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).
No comments:
Post a Comment