Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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
51
53
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
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
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
55
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.
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
140
29.0
1,445
28.2
482
100
5,116
100
Total
%
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
Predictor
Code
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
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
S.E.
Wald
df
Exp(B)
.256
.067
14.503
.000
1.291
1.132
1.473
.395
.188
4.387
.036
1.484
1.026
2.147
-.546
.224
5.966
.015
.579
.374
.898
3.274
.331
97.697
.000
26.417
13.802
50.562
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.
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
59
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
60
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.
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.