. (Grant & Barbour, 2013)
Gary
Stager, director of the Constructing Modern Knowledge Institute, states that
BYOD is a bad idea because it increases the digital divide between those that
have good technology and those that do not have technology or poor technology. The students who can afford better technology
will have an unfair learning advantage while using their device than those that
have weak technology. Stager suggests
that teacher anxiety will also increase because of the many types of devices
that are used in the classroom. He
further states that computing will be reduced to the weakest device in the
classroom. Stager argues that schools
should not make important education decisions based on price and that BYOD only
supports the views of those that want to slash education budgets. A high quality education system requires
proper funding of technology (Stager, 2011). While Stager’s vision for fully funded technology
has merit, what Stager fails to address is the issue that local school
districts often have restricted budgets due to state laws. Because these budget restrictions are often
out of the school districts control, school boards may have limited resources
to spend on technology, which makes for very difficult budget decisions.
Lisa
Nielsen (2011a) counters this philosophy with her own thoughts on the digital
divide between those that have good devices and those students that have weaker
devices. Nielsen believes that all
students do not have to have the same or equal quality devices to learn. She further states that schools should not
have to provide devices to poorer student to try to make things equal. Instead, she states that schools should
empower families to take ownership in securing their own devices. Nielsen provides examples of ways that
families can secure devices. For
instance, businesses or entrepreneurs provide funding for devices or recycling
their older devices for student use, fundraising for devices, using social
media to ask for donated devices, or instead of the school throwing away
equipment that they are replacing, they give that equipment to students. While Nielsen’s ideas sound good, they simply
narrow the digital divide gap, instead of eliminating the gap. Most devices that are discarded by businesses
and schools are discarded because they have often become outdated. Older devices may also have difficulty
running current apps and programs and will only become a frustration to the
student that receives them. Asking a
student to beg for devices on social media may also be humiliating for a
student.
Some
may also feel that devices such as cell phones become devices for retrieving
information and chatting with others, but do not promote higher level thinking. Gary Stager suggests that learning with
devices narrows learning process down to simple online information access and
chat and fails to create opportunities for deeper thinking (Stager, 2011).
Plopper
& Conaway (2013) state that a barrier to implementing digital devices in
the classroom may be teachers’ own fear of technology. Many
teachers have received very little training in the use of digital devices in
the classroom. Professional development
should be created to include help in developing engaging lessons involving
technology to reduce the potential for off-task disruptive behavior of the
device. Teachers also need to be made
aware of all the potential material and apps that are available for the
different devices and what device is better suited for an application. The teachers should be further trained in the
teaching and enforcement of the Acceptable Use Policy (Johnson, 2012).
Advantages of One-to-One for the Learner
While
Stager is opposed to BYOD, he appears to be in favor of one-to-one approaches. Stager states that, “The only way to
guarantee equitable educational experiences is for each student to have access
to the same materials and learning opportunities” (Fingal, 2012, p. 7). Stager believes that the student needs to
be provided with a stronger, more capable device than cell phones. Stager states that cell phones still do not
have the same computing capabilities of laptops (Fingal, 2012).
In
a study by Crichton, Pegler, and White (2012) involving senior high classes, it
appeared that the ability for a student to take a device home was a key to
student acceptance of the device. Based
on responses to questions, students overwhelmingly liked the 1:1 iPod
initiative where they could use and personalize an iPod. Many students cited the fact that often with
classroom sets of devices, previous students would change settings that caused
a delay in getting started with a classroom project. Hoffman (2013) reported that students in a
one-to-one classroom also felt that the ability to personalize and become
familiar with a device was an important factor.
Students in this study stated that they no longer had to spend time
during a classroom period readjusting the settings that had been changed by a previous
student. Students indicated that the
ability to contact other students and teachers with the devices was a positive
aspect of a one-to-one environment.
Disadvantages of One-to-One for the Learner
Disadvantages of One-to-One for
the Learner
One
of the biggest barriers to a one-to-one learning environment is the total cost
of funding devices for all students. Districts
are recognizing the fact that it is a challenge to fund school-owned devices in
a one-to-one environment (Johnson, 2012).
Some feel that providing a device for every student in a school is
unsustainable and unmanageable (Nelson, 2012).
In
a one-to-one environment, the school typically purchases one type of device for
the students. In a study where a
one-to-one environment was created with iPod touches in Phase 1 and iPads in
Phase 2, teachers and students indicated that, depending on the task, they
preferred a range of devices. The iPod touch
was preferred for recording, listening to podcasts, and playing games. Laptops were still preferred for Internet
searches, creating media, and checking email.
Paper or traditional options were still preferred for drawing and
reading (Crichton, Pegler, & White, 2012).
One of the limitations of the study was that most of the reported
results came from the Phase 1, where students used iPod touches, instead of
more functional iPads that were used in Phase 2.
Students
in the study by Hoffman (2013), state that one of the drawbacks to having an
iPad in the one-to-one environment is that devices became an easy distraction. Some students stated that they could appear
to be doing something educational in the classroom, but instead, they were
interacting with others using the device.
Half of the students said that the iPad affected on-task behavior in a
positive way. When asked if the device had
a negative impact on their learning, every student in the class indicated that
the device’s potential distractions did have a negative effect on their
learning. Some of the students stated
that the variety of things that can be performed on an iPad had a negative
impact with on-task behavior when they were trying to do their homework. Distractions were dependent on the content
and teaching style of the teacher. One
student indicated that he was more likely to be distracted in math or history
class, because he found that the apps on an iPad were more interesting than the
topic. One teacher stated that she felt
frustrated by her inability to redirect or limit off-task behavior.
In
a university study, students in an astronomy class self-reported that they were
distracted an average of three times per class period by their personal use of
technology. Observations made by
observers in the study, suggested that the disruption rate was under-reported
and that the distraction rate was closer to seven times per class period
(Duncan, Hoedstra, & Wilcox, 2012). To
curtail off-task distractions, teachers will need to create more engaging and
well planned lessons. Johnson (2012)
states that districts must provide adequate training to their staff so they can
assist teachers in developing guidelines for technology use and productive
lesson development. This will foster better use of the devices.
A Blended Approach to BYOD and One-to-One
A Blended Approach to BYOD and
One-to-One
Both approaches,
BYOD and one-to-one programs, have some similar barriers to implementation:
distractions in the classroom, student access to inappropriate content, and
teachers’ fears of implementing mobile devices.
Solutions to these problems will be similar. Many feel that the biggest different between
the two approaches is that BYOD is less expensive than providing a device for
every student. But others feel that BYOD
causes an inequity of learning opportunities between those that have better
technology and those that cannot afford quality technology. The Alberta Education BYOD guide for schools
provides a BYOD plan that uses some one-to-one approaches to bridge the equity
gap. The Alberta Government recognizes
that it is very difficult for schools to fund and sustain the cost of a
one-to-one program, so it is pushing its schools to develop BYOD programs. To
address the equity of access problem that may occur with BYOD, the guide
suggests that school authorities may choose to provide devices similar to the
one-to-one approach for students that cannot afford to purchase their own
technology. Another alternative
suggested may be to provide cheaper lease-to-own programs to try to make
ownership more obtainable for families. While
the program attempts to bridge the gap by providing alternatives for students
to have devices, the guide does indicate that there will still be an equity gap
for students that do not have Internet access at home (Alberta Education,
2012).
Infographic courtesy of
www.onlinecolleges.net
Teacher Training for BYOD
Teacher
Training for BYOD Programs
Teacher training
is an essential element of successful BYOD programs. School districts interested in developing
professional development opportunities for teachers synchronously using
multiple mobile devices must consider several factors including: teacher
familiarity with current technology, teacher willingness to adapt curricula to
emerging technology, and integrating technology into the curricula. Current research provides insight into the
strategies districts are implementing to conquer the challenge of preparing
teachers for the 21st century classroom.
Lorne
Olfman and Pimpaka Prasertsilp suggest that the Constructivist Learning Theory
framework is the foundation for creating effective professional development for
teachers. Active engagement in the
learning process is necessary for the trainees since they come from a variety
of backgrounds, demonstrate diverse levels of comfort with technology, and
different motivations for integrating technology in the classroom. Through active engagement a teacher can be
trained individually to use mobile devices to teach a particular lesson about a
particular subject or trained as part of a group where the success of the group
depends on the level of collaboration of its members (Olfman & Prasertsilp,
2014).
Training
teachers to integrate the use of personal mobile devices into technology is a
multi-step process. Olfman and
Prasersilp (2014) contend that, “the key domains and teaching competencies that
are needed to support the in-service teacher training process are technology,
curricula, methodology, evaluation, communication, and attitude” (Olfman &
Prasertsilp, 2014, p. 56). They continue
by focusing their research on the domain of curricula arguing that teacher
training in the area of pedagogy should concentrate on “making pedagogical and
curricular decisions, mobile technology integration…, systematic planning of
technology application, and…implementing processes for applying the technology”
(Olfman & Prasertsilp, 2014, p. 56).
The
chief technology officer (CTO) has an important role for helping develop
communication amongst teachers (Raths, 2014).
When teachers work collaboratively in groups, the learning outcomes of
their students are more easily achievable.
Developing good attitudes in teachers about the use of technology takes
more than an in-service. Training must
extend beyond the in-service and create a lasting network of professionals who
seek to meet specific goals: namely active learning for students in both formal
and informal settings (Lai, Khaddage, &
Knezek., 2013). It is the duty of
the CTO to provide teachers with long-term opportunities to collaborate and the
technology support they need to maintain up-to-date familiarity with existing
and emerging technology.
There
are many challenges facing school districts that wish to train teachers for the
BYOD paradigm. The attitude of educators
toward allowing students to use mobile devices in the classroom is not determined
by any single factor. However, Blanche
O’Bannon and Kevin Thomas point out that teachers over the age of 50 seem most
reluctant to implement the use of mobile technology in the classroom. They suggest that the reluctance is due, in
part, to a lack of necessary technology skills and, in part, to a lack of
understanding the implications of implementing technology into curricula (O’Bannon
& Thomas, 2014).
Each
school district must consider the benefits and challenges of providing BYOD
training for its staff. The cost of
training must clearly outweigh the financial burden and time restrictions of
the teachers and technology instructors in order to motivate school boards to
approve spending. As universities adjust
teacher competencies to include the integration of mobile technology in the
classroom, the burden to school districts will likely decrease. Teachers, already in the classroom, will be
forced to adapt or make way for newer, more flexible, candidates.
Cartoon courtesy of Chief & Chuck. (2011).
Designing Curriculum for BYOD
Designing Curriculum for BYOD Delivery
Designing dynamic curriculum for BYOD delivery is a critical factor in effective BYOD implementation. BYOD curriculum should take full advantage of the many delivery benefits that BYOD has to offer. BYOD curriculum also has to be audience-driven and tailored to the needs of the learner. Without appropriate curriculum development, the advantages offered by BYOD will be wasted and not fully exploited.
Herro, Kiger, and Owens (2013) present a three-part study that offers case-based suggestions for BYOD curriculum development. This body of work is an analysis of the BYOD curriculum development experiences in three learning environments: elementary education, augmented reality game creation, and teacher preparation programs. With respect to elementary education, BYOD curriculum needs to reflect the abilities of the young learner to grasp basic concepts. It is also not expected that these young learners will have access to BYOD devices, so school-supplied equipment should be provided. Herro et al. (2013) describe established curriculum models for each grade level and document the progression in user competencies. As young learners become more adept with BYOD functionality, curriculum taxonomy increases to the level of analysis when these devices are used in collaborative exercises.
Augmented reality game creation is the focus the second study, which is placed in a high school technical education setting. At the high school level, problem solving and in-depth synthesis of ideas is the thrust of education, and this case study describes the experiences of educators in implementing BYOD to technical education students assigned with creation of a digital game designed for mobile devices. The skills of problem solving, collaboration, and iterative design are developed during this learning experience. The use of a structured software development tool ensured that all learners stayed on track and did not become overwhelmed by the assignment. This structured software also eased the curriculum development process because of its functionality across all devices. This case study was a logical progression of BYOD curriculum analysis done at the elementary environment of the previous study.
Lastly, Herro et al. (2013) analyze the experiences gained in a teacher preparation course at a popular school of education program. This course of instruction was an innovative approach to teacher preparation in that it discussed the methods needed to develop effective BYOD curriculum. Various instructional models were used to demonstrate that a utilitarian approach needs to occur when designing curriculum for different learners. A variety of software applications for each grade level and best practices were discussed to expose the need for a tailored methodology when developing curriculum.
Estable (2013) takes the BYOD curriculum approach one step further and discusses the design of BYOD curriculum explicitly in mobile learning (M-learning) situations. M-learning differs from BYOD public school applications in that it presents the aspect of learning outside the school environment. This would naturally involve an older group of learners. According to Estable (2013), autonomy is one of the greatest benefits of BYOD M-learning. Sound BYOD curriculum design will foster the development of self-directed learners who require the access needed by M-learning design. Conversely, poor BYOD curriculum design will interfere with student learning and will prohibit student autonomy. It is therefore imperative that sound educational theory be utilized when developing curriculum for BYOD applications.
Awareness of the barriers involved and measures to overcome these barriers are the hallmarks of sound BYOD curriculum. Certain devices are more adaptable when it involves opening various file types, and good BYOD curriculum will avoid these obstacles by implementing alternate strategies. Acknowledging that BYOD M-learning will be an asynchronous, self-directed delivery requires that easy-to-understand instructions and well organized lesson material are in place. The use of learning nuggets will compensate for the lack of real estate on the BYOD screen by presenting material in short, well organized pieces. Each lesson should not exceed 3-5 minutes because of the eye strain involved in using these devices for long periods. Estable (2013) offers a much more useful technical approach to BYOD curriculum development than does Herro, et al. (2013). Herro et al. (2013) is more general in nature and is not specific in its guidance to BYOD curriculum developers.
Designing dynamic curriculum for BYOD delivery is a critical factor in effective BYOD implementation. BYOD curriculum should take full advantage of the many delivery benefits that BYOD has to offer. BYOD curriculum also has to be audience-driven and tailored to the needs of the learner. Without appropriate curriculum development, the advantages offered by BYOD will be wasted and not fully exploited.
Herro, Kiger, and Owens (2013) present a three-part study that offers case-based suggestions for BYOD curriculum development. This body of work is an analysis of the BYOD curriculum development experiences in three learning environments: elementary education, augmented reality game creation, and teacher preparation programs. With respect to elementary education, BYOD curriculum needs to reflect the abilities of the young learner to grasp basic concepts. It is also not expected that these young learners will have access to BYOD devices, so school-supplied equipment should be provided. Herro et al. (2013) describe established curriculum models for each grade level and document the progression in user competencies. As young learners become more adept with BYOD functionality, curriculum taxonomy increases to the level of analysis when these devices are used in collaborative exercises.
Augmented reality game creation is the focus the second study, which is placed in a high school technical education setting. At the high school level, problem solving and in-depth synthesis of ideas is the thrust of education, and this case study describes the experiences of educators in implementing BYOD to technical education students assigned with creation of a digital game designed for mobile devices. The skills of problem solving, collaboration, and iterative design are developed during this learning experience. The use of a structured software development tool ensured that all learners stayed on track and did not become overwhelmed by the assignment. This structured software also eased the curriculum development process because of its functionality across all devices. This case study was a logical progression of BYOD curriculum analysis done at the elementary environment of the previous study.
Lastly, Herro et al. (2013) analyze the experiences gained in a teacher preparation course at a popular school of education program. This course of instruction was an innovative approach to teacher preparation in that it discussed the methods needed to develop effective BYOD curriculum. Various instructional models were used to demonstrate that a utilitarian approach needs to occur when designing curriculum for different learners. A variety of software applications for each grade level and best practices were discussed to expose the need for a tailored methodology when developing curriculum.
Estable (2013) takes the BYOD curriculum approach one step further and discusses the design of BYOD curriculum explicitly in mobile learning (M-learning) situations. M-learning differs from BYOD public school applications in that it presents the aspect of learning outside the school environment. This would naturally involve an older group of learners. According to Estable (2013), autonomy is one of the greatest benefits of BYOD M-learning. Sound BYOD curriculum design will foster the development of self-directed learners who require the access needed by M-learning design. Conversely, poor BYOD curriculum design will interfere with student learning and will prohibit student autonomy. It is therefore imperative that sound educational theory be utilized when developing curriculum for BYOD applications.
Awareness of the barriers involved and measures to overcome these barriers are the hallmarks of sound BYOD curriculum. Certain devices are more adaptable when it involves opening various file types, and good BYOD curriculum will avoid these obstacles by implementing alternate strategies. Acknowledging that BYOD M-learning will be an asynchronous, self-directed delivery requires that easy-to-understand instructions and well organized lesson material are in place. The use of learning nuggets will compensate for the lack of real estate on the BYOD screen by presenting material in short, well organized pieces. Each lesson should not exceed 3-5 minutes because of the eye strain involved in using these devices for long periods. Estable (2013) offers a much more useful technical approach to BYOD curriculum development than does Herro, et al. (2013). Herro et al. (2013) is more general in nature and is not specific in its guidance to BYOD curriculum developers.
Photo courtesy of Fairfax County Public Schools via Creative Commons
BYOD Future Trends
Mobile learning is the mode and BYOD is the method; the benefits of BYOD in schools are endless. “Mobile technology has the potential to transform the learning landscape by providing expanded access to educational resources beyond the limits of the classroom and the school day” (Krueger, 2013, para 3). However, Simmons (2014) said it best, today’s students are tomorrow’s employees, and they will enter the workforce expecting the same opportunities. Nurturing the BYOD initiative in school is a novel idea. Integrating M-learning in primary school will prepare students for use in college. Learners will grasp at an early age the importance of collaboration and engagement in the virtual arena, which will likely follow them into their adult careers.
BYOD is a great vehicle for M-learning, it affords autonomy that fosters an anytime, anywhere learning experience on a personalized level. However, the benefits also present challenges as well. Good instructional design is critical for M-learners because it could affect their ability to reach their learning goals. “Poor design will hallmark poor student autonomy, which in turn can lead to poor student achievement. Important design considerations or potential barriers for a BYOD situation include file type, organization, length of learning content, culture and language, connectivity, motivation, and assessment” (Estable, 2013, p.22). An important factor to note is the transition of M-learning as BYOD evolves.
As students and educators we should anticipate the mutation of M-learning because its predecessor e-learning was not that old long ago. E-learning focused on learning as an activity and M-learning is capitalizing on learning through access. Mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and portable tablets offer expanded academic access through mobile learning (M-learning) when gives way to a ubiquity that is prompting even more transformation under the auspices of U-learning derived from the term Ubiquitous Learning.
Learners want no limitations and that’s why U-learning has become so attractive. Ubiquitous learning is versatile and universal. It can be situated and immersive; in a traditional classroom or in a virtual classroom. U-learning focuses on one-to-one computing enabled through technology. According to Lloyd (2013), One-to-one learning is based on the belief that people learn differently as a result of owning personal handheld computing devices. Ironically, one-to-one computing is just as socialized as it is personalized. Spector (2014) asserts that social media coupled with mobile technology present real-world and situated learning experiences. This marriage of the two caters to a variety of learners and learning goals and enables life to become a world of learning. U-learning moves us into the next dimension of lifelong learning. Our lives are literally consumed with the things around us as teaching mechanisms; our learning networks have expanded across the globe. Students can see how mobile technology impacts economic and educational decisions in other nations.
As the BYOD concept transforms, we transform to a world with machines powered by cats and dogs; where elaborate robotic contraptions, aliens, and whimsical inventions are the norm. If this world sounds like déjà vu, that’s because it is, it closely resembles Orbit City, the home of the Jetsons. Ironically, a gadget-centered galaxy was imagined and introduced through animation decades before mobile technology surfaced. A projection for year 2062 is already a manifestation of year 2014. Future household chores are carried out by electronic push-button mechanisms. Daily life is far more relaxed due to our strange reliance on numerous labor-saving devices; and people complain all the time of exhausting hard labor because life isn’t filled with even more conveniences (Hanna-Barbera, n.d.). Think about it! We are the Jetsons and BYOD has brought us to the Cyber Space-Age, Orbit City – here we come.
BYOD is a great vehicle for M-learning, it affords autonomy that fosters an anytime, anywhere learning experience on a personalized level. However, the benefits also present challenges as well. Good instructional design is critical for M-learners because it could affect their ability to reach their learning goals. “Poor design will hallmark poor student autonomy, which in turn can lead to poor student achievement. Important design considerations or potential barriers for a BYOD situation include file type, organization, length of learning content, culture and language, connectivity, motivation, and assessment” (Estable, 2013, p.22). An important factor to note is the transition of M-learning as BYOD evolves.
As students and educators we should anticipate the mutation of M-learning because its predecessor e-learning was not that old long ago. E-learning focused on learning as an activity and M-learning is capitalizing on learning through access. Mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and portable tablets offer expanded academic access through mobile learning (M-learning) when gives way to a ubiquity that is prompting even more transformation under the auspices of U-learning derived from the term Ubiquitous Learning.
Learners want no limitations and that’s why U-learning has become so attractive. Ubiquitous learning is versatile and universal. It can be situated and immersive; in a traditional classroom or in a virtual classroom. U-learning focuses on one-to-one computing enabled through technology. According to Lloyd (2013), One-to-one learning is based on the belief that people learn differently as a result of owning personal handheld computing devices. Ironically, one-to-one computing is just as socialized as it is personalized. Spector (2014) asserts that social media coupled with mobile technology present real-world and situated learning experiences. This marriage of the two caters to a variety of learners and learning goals and enables life to become a world of learning. U-learning moves us into the next dimension of lifelong learning. Our lives are literally consumed with the things around us as teaching mechanisms; our learning networks have expanded across the globe. Students can see how mobile technology impacts economic and educational decisions in other nations.
As the BYOD concept transforms, we transform to a world with machines powered by cats and dogs; where elaborate robotic contraptions, aliens, and whimsical inventions are the norm. If this world sounds like déjà vu, that’s because it is, it closely resembles Orbit City, the home of the Jetsons. Ironically, a gadget-centered galaxy was imagined and introduced through animation decades before mobile technology surfaced. A projection for year 2062 is already a manifestation of year 2014. Future household chores are carried out by electronic push-button mechanisms. Daily life is far more relaxed due to our strange reliance on numerous labor-saving devices; and people complain all the time of exhausting hard labor because life isn’t filled with even more conveniences (Hanna-Barbera, n.d.). Think about it! We are the Jetsons and BYOD has brought us to the Cyber Space-Age, Orbit City – here we come.
Summary
BYOD technology will shape the landscape of education for the foreseeable future. Presently, educators are in the infancy of this burgeoning teaching modality. Many considerations need to be dealt with and policies developed before BYOD can become mainstream. Initially, implementation strategies such as security procedures and user restrictions need to be formulated. School digital infrastructures also need to be enhanced in order to support the great influx of new users to the network. The advantages and disadvantages of BYOD technology need to be carefully weighed and analyzed in order to develop the best procedures for their use. Once the physical concerns of BYOD have been resolved, curriculum and teacher training need to be optimized to fully exploit the benefits of BYOD. Some learning models suggest that a blended learning solution is the best strategy for BYOD implementation. Blended learning will ensure that adequate collaboration will occur and higher order taxonomy knowledge will be delivered to the student. The future is bright for BYOD. Many scholars have suggested that BYOD technology will bring about the end of traditional classroom instruction and M-learning will be the delivery model of tomorrow’s students. Every promising educator needs to become very familiar with BYOD technology. If educators do not embrace this new method of learning, and discover ways to utilize it in their learning environment, they will soon find themselves antiquated. The BYOD phenomenon is not a passing fad- it is the wave of the future!
References
References
Alberta Education. (2012). Bring your own device: A guide for schools. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/6749210/byod%20guide%20revised%202012-09-05.pdf
Beach, M. (2014). BYOD: How schools are implementing "bring your own device". Teach, 6-9. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1532117720?accountid=12085
Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How Web Technology Is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cisco Systems Inc. (2010). School District provides Multi-campus High-speed Wireless. Retrieved from Cisco: www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1130-ag-series/case_study_c36-574983.pdf
Crichton, S., Pegler, K., & White, D. (2012). Personal devices in public settings: Lessons learned from an iPod touch / iPad project. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 10(1), 23-31.
Duncan, D. K., Hoedstra, A.R., & Wilcox, B. R. (2012). Digital devices, distraction, and student performance: Does in-class cell phone use reduce learning?. Astronomy Education Review, 11(1), 1-4.
Estable, M. (2013). A review of considerations for BYOD m-learning design. Distance Learning, 10(3), 21-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1496656085?accountid=12085
Fingal, D. (2012). Is BYOD the answer to our problems or the worst idea ever? Learning and Leading with Technology, 5.
Grant, M. & Barbour, M. (2013). Mobile Teaching and Learning in the Classroom and Online: Case studies in K-12. In Z. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning 285-292. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hanna-Barbera. (n.d.). The Jetsons. Retrieved from TV.com: http://www.tv.com/shows/the-jetsons/
Herro, D., Kiger, D., & Owens, C. (2013). Mobile technology: case-based suggestions for classroom integration and teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(1), 30+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA345775236&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=ac5da342fd9c7c9120467d5e5d14d695
Hoffman, A. A. (2013). Students' perceptions of on-task behavior and classroom engagement in a 1:1 iPad school. English Leadership Quarterly, 36(2), 9-18.
Horizon Project. (2013) NMC Horizon Project short list 2013 K-12 edition. New Media Consortium. Austin Texas: New Media Consortium.
Johnson, D. (2012). Power up, on board with BYOD. Educational Leadership. 1-3.
Krueger, K. (2013). New designing education networks initiative supports digital learning infrastructure. COSN Leading Education Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/about/news/new-designing-education-networks-initiative-supports-digital-learning-infrastructure
Lai, K., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 414-425. doi:10.1111/jcal.12030
LLoyd, M. (2013). What is ubiquitous learning? Edutech Associates: Schooling at the Speed of Thought. Retrieved from http://edutechassociates.net/2013/06/10/what-is-ubiquitous-learning/
Network World (Online). (2012). 10 Tips for Implementing BYOD Securely. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1038685397?accountid=12085
Nelson, D. (2012). BYOD: An opportunity school cannot afford to miss. Internet@Schools, 19(5), 12-15.
Nielsen, L. (2011a, October 28). Ideas for Bringing Your Own Device (BYOD) Even if you are Poor [Web log post] Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/ideas-for-bringing-your-own-device-even.html
Nielsen, L. (2011b, April 26). The contraband of some schools is the disruptive innovation of others with BYOT (Bring Your Own Tech) [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/contraband-of-some-schools-is.html
O'bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 74, 15-25. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.006
Plopper, B. L., & Conaway, A. F. (2013). Scholastic journalism teacher use of digital devices and social networking tools in a poor, largely rural state. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(1), 50-68.
Prasertsilp, P.; Olfman, L., "Effective Teacher Training for Tablet Integration in K-12 Classrooms," System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on, vol., no., pp.52, 61, 6-9 Jan. 2014 doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.16
Raths, D. (2014). Ways CTOs Can Impact the Classroom. The Education Digest, 80(2), 22-27.
Simmons, T. (2014). Making BYOD work. Training Journal, 12-15. Retrieved from www.trainingjournal.com
Spector, J. M. (2014). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.
Stager, G. (2011, October 8). BYOD – Worst idea of the 21st century? [Web log post] Retrieved from http://stager.tv/blog/?p=2397
The Center for Digital Education. (2013). Wireless connectivity in education: New tools to scale Wi-Fi infrastructure for 21st-century learning. Strategy Paper from Center for Digital Education, 8. Retrieved from http://www.digitalairwireless.com/wireless-industries/wireless-education.html
Ullman, E. (2011). BYOD and security. Tech & Learning, 31(8), 32-34, 36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/856126312?accountid=12085
Wainwright, A. (2014). BYOD in schools: 4 key wireless network infrastructure requirements. Secure Edge Networks. Retrieved from http://www.securedgenetworks.com/mobility-blog/BYOD-in-schools-4-Key-Wireless-Network-Infrastructure-Requirements/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)