This article was downloaded by: [Kyungpook National University]

On: 06 October 2014, At: 19:51

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujdl20

Mobile Technology
a

Danielle Herro , Derick Kiger & Carl Owens

a

Clemson University

Oconomowoc Area School District

Tennessee Technological University

Published online: 19 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Danielle Herro, Derick Kiger & Carl Owens (2013) Mobile Technology, Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 30:1, 30-40, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2013.10784723
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784723

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mobile Technology:
Case-Based Suggestions for Classroom Integration and Teacher Educators
Danielle Herro

Derick Kiger

Carl Owens

Clemson University

Oconomowoc Area School District

Tennessee T~chnologicalUniversity

Haywood, 2011; Lenhart, 2012; Brenner,

20 12). In fact, iPodIMP3 player and
laptop ownership by 8-18-year-olds has
doubled or tripled since 2004 (Rideout,
Foehr, & Roberts, 2010, p. 3), and more
than three-fourths of 12- 17-year-olds
now own cell phones-almost 50%
of which are smartphones (Madden,
Lenhart, Duggan, Corksi, & Gasser,
2013). This rise in ownership cuts across
demographics of race, gender, and
socio-economic status. African-Americans and English-speaking Latinos
own cell phones and access the Internet at a higher rate than white mobile
phone users (Smith, 20 10; Madden et
al., 2013). Mobile media use in general
has exploded among U.S. youth, with
adolescents leading the way as early
adopters of all mobile media. Typical
habits include texting, gaming, listening to music, watching TV, creating
content, visiting social networks, and
streaming and sharing videos (Rideout
et al., p. 3). Despite the concern over
the "always connected nature of youth,
parents sanction the ownership of
mobiles by purchasing laptops, tablets,
and smartphones for their children at
younger ages, deeming the tools helpful
in monitoring and communicating with
their children while allowing access to
the Internet (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell,
& Purcell, 20 10). Educators are increasing their use of mobiles for learning as
well, as they believe the devices help
them communicate with students and
offer motivating, engaging access to
Internet resources, digital learning,
and content creation. However, they
continue to struggle with balancing
effective pedagogical approaches with
"device distractibility" and equitable
access (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, &
Friedrich, 20 13).

Although numerous definitions of

mobile learning (m-learning) exist, it is
broadly defined as the "ability to access
educational resources, tools and materials at anytime from anywhere using a
mobile device" (Groupe Speciale Mobile
Association, 2010). M-learning is influenced by pedagogical integration, social
and cultural contexts, and the tools affordances. Sharples (2000, p. 5) describes
characteristics of m-learning including
highly portable, individual, unobtrusive,
available anywhere, adaptable, persistent
to manage even with changes in technology, useful, and easy to use.
The adoption of mobile computing, including 1:1 and bring your own
device (BYOD) programs, is increasing
in teacher preparation programs and
PK- 12 school districts (Purcell et al.,
20 13). However, lack of technical support, funding, professional development,
and pedagogical models make it difficult
for educators to integrate the tools in
PK-20 settings. BYOD programs are
controversial, as schools grapple with
technical support for nonstandard
devices, concerns over equity, issues of
classroom management, and pedagogical approaches (Nielson, 20 11; Dahlstrom & diFilipa20 13).
After reviewkg emerging research on
m-learning in education, this article presents three practical examples to consider
when integrating mobiles in K- 12 schools
and inservice teacher education programs.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Abstract

Mobile technologies permeate the lives

of 21" century citizens. From smartphones to tablet computers, people use
these devices to navigate personal, social, and career responsibilifies. Educators recognize the instructional potential of mobiles and are seeking ways to
eflectively utilize these technologies in
support of learning. Research is beginning to surface to aid this endeavor.
This paper contributes to the literature
by summarizing emerging evidence
and oflering case-based suggestions
for eflectively integrating mobiles in
classrooms. We conclude with implications for teacher education programs
and next steps. (Keywords: mobiles,
teacher preparation programs, PK-12
teaching, technology integration, augmented reality)

obile learning represents untethered access to educational

resources via wireless devices
like Smartphones, MP3 Players, Portable
Game Systems, iPads, and Tablet PCs
(Eisele-Dyrli, 20 11; Yeonjeong, 20 11). This
learning approach has gained popularity
given increasing student access and use
of portable devices in every-day activities
(Allen, 2011).According to a national survey of students (Project Tomorrow, 2010),
85% of high school students have access to
an iPod, 70% had a laptop/tablet/netbook,
and 67% had a cell phone.
Expert predictions suggest that by
2020, a majority of innovative Internetbased applications will be run in the
cloud and accessed on smartphones
(Andersen & Rainie, 20 10). Mobile
device ownership by young students,
teens, and adults has increased rapidly
in the last 5 years (Johnson, Adams, &

30

1 Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education I Volume 30 Number 1

Review of the Emerging Literature on

Mobile Devices for Learning
Although mobile ownership is exploding outside of school, the warp speed
at which device functionality changes,
along with resource, policy, technical,
and professional development challenges, means research regarding mobiles

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

in the classroom is less conclusive and

more predictive (Traxler, 20 10). Traxler
(p. 149) argues that m-learning creates
a dichotomy between what educators
profess to value for student learning-agency, control, choice, and access
to multimodal resources-and loss
of teacher control of standardization,
quality, consistency, and uniformity.
Consumerization drives the purchase
and use of mobiles and challenges time,
place, and methods of learning.
As research regarding effective integration evolves, there is reason to believe
that m-learning will become mainstream
in schools in coming years. Norris and
Soloway (2011) present compelling statistics reinforcing this idea: More than 4
billion mobile phones are in circulation
worldwide, smartphones surpassed PC
shipments in 20 11, app-based Internet
surfing is expected to surpass desktop
Web access by 2014, and the cost of mobiles will significantly decrease within
the next few years (p. 4). As many U.S.
youth already own mobiles and BYOD
programs are growing in popularity,
these researchers believe the hyperconnected, affordable, global access that
users demand will disrupt schools, shifting them from a "we teach" approach to
an "I learn" environment. This change
could mean mobiles will enhance
project-based individualized learning,
where users control the type and flow of
information (BenMoussa, 2003).
Early studies on m-learning suggest
the devices offer unfettered access to a
wealth of learning opportunities across
subjects (Boeck, 2010; Cook, 2010; Shin,
Norris, & Soloway 20 11). Accessing
digital texts via mobiles has a demonstrated effect on reading habits. Recent
Pew Internet Reports show older teens
and young adults increasing the amount
of time and passage length when reading online via laptops, e-readers, or cell
phones (Zichuhr, Rainie, Purcell, Madden, & Brenner, 20 12).
Researchers are exploring the potential of location-based and situated
learning with mobiles to merge physical
and virtual experiences. This innovative research demonstrates the benefits
of mobiles to design augmented reality

(AR) experiences linking curricular

goals to learning directly within physical communities based on "problem
scenarios" and gameplay (Dunleavy &
Dede in press; Squire & Klopfer, 2007).
Students can play or create their own AR
games, often using background knowledge presented in classrooms, before investigating a geographical location with
mobiles. Through collaborative roleplaying, data collection, and digital information provided and discovered, students
solve a problem in context. For instance,
in AR game play, students might roleplay as they investigate an environmental concern by physically visiting the
location and receiving contextualized
virtual images and data to hypothesize
problems and solutions. In AR game
creation, students might design a game
for others to collect and view digital
information as they problem-solve or
learn about a locale.
Many schools are experimenting
with mobiles as tools to provide digital
media access, hone app-based learning,
increase communication and collaboration skills, and enhance opportunities
for convenient, immediate learning
(Project Tomorrow, 201 1; Shuler, 2009).
Since 2006, Escondido Union School
District (EUSD) has implemented and
scaled their teacher-led iRead Program
(https://sites.google.com/a/eusd.org/
eusd-iread/) using iPod touch devices
to improve elementary students' reading. To date, they have expanded the
program in more than 80 classrooms
and moved from reading fluency to
focusing on reading comprehension
across modalities. Representative
district-reported data show significant
gains in reading achievement by students in the iRead pilot classes on Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills and Northwest
Education Association MAPS Tests
(https://sites.google.com/a/eusd.org/
eusd-ireadlsample-data); however, full
data analysis is unavailable. Another
recent study measuring third graders'
math achievement demonstrated that
students using mobiles to learn multiplication facts outperform those taught
by traditional methods (Kiger, Herro, &
Prunty, 20 12).

The Khan Academy (http://www.

khanacademy.org) has generated interest
in "flipped classroom approaches in
which students learn via online video,
resources, and other teaching models
that are accessible on mobile devices.
Khan Academy is currently documenting its success with 2";ilot schools that
are using the approach to augment classroom learning (http:l','www.khanacademy.org/toolkit/pilot-schools).
The few existing studies reporting
the effect of mobiles i l teacher preparation demonstrate increased engagement,
comfort with technology, ability to immediately garner help or support from
peers, and self-recorded evidence of
processes or success in learning (Ferry,
2008). Numerous iPad deployments at
universities are taking hold around the
country: Oklahoma State University
released an executive summary detailing
success with iPads from a 2010 pilot encompassing five sections of two classes
across two campuses. Positive outcomes
were described as decreasing student
cost, linking faculty znd students to
subject-specific apps, and general agreement by students and faculty that iPads
enhanced learning. Students had mixed
responses on the advmtage of using
iPads as e-readers; they enjoyed the
ease of digitally housing their textbooks
but did not necessarily believe iPads
promoted increased reading (Handy &
Suter, 20 11).
Research guiding implementation
with mobiles is still predictive and typically not illustrative of authentic classroom situations (Banister, 2010; Bebell,
O'Dwyer, Russell, & Xoffman, 20 10;
Traxler, 2007). Best practices preparing
preservice and inservice teachers to use
the devices for learning based on concrete classroom examples are unclear. In
fact, teacher preparation programs are
often devoid of opportunities to teach
with mobiles.
As contextual factors often determine
models of success when scaling innovation in education (Clarke & Dede, 2009),
this paper is purposely practical and
descriptive. We offer current examples
in the context of classroom practice
sustained by professional development.

Volume 30 Number 1 I Journal of Digital Learning in Teacner Education 1 31

Herro, Kiger, & Owens

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Detailing three instances involving mobiles integrated in schools and teacher

preparation programs offers educators'
ideas to consider as they move forward.
We argue that practices in PK-12 and
teacher education programs should
inform one another and conclude with a
discussion of implications and next steps
extending this model to others.

Mobiles to Teach Skills, Literacy, and

Content Creation in PK-20 Contexts
The first two examples outline implementation process and practices using
mobiles to increase learning opportunities in a Midwestern school district
of 5,200 students. Initial limitations in
network capacity and technical support,
policies, professional development, and
novelty prevented the district from considering a BYOD initiative when mobiles
were first introduced in 2009. Thus, the
examples reflect the reality of sharing
district-owned mobiles versus using
personally owned devices. We focus on
the use of mobiles in a PK-4 elementary
school and a high school course experimenting with AR game creation. The
instances provide insight into mobile
learning's value and sustainability in
schools and offer considerations for
preservice teacher education.

Case 1: Introducing Mobiles

in an Elementary School
The inspiration to consider iPod touches
to augment literacy practices stemmed
from two sources: the district's instructional technology administrator's (ITA)
attendance at an educational technology
conference highlighting the potential of
m-learning, and online research detailing EUSD's early success with mobiles to
increase reading literacy. At the time, in
2009, iPod touches were innovative and
scarce in schools. The ITAs conversations
with the director of instruction resulted
in the reallocation of district funds for a
pilot at one of five elementary schools.
Student need and staff interest contributed to selecting the site. The PK-4 school
had 35 staff members, 23 classrooms,
and 517 students, and the highest special
education (19%) and most economically
disadvantaged (24%) population in the

32

district. The pilot's goal was to explore the

technical, logistical, and instructional f a sibillty of integrating mobiles to consider
scdirig similar initiatives across all five
elementary schools. In 2009, no formal
proftssional development was available,
so the ITA and the sch~ol'scomputing
resource teacher (CRT) used conference demonstrations provided by Apple
vendors and scoured the Internet for
inncwative schools describing their efforts
with mobiles.
'The ITA purchased a Bretford Syncing
Cart, 30 iPod touches (16G), protective
case;, a Macbook, Airprt Extreme, and
an i 3 n e s gift card to h y apps. The total
equipment cost was approximately$9,000.
Implementation. Before students usec
the iPod touches, teachers received a
short device demonstration with preloaded a?ps across subject areas as "starter
apps" recommended a: educational
technology conferences. They evaluated
the instructional appropriateness of apps
basG on relevance to learning style and
content. Kathy Schrock's (Schrock, 201 1;
http /'/www.schrockgulde.net/) iPad and
iPcd tools aided in evaluation. Teachers
were encouraged to further explore mobiles at home and suggest additional a p p
after reviewing them online.
Initially, an iPod touch cart was
scheduled for each clasroom or shared
between entire grade levels for 2-hour
blccks of time, in 9-week rotations.
Thz CRT typically introduced a few
device features and highlighted two or
three apps tied to curriculum using a
document camera. Seldom did the CRT
sper-d more than 20 minutes acclimating
the class to new apps, and after 2 weeks
of daily modeling, teachers required
minimal support. They often discovered,
reviewed, and requested to download
additional apps. The CRT reported tha:
the technology was intuitive and motivating for teachers and students.
R e following representative examples highlight the use and functionality
of the devices:
0

Kindergarten classes used apps to

practice drawing, counting, and
shape and letter recognition. For
example, students augmented their

I Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Educaton I Volume 3C Number 1

learning of letter and sound recognition with simple apps, such as ABC
Flashcard (FunFunSoft, 20 1O), by
tracing thr?letter with their finger,
listening to phonetic pronunciations,
and identifying objects with beginning letter sounds.
First grade classes read interactive
b ~ o k and
s created digital stories using an app relying on images, sound,
and text. In one class, students read
fc~lktales,such as The Three Little Pigs
(Nosy Crow, 201I), already downlcraded on the iPod touches. Next,
they used the StoryKit app (ICDL
F~undation,201 1) to recreate their
o-m folktales. Its interactive template
allowed them to write, audio narrate,
and upload pictures. Projecting the
dsvices or passing them among classmates facilitated easy story sharing.
Second grade classes used the voice
recorder to practice reading fluency while recording, listening, and
re-recording passages. In some cases,
teachers met with small reading
grctups while assigning individual
students to read text into the voice
recorder, listen for accuracy, and rerecord the text if they weren't satisfied.
'They stored, time stamped, and downl c d e d voice recordings to the iTunes
playlist for easy access by teachers.
Third grade students practiced math
F ~ t using
s
games and levels geared
ta individual needs. Teachers used
apps such as Pop Math (AppBlit LLC,
21309), Mcltiplication Genius Lite
(Blueonionsoft Corp., 2009), and
Brain Thaw (Groovy Squared, LLC,
21309) to motivate students to learn
math facts. Students typically increased time spent learning facts and
challenged themselves to complete
levels and improve skills.
Fl~urthgrade students used the builtin accelerometer to test objects in a
science- in-motion unit. The Accelmeter (Breitling, 2009) app allowed
s ~ ~ d e ntot svisually represent and
rrleasure acceleration. They competed
in a derby-style competition after fastening iPod touches to small studentproduced cars or carts to calculate
changes in velocity.

Mobile Technology: Cse-Based Suggestions

Device setup and technical support.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Each iPod touch was given a recognizable "name" such as Mark or Anna,
with color-specific protective cases to
simplify student selection and return to
the syncing cart. Apps were arranged by
grade level and subject area within folders on the device screens for ease in use.
The chart below, maintained by the CRT,
provides an example of the organization
of the initial apps.
Policies. During the first rollout,
district policies prohibited use of staff
or students personal devices in school.
Policies did allow use of district-owned
equipment. To that end, little policy revision was necessary. However, once the
district embarked on BYOD, significant
policy revision was necessary to allow
personally owned devices in schools
without assuming liability and encouraging responsible use. Appendix A (p.
39) includes an excerpt from the current
policy allowing BYOD.
Professional development. After
the initial pilot, it was determined
that teacher professional development
and preparation was key to managing
devices, evaluating apps, and considering appropriate pedagogical approaches
toward content integration. The ITA
and CRT developed onsite professional
development and graduate courses preparing teachers to integrate mobiles.
They used two strategies to encourage
effective deployment and teaching:

Eight-hour workshops provided

library media, classroom, and CRT
training to manage the devices and
evaluate apps. One or two teachers
from each school attended the workshop on device management training.
A 2-credit onsite graduate course,
Mobiles in the Classroom, included
an overview of the process to request
and download apps but focused on
addressing pedagogical approaches
toward integrating mobiles in classrooms. Course topics, augmented
with hands-on practice, discussion,
Web links, video, and prepared documents included: trends and research,
best practices, fluency improvement, downloading free apps, and

Figure I. Screenshot of "starter apps" organized on iPod touches.

evaluating apps. Course materials

were stored in Blackboard for easy
retrieval, review, and updating, and
were available after the course ended.

Funding. The pilot was funded by

reallocating district resources typically allotted for nondigital primary
or supplementary materials. After the
first year, a combination of district and
school budgets, Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), and grant money were
used to purchase iPads and iPod touches
for all eight schools.
Challenges. Device setup and management and the process of purchasing
apps posed the greatest difficulties, as
the school network, technical support,
and purchasing procedures were not
designed to support mobiles. Extensive technical support was required to
configure each device with one address
for Web filtering and accounts allowing students to email files 'but" but not

receive files. 'This was necessary because

hundreds of students shared the devices.
The absence of reliajle broadband meant
wireless access points attached to the
Bretford cart were rsquired, in essence
limiting students to locations within
reach of limited Wi-Fi. After the pilot,
instructions and protocols were developed and repeated zt additional sites to
streamline the process. Subsequently,
very little technical support was required
after setup. In fact, in most cases, one or
two teachers managed the devices for
the entire school.
Resultant outcomes. The initial pilot of
30 iPod touches in one elementary school
resulted in scaling mobiles throughout
the district. In all likelihood, the coinciding popularity and utility of mobiles
outside of school contributed to the quick
expansion. Actions taken by the district
after pilot included: (a) completing a
study to examine the effectiveness of
mobiles for math achievement (see Kiger,

Volume 30 Number 1 I Journal of Digital Learning in T e ~ c h e Education

r
1 33

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Herro, Kiger, & Owens

Herro, & Prunty, 20 12), (b) purchasing

and deploying 240 iPod touches in three
additional schools the following year,
(c) conducting two iPad pilots in special
education and high school classes as
well as extending mobile learning to all
eight schools during the third year, and
(d) embarlung on a district-wide BYOD
initiative in the fourth year.
Ultimately, the Board of Education
found mobile learning valuable enough
to approve funding for a high-speed
fiber network supporting integration
across the district. Collaborations with
other districts, family and community
surveys, and pilots assisted in establishing parameters for the BYOD initiative.
Still in the early stages of graduated
implementation, extensive professional
development, training, technical support, and pedagogical shifts are supporting the movement. Nonstandard
device features, unequal access, and
the creation of large-scale professional
development initiatives are challenges
the district is addressing.

perceltions. Technical limitations

caused ARIS to not be implemented until the second semester, replacing a unit
using Scratch (scratch.mit.edu), which
was subsequently offered to younger
students.
C~~riculum
integration. The gaming
course focuses on iteratively designing
games as a means of teaching problem
solving, systems thinking, collaboration,
and iterative design. Students create
three t-qes of games: board, digital, and
mobile. Integrating ARIS was a natural
fit for the mobile game unit.
Professional development. TWOdistrict t~2chersand a network technician
attsnded a workshop on rapid prototyping wlth ARIS the semester preceding
the m ~ b i l egame implementation, The
2-day ~vorkshop,broadcast over the
Internet, attracted 30 groups with hundreds of participant from four countries.
Interested teachers, technology coordinators, museum staff,and K-12 students
createc 127 games from various locales
and shared them at the end. The workshop provided the classroom teacher
Case 2: Augmented Realilly h e
and technical support staff with necesCreation on Mobile Devices
sary technical and pedagogical skills to
Within the same district, opportunities
consider integrating ARIS in the gaming
to create mobile games using Augmentcourse. in essence replicating learning
ed Reality Interactive Storytelling (ARIS) from :he workshop.
(http://arisgames.org) are embedded in
Funding. ARIS is hosted online and
a 9-week, novel high school game design is E free download. However, a mobile
course offered for technical education
device is required to playtest the game.
credit. Developed by researchers at the
After describing the gaming course and
University of Wisconsin-Madison
porential for learning, a local computer
(UWM), ARIS is an authoring tool that
comp my- offered to fund the mobiles.
allows users to create place-based games Twelve iPod touches and six Samsung
with audio, video clips, images, and text
Galaxy tablets were purchased; the
in which players tour specific locations.
Samsung devices were used for creating
Geo-location or QR codes assist users in applications using MIT App Inventor
finding information, solving problems,
(http:,'/appinventor.mit.edu/) in an afteror learning about a site.
sckod gaming club.
Implementation. The process of enChallenges. Initially, technical support
visioning and implementing the entire
proved challenging to open appropriate
curriculum in this example entailed
Web sites connecting with the ARIS server,
(a) consultation with UWM's Games +
hosted offsite. Available infrastructure
Learning + Society (GLS), (b) surveying withir :hi: high school limited both broadstudents to gauge interest, (c) reviewband speed and wireless connectivity, and
ing research and proposing the course
ARIS 3-asn't fully functional on mobile defor district approval, (d) writing and
vices until the third quarter of the school
revising curriculum, (e) considering
iPod touch device required
year. E ~ c h
equipment and logistics, and (e) revising configuration, and the lack of sophisticurriculum based on staff and students
cated broadband meant that during heavy

34

1 Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education I Volume 30 Number 1

Internet traffrc, stcdents could not playtest

their games within the building. QR codes
were creatzd and scanned to play games
around school, and the Quick Tour feature
of the game was used when participants
could not 3E-ysicall-yvisit locations.
Resultant outcmes. The scccess with
ARIS and mobile learning resulted in additional learning cpportunities. Students
connected with a local museum to create
an ARIS game for aisitors to learn about
exhibits. cctending the understanding and
relevance of games to the broader community. Using ARIlS, students recorded
scripts, uploaded images, and tagged
places on Google Maps to produce a
scavenger-hnnt-svle game that guided
patrons to artifact information. Other students crsa~eda "zombie survival game" in
which players located and gathered items
around she high school. The game's narration included quests, characters, audio,
pop-up i~rages,x d mapped locations
designed within intricate mehanics with
a goal of ",survivingan apocalypse" to beat
the game.
The introduction of MIT APP Inventor
in an after-school lziub genera~edincreased
curiosity in game and app deb-elopment on
mobiles. A few students designed simple
apps, such as "HelloPurr" and "Magic 8
Ball" (app-creationdirections available at
http://a~phventor.mit.edu/explore/teach.
html) to l a m the E asics before modifying
apps wi* scoring mechanisms, adding
sound effects, or changing graphics. Projects and excitemen: within the club led
to administrative, teaching, and student
interest in developing apps as part of a
standard course. The new course offering,
slated for 20 13-2014, will posltion students to appfy computer science concepts
to real-world applications as they design
games and q p s .

Case 3: Mobiles in Teacher

Preparil~onPrograms
As teachers gain access to mobile devices, instruction in appropriate use and
integration is im~ortant.This instance
focuses an kow these devices are used in
a school of education (SoE) at a public
research ins~itutionin an undergraduate
teacher education program. Within the
university. the So? enrolls 1,900 students

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Mobile Technology: Case-Based Suggestions

in 16 teacher education programs. The

example centers on efforts offering preservice teachers opportunities to consider mobile technology integration in their
future classrooms, partnerships with
inservice educators to integrate mobile
technologies for app development, and
efforts to bridge teacher preparation and
PK- 12 teaching experiences.
Implementation. Anticipating the
proliferation of mobile devices for learning, the SoE purchased 10 iPads, 30 iPod
touches, a syncing cart, and iTunes gift
cards to purchase apps. Four educational
technology (ET) faculty members teach
undergraduate courses, which are required of all students in the SoE, focused
on classroom technology integration.
Recently, the ET faculty collaborated
and revamped coursework to include
units on mobiles emphasizing (a) assessing the value of mobiles in instruction,
(b) pedagogical approaches, (c) content
creation, (d) evaluation of apps, and (e)
learner impact. iPads and iPod touches
are available for checkout to all faculty
and students within the SoE, with priority given to courses using the devices in
scheduled classes.
Device setup and logistics. Similar
to the PK-12 example, technical support staff configure the mobile devices,
and SoE media center staff manage
them. Similar to the elementary school
example, they preload the iPads and
iPod touches with free "starter" apps and
categorically arrange them in folders for
use in teacher preparation courses. The
table below provides an abbreviated,
representative snapshot of the preloaded
apps used within courses encouraging
preservice teachers to explore apps for
grade level, developmental, or subjectspecific use.
Faculty digitally request additional
apps, videos, iBooks, or online resources for download. Student technology fees offset the cost of paid apps;
an instructional technology clinical
faculty member manages app purchases
to equitably distribute departmental purchases and avoid redundancy.
Carts are wheeled into classrooms and
returned to the media center for further
checkout.

Table 1. Snapshot of "Starter Apps" Downloaded for Preservice Teaching Courses

Topic/Discipline

Name of App

Grade Level

Language and early literacy

I Hear Ewe
Baby Finger HD
Peek-abo Barn Lite
ABC Magic Reading 1, 2 , 3
iTouch Learn Words for Preschoolers
Sentence Reading Magic
See.Touch.Learn.
Animal Sounds

PWelementary

Mathllogic reasoning

3 0 Shape Sorter
Dot-to-Dot Numbers and Letters
Rocket Math
Motion Math - Hungry Fish
Splash Math (grades 1, 2,3)
Multiplying Acorns
Brainpop

PWelementary

Music

Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star

If You're Happy and You Know It
Simon Says Classic Vocal Memory
Music Sparklers All-in-One Musical Instruments

PWelementary

Drawing

How to Draw
Paint Sparklers
Toontastic
Doodle Buddy

PWelementary

Games

Sudoku
Tetris 2
Scrabble Free
Stack the Countries

Middle and high School

Social media

Twitter
Bitly
Hootsuite
Eucreations Interactive Whiteboard
Edmodo

Middle, high school/faculty

Productivity

Teacher and Student Clicker-Socrative

Evernote
iComm
Free Dictionary and Thesaurus apps
DropBox

Middle, high school

*Special Education

Autism Xpress
Choice Board Creator
Dragon Dictation

Developmental

* There are limited free special education apps.

Polices. The campus has transitioned

to BYOD slowly, so the inclusion of
additional mobile devices-whether
university or personally owned-was
seamless. The SoE required students to
purchase and bring their own laptops
in 2006 and listed detailed specification
recommendations, policies, on-campus
support, and training options on their
Web site. Specific brands of laptop
computers are not mandated, but the
university states that netbooks and iPads
are not viable options for a primary device, as students had little instructional
experience with them. After acquiring

iPads and iPod touches, SoE policies

permitted generous borrowing times to
allow students to interact with the tools
and extend classroom instruction.
Funding. Student technology fees
subsidize the purchase and maintenance
of the iPad and iPod touches. Grants
support additional purchases of Android
devices supporting MIT App Inventor and apps downloaded via Google
Play (see "Resultant Outcomes" below).
Although the SoE has not ruled out purchasing additional mobiles, it anticipates
the proliferation of personally owned
devices to alleviate this need.

V o l u m e 30 Number 1 I J o u r n a l of Digital L e a r n i n g i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n I 35

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Herro, Kiger, & Owens

Professional development. The SOE

infuses mobile technology (laptop) use
throughout the teacher preparation
program. With laptops, efforts to include
mobile instruction is modeled and used
in the course of "doing business" in
most classes. Ideally, innovative uses of
mobiles should be integrated in general
education courses. Admittedly, not all
faculty members are prepared for advanced instruction in m-learning. Until
this becomes a widespread reality, ET
faculty assume the main responsibility.
Within the ET courses, special attention is given to providing pedagogical
contexts for students to reflect on the
value and use of mobiles for learning.
First, students become familiar with
research-based trends of using mobiles
in schools and appropriate evaluation
of apps. Next, a lesson scenario is used
with preservice teachers. An example of
what this might look like follows:
Context. A high school English literature course comprised of 25 ninth and
tenth grade students, 4 of whom receive
special education services, are reading J.
R. R. Tolkein's Ihe Hobbit. The 3-week,
daily unit includes an author study, attention to literary elements highlighted in
the book, and a final project demonstrating understanding of the book's themes.
Mobile integration. For this unit, The
Hobbit is downloaded as an iBook. The
iPads contain short video clips of the
movie, a literary analysis app, iMovie,
and standard productivity tools including a thesaurus, dictionary, Google
Maps, and word processing apps.
Impact on learner. Preservice teachers
are led through an abbreviated, simulated lesson beginning with introducing
the unit via movie trailers, researching
the author's background, and using the
literacy analysis app to demonstrate
literary elements. Productivity tools are
integrated into daily lessons replicating
what might be done, and a final project
using iMovie to showcase themes within
the book is briefly overviewed.
Student reflection. Students are asked
to reflect on the value of the tools from
two perspectives: instructional value and
learner impact. Discussion and written
reflection involve ties to the Internation-

36

al Society for Technology in Education's

(ISTE')National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) (http://www.
iste.org/standards), the value of the tool
withk the provided educational context,
barrisrs to integration, and interaction
offered to learners.
Resultant outcomes. ?he relatively
small infusion of mobiles has established
a new philosophy about their use and
integration, guided by pedagogical approaches versus "how-to" trainings. Faculty 2nd student workshops using this
model are offered, course evaluations
posrtively reflect students' value in of the
pedqogical approaches, and the early
success resulted in partnerships with
local districts interested in using iPads
and iPod touches with PK-12 students.
In s3me cases, local schools purchased
the devices but are unsure how to manage or integrate them. In other cases,
innovative PK- 12 schools are exploring
app creation with MIT App Inventor
and Nexus 7 tablets, offering the SoE
opp~rtunitiesto coll~borateon infusing
app cevelopment with Common Core
Statz Standards and influence teacher
preparation programs. ET faculty uses
two primary approaches with teachers to
consider app development: (a) It jointly
plans a 4-week, 12-lesson unit with ET
facclzy to co-teach app creation directly
in c-assrooms; and (b) it advertises 2-day
w o ~ h o p (see
s Appendix B, p. 40) that
it offers onsite or on campus to reach
teachers across disciplines and districts.
Cirallenges. Many SoE faculty are
slow to accept and adopt these new technologies. Faculty admit that the work
is often relegated to ET courses, and
although all SoE students experience
the Zourses, at times it creates a chasm
between students and their other professors who have not realized the potential
of m-learning. It's no surprise that studenls in field placements report varying
access, approach, and use of mobiles,
making integration efforts by "new"
educators difficult. This is especially true
in rural school system service areas.
Moreover, outreach programs require
siglxiiicant time to recruit teachers, form
lasting partnerships, and plan classroom
units and workshops.

1 Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Educat on I Volume 33 Number 1

ImpIicafions for Practice across BK-20

Research about effectively integrating
mobiles nlay be reported years after
their mainstream adoption in schools.
Although studies and scholarship in
this area are important, it is necessary to
prepare teachers for a prolific technology valued for learning. Drawing on our
illustrations, we discuss implications for
PK- 12 districts and teacher preparation
programs as means of understanding
successes and overcoming challenges
integrating mobiles. We suggest implementation paths for m-learning that include: visionary leadership, professional
development, scalable pilot programs,
and adequate resources. Because we
believe that working together will affect
student opportunities and learning with
mobiles, our implications purposely
span PK-20 programs.
Policies. All educational institutions
need policies supporting generous access to a variety of mobiles (Gramer &
Hayes, 20 10). This requires visionary
leadership in schools of education and
PK-12 schools. Administrators alone
cannot change instruction (Spillane,
2003). Distributing leadership across
domains of administrators, teacher leaders, and instructional coaches (Spillane
& Diamond, 2007) can ensure policies
join vision with practice. This entails
becoming familiar with literature on the
potential of m-learning, modeling the
use of mobiles for administrative tasks
(i.e., supervision, evaluation, and communication), investing in instructional
leadership teams to move innovation
forward, and supporting initiatives
through professional development and
resources..Understanding the need to
change policies and consequently enacting change begins with leadership.
The examples indicate the importance of rethinking, rewriting, and
understanding necessary policies that
permit appropriate use of mobiles
and encourage ethical, responsible
use. Clarke and Dede (2009) remind
educators 'bne-size-fits-all educational
innovations do not work because they
ignore contextual factors that determine
an intervention's efficacy in a particular
local situation" (p. 353). M-learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Mobile Technology: Case-Based Suggestions

policies for elementary students may

look vastly different than those for high
school students or undergraduates. Any
technological innovation for learners
involves shared goals that appropriately
consider context and resources (Halverson & Shapiro, 2012). Educators at all
levels can work together to appropriately
change policies.
Professional development. Training models using a "how-to" use the
tool approach [using the "how-to" tool
approach?], as opposed to focusing
on pedagogy and content integration,
has proven unsuccessful for affecting
learning (NCES, 2002; NCES 2006).
Admittedly, this approach continues
to challenge professional development.
Modeling and building the perception of
a mobile device as a flexible tool to scaffold learning, collaboration, and content
creation within curricular areas successfully guides teaching methods.
Well-prepared instructional coaches
can strengthen m-learning. Coaches
offer collaborative teaching opportunities as well as resource and time support, which translates into gains in
teacher and student learning (Heineke
& Polnick 20 13). Forming professional
learning communities (Lave & Wenger,
1991; Lave & Wenger 1998), or cohorts
of knowledgeable educators (digital or
otherwise), at all levels, to share policies,
resources, and practices may alleviate
many challenges.
Incentivizingeducators to participate
in professional development and pilot
programs with stipends, release time,
access to expertise, and support via communities of practice (COP)is one way forward. COPformed around professional
development and pilots offer opportunities for mutual engagement (interaction),
joint enterprise (negotiated products),
and shared repertoires (artifacts in which
the community takes ownership; Wenger,
1998).Professional development positioned with a COPserves to strengthen
effectiveness with m-learning, as it is ongoing and relevant and typically connects
invested educators.
Teachers increasingly use and value
technology in their personal lives and
classrooms but remain concerned with

issues of equity and impact on learning

(Purcell et al., 2013). This implies a need
for affordable devices and sound pedagogical approaches. Our examples suggest teachers and faculty would be well
served by understanding the affordances
and potential of mobiles for learning,
which are increasing in personal ownership and decreasing in price. Piloting the
use of mobiles in learning environments
and then scaling successful practice offers promise to both PK-12 and higher
education. This approach may involve
increasing awareness via authentic
examples of innovative practices, such
as those detailed in the cases above.
Observing m-learning classrooms to
contextualize their potential, planning
lessons integrating the tools, and engaging in scenarios where a variety of mobiles are integrated in lessons to discuss
pedagogical approaches aids in understanding-as well as contemplating differences between institution-controlled
1:1 computing and user-controlled
BYOD. Scalability models considering
"depth, sustainability, spread, and shift"
(Coburn, 2003) offer a framework for
PK-20 educators. Models like these suggest large-scale programmatic shifts with
innovation but must consider research
and evaluation, allow for flexible adaptions or modifications, and eventually
become efficient while reducing required
resources and expertise (Dede & Knox,
2009). Changing teacher attitudes, sustaining work over time, taking ownership, and spreading the innovation are
key in these scalable implementation
designs (Clarke & Dede, 2009).
As demonstrated in the examples
above, teachers would benefit from colleges and universities offering workshops and graduate courses. In the same
vein, faculty would benefit from understanding innovative practice in PK- 12.
Opportunities to partner, build, and test
curricular units with mobile devices
would assist faculty as well as inservice
and preservice teachers.
Funding. Adequate resources funding professional development, pilot
programs, and technical support can
ensure success. Although no definite
solution exists to solve funding issues,

PK-20 settings might approach subsidizing mobile learning using (a) BYOD
initiatives, (b) resource re-allocation,
and (c) support from grants or community partnerships. Cloud-based and
open source software offer cost savings
and resource deployment options for
schools (Behrend, ThTiebe,London, &
Johnson, 20 11; Dimaria, 20 12).
Technical challenges. In all cases,
CRT or media center staff supported the
initial device setup. The examples suggest the importance of understanding
logistical considerations to sync, share,
and manage the devices. ?his implies
planning far in advance, including
technicians in educational goals, and
training teachers to appropriately manage devices.

Conclusion
Mobile devices are valuable tools that
enhance learning. Bridging PK- 12 and
higher education teacher practices and
methods that incorporate them may
have an effective impact on instruction. As personalized, mobile learning
progresses as a global trend, logical next
steps in school districts and higher education include embracing pedagogical
shifts, supporting distinct devices and
personal learning, considering BYOD
initiatives, and contextualizing practices with mobiles. Effective leadership,
comprehensive professional development programs, scalable pilots, adequate
resource allocation, and reliable technical support are necessary to make this a
reality. Just as with other technological
innovations, addressing the rapidly
shifting potential of m-learning requires
flexibility that can readily adapt to particular situations (Clarke & Dede, 2009).
Educational institutions would benefit
by working together-and, most important, so would future students.
Author Notes
Dani Herro is an assistant professor of digital
media and learning in the Eugene T Moore School
of Education at Clemson University. She teaches
courses centered on integrating social media, games,
and emerging technologies in classrooms. She is a
recent recipient of the Ednzund W Gordon MacArthur Foundation/ETS Fellowship for 2 l S Century
f
Learning and Assessment. Her research interests

Volume 30 Number 1 I Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 1 37

Herro, Kiger, 8 Owens

include examininggameplay and game design, app

development, and digital media in teaching and
learning environments. Please address correspondence regarding this article to Danielle Herro, Eugene
T. Moore School of Education, 205 Tillman Hall,
Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail: dherro@clemson.edtr

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Derick Kiger is director of research, technology, and

assessment for the Oconomowoc Area Schooi District. His research interests focus on school improvement, educational technology, program evaluatiorr,
and applied research in school settings. E-mail:
Derick.kiger@oasd.k12. wi. us
Carl Owens is a professor and director of technology
in the College of Education at Tennessee Technological University. He has worked extensively with faculty development and technology integration across
the university and has garnered substantialfundiag
for teacher education programs and initiatives
bringing technology to rural counties in Tennessee.
His recent work centers on the instructional use of
digital content creation, video, music, and digital
photography. E-mail: COwens@tntech.edu

References
Allen, R. (2011). Can mobile devices transform
education? Education Update, 53(2), 2-7.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Andersen, J., & Rainie, L. (2010). Thef~itureof
cloud computing. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/'The-futureof-cloud-computing/Main-FindingsIMalnfindings.aspx
AppBlit, LLC. (2009). Pop math lite [software].
Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/
pop-math-litelid3032589 11?mt=8
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
Bebell D., O'Dwyer L. M., Russell M., & Hoffmar.,
T. (2010). Concerns, considerations, and
new ideas for data collection and research
in educational technology studies. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 43(1),
29-52.
Behrend, T. S., Wiebe, E. N., London, J. E., &
Johnson, E. C. (2011). Cloud computing
adoption and usage in community
colleges. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 30(2), 23 1-240.
BenMoussa, C. (2003). Workers on the move:
New opportunities through mobile commerce.
Presented at the International Conference
e-Society (IADIS), 3-6 June, Lisbon, Portugal
(pp. 251-256).
Blueonionsoft Corp. (2009). Multiplication geniulite [software]. Available from http://itunes.
apple.com/us/app/multiplication-genius-lite/
id335947469?mt=8
Boeck, M. (2010). Mobile learning, digital
literacies, information habitus and at risk
social groups. Mobile learning in the context cf
transformation. Special issue of International

38

Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 53-65.

Breitling, P. (2009). Accelmeter [software].
Available from https://itunes.apple.com/us/
applaccelmeter-3d-vector-accelerometer1
id346525189?mt=8
Brenner, J. (2012). Pew Internet mobile.
Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/
Commentary/2012lFebruarylPew-InternetMobile.aspx
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.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale:
Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
Cook, J. (2010). Mobile phones as mediating
tools within augmented contexts for
development. Mobile learning in the
context of transformation. Special issue of
International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning, 67-79.
Cramer, M., & Hayes, G. (2010). Acceptable use
of technology in schools: risks, policies, and
promises. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 9(3),
37-44.
Dahlstrom, E., & diFilipo S. (2013).
Consumerization of IT/BYOD. Research preview.
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
Retrieved from http:llwww.educause.edu/ecar
Dede, C., & Knox, A. (2009). Using technology to
scale up innovations. The Journal, May, 5 .
Dimaria, F. (2012). Cloud computing on campus
101. ?he Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education,
23,12-14.
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (in press). Augmented
reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.),
The handbook of researchfor educational
communications and technology (4thed.). New
York: Springer.
Eisele-Dyrli, K. (2011). Mobile goes mainstream.
District Administration, 47(2), 46-48. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Escondido Union School District. (n.d.). Project
iRead. Retrieved from https://sites.google.
com/a/eusd.org/eusd-iread/
Escondido Union School District. (n.d.). Test data.
Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/eusd.
orgleusd-ireadlsample-data
Ferry, B. (2009). Using mobile phones to enhance
teacher learning in environmental education.
In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I.
Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new
pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education
(pp. 45-55). Faculty of Education, University of
Wollongong.
FunFunSoft. (2010). ABCflashcards [software].
Available from https://itunes.apple.com/
us/app/abc-alphabet-flashcards-free!/
id450995423?mt=8
Groovy Squared, LLC. (2009). Brain thaw
[software].Available from http://www.
appolicious.com/games/apps/30476-brainthaw-lite-groovy-squared

1 Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education I Volume 30 Number 1

Groupe Speciale Mobile Associa:ion (GSMA).

(2010). m-learning: A pla@rm for educational
opportunities at the base ofthe pyramid. GSMA
Development Fund. Retrieved from http:l/www.
gsma.com/mobilefordevelap~ent/wpcontent/
uploads/20 121041
Halverson, R., & Shapiro, R. B. (2012). Technologies
for education and technologiesfor learners: How
information technologies are (and should be)
changing schools. WCER Wor-cing Paper No.
2012-6.
Handy, B., & Suter T. (2011, &r-1 13). Research
memorandum. iPad pilot sz4m nary and course
summary. Retrieved from https://news.okstate.
edu/images/documents/ipad~research~
memorandum.pdf
Heineke, S. F., & Polnick, B. (1013). PAVE
the WAY for COACHES. Jcurnal Of Stafl
Development, 34(3), 48-51.
ICDL Foundation. (2011). StoryKit. Available
from https://itunes.apple.c~m/us/app/story~t/
id329374595?mt=8
International Society for Teckndogy in Education.
(2013). National education!zl technology
standards. Retrieved from htt->://www.iste.org/
standards
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The
NMC horizon report: 201 1 1(-12 edition. Austin,
Texas: The New Media Cor_smtium.
Khan Academy. (2013). Pilot schools. Retrieved
from https://www.khanacademy.org/coach-res
Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty D. (2012,
September). Examining thz influence of a
mobile learning interventic:~n 3n third grade
math achievement. Journa: of Research on
Technology in Education, 45(1), 61-82.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Sit~atedlearning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice:
Learning meaning, and idenritj Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Press.
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smart2hones & texting.
Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://pewlnterne-t.org/
Reports/2012/Teens-and-smatphones.aspx
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S. & Purcell, K.
(2010). Teens and mobileplzones. Pew Internet
& American Life Project. F.etrieved from http://
pewinternet.org/Reports/201B/Teens-andMobile-Phones.aspx
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi,
S., Gasser, U. (2013). Teens a d technology
2013. Pew Internet &American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://w:.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx
National Center for Educaticn Statistics (NCES).
(2000). Teacher use of compu;ers and the
Internet in public schools. U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educ~tionalResearch
and Improvement, NCES LOClO-090. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2000090
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
(2006). Internet access in LTS. public schools
and classrooms: 1994-2005. U.S. Department

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

Mobile Technology: Case-Based Suggestions

of Education, Office of Educational Research

Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich,
and Improvement, NCES 2007-020. Retrieved
L. (2013).How teachers we using technology at
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearc$/pubsinfo.
home and in their clarsrooms. Pew Internet &
asp?pubii?=2007020
American Life Project. Retrieved from http:ll
Nielson L. (201 1). 7 myths abc~ltBTOD
www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013iTeachersdebunke 3. THE Journal. Retrieved from http://
and-technology.aspx
thejournd.com/Articles/2011~11.~39/7-BYODRideout, V., Foehr, U., &Roberts, D. (2010).
Myths.aspx?Page=2
Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to18Norris, C. P,., & Soloway, E. (21111). Learning and
year-olds. Retrieved from The Kaiser Family
schooling in the age of mobilisrn. Educational
Foundation Web site: http:l/www.kff.orgl
Technolo~y,51(6), 3-12.
entmed1a/upload/801O.prlf
Nosy Crow. (2011). The three ld!tiep!gs
Schrock, K. (2011). Kathy Schrocki guide to
[software]. Available from hctps://itunes.
everything. Retrieved from http:l/u?.yw.
apple.com/us/app/three-little-pig-by-nosy/
schrockguide.net/
id418543664?mt=8
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Creuti~gour future:
technologies for lifelong karning. Computers &
Education, 34(2000), 177-193.
Students speak up about thei- visicm for 2lSt
century lelzrning. Irvine, CA: Author. Retrieved
Shin, N., Norris, C., & Solcway, E. (201 1).
from the Project Tomorrow U'eb site: http://
Mobile gaming environment: Learning
and motivational effects In P. Felicia (Ed.),
~v~w.tornorrow.org/
Handbook of research O K improving learning
Project Tomorrow. (2011). 7he new 3 E's of
and motivation through zducational games:
educatiol-2. Enabled, engaged empavered: How
Multidisciplinary approcches (pp. 467-481).
today's edtdcators are advancmg a yew vision
doi:10.4018/978-1-6096i-495-0.ch022
for teachfiigand learning. Irrine, CA: Author.
Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets cffpotential: Using mobile
Retrieved from the Project Tomorrow Web
site: http~//www.tomorrow.org/~peakup/pdfs/ technologies to promote children's learning. New
York: The Joan Ganz Cmney Center at Sesame
SU 10~3EofEducation~Educato~s.pdf
Workshop.
Smith, A. (2010) Mobile acct-ss 2010. Pew Internet
and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://
www.pewinternet.orglReports/2010/MobileAccess-2010.aspx
Spillane, J. P. (2003). Educational
leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25(4), 343-346.

Spillane, J. P., &Diamond, J. B. (Eds.).

(2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007).Augmented reality
simulationson handheld computers. ?he Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 16(3),371-413.
Traxler, J. (2007). Designing, discussing, and
evaluating mobile learning: ?he moving finger
writes and having writ. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2),
1-12.
Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-1:
Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149-160.
doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.492847
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Yeonjeong, P. (2011). A pedagogical framework
for mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four
types. International Review of Research in Open
Q Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Zichuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., &
Brenner, J. (2012). Younger Americans' reading
and library habits. Pew Internet &American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.
pewinternet.org/2012110/23/younger-americansreading-and-library-habits/

Appendix A:
Current Mobile Device Policy for District

Mobile Devices
The district's goal is to provide st~dentaccess to Internet resources by increasing the number of Internet-ready devices in the classroom.
Students ar2 encouraged to bring personal PC laptops, netbooks, Chrome3ooks, iPads, other tablets, etc., to school for use in the classrooms.
Devices wi I be used for creation 2nd investigation to enhance learning. Al devices are welcome.
District personnel (including faculty and staff) are not liable for the theft, loss, or damage to any student device,
District personnel cannot ssrv ce personal devices under any circumstances.
Updates and upgrades will ro: be performed from the school server.
Although our school server is xotected with filters and firewalls, an aotivirus program is required to prevent any harmful data from damaging
the studen: device.
The district recognizes th2t nct all students can or will bring a personal device to school to access the Internet.
No stucent will be penalized in any way for lack of access to a person~ldevice. If the work assigned requires technology to complete the task,
staff must zrovide access to tech-iology for the student (i.e., access to a pod computer, library computer, etc.).

Volume 30 humber 1 I Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education i 39

Herro, Kiger, 8.Owens

Appendix B:
Flyer Advertising MlT App lnventor Workshop

MIT App lnventor

App Development Workshop for Educators

What: A 2-day, 12-hour, hands-on workshop focused on the process of App creation.
Purpose: To consider the potential of integrating App development in classrooms or after school clubs.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 19:51 06 October 2014

When: Monday, August 5 and Tuesday, August 6; 9:OO-3:30

(bring your own lunch)
Where: East High School, Room 222
About the workshop:
This workshop is geared for 6m-1 2thgrade teachers, support staff, administrators or school personnel interested in learning how to create Apps.
Participants will learn abou: current research in app and game development, preview completed "projects" in MIT App Inventor, learn how to
use the online software, explore teacher resources, tutorials and curricula, and create apps.
The workshop will include links to online (free) resources, a discussion of logistic considerations and technological requirements, and suggestions for integrating App Inventor in curricular units.
To register:
Email Dani Herro - dherro@clernson.edu, Include your name, school, subject area/grade level and phone number. Participation is limited to 15.
Sign up by July 1.

40

1 Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education I Volume 30 Number 1