Mobile Learning: BYOD · Web viewThe Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement has gained popularity over the past several years. In order to implement the program and to determine

Running Head: MOBILE LEARNING: BYOD 1

Mobile Learning: BYOD

A Wiki Literature Review

Taisia Steeb

Denise J. Tolliver

Jill Fleming

Maggie Ward

Debra White

Liberty University

EDUC 639

MOBILE LEARNING: BYOD 2

Abstract

This literature review explores the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement in grades K-12

and the ability of schools to meet the growing demand of integrating technology in the

classroom. By identifying the barriers and readiness of schools to implement the use of personal

mobile devices into existing curriculum, schools face both challenges and innovative means to

integrate a variety of mobile devices to enhance the learning experiences of digital natives of the

21st century. Exploring the results of successful implementations and failed BYOD programs

help prepare education technologists and teachers to brace themselves for a technology

movement, which affects budgetary decisions for digital equipment, bandwidth allocations,

firewalls, computer security, and classroom management. Review of case study findings of the

Oak Hills local school district (Intel Education, 2012) and Herro, Kiger, and Owens (2013) gives

K-12 schools insight to the future and livelihood of the BYOD movement. Examination of the

BYOD movement’s impact on students and pedagogy will support the basis of the conclusions of

this literature review.

Keywords: BYOD, Bring Your Own Device, Mobile Learning, m-learning


Mobile Learning: BYOD

The Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement has gained popularity over the past

several years. In order to implement the program and to determine its effectiveness, this

literature review evaluates the research that exists relating to BYOD in the K-12 setting. This

subject is of particular interest to gain insight of the K-12 BYOD movement, compare the trends,

and evaluate the impact of implementing a BYOD program.

Kemshall (2012) defines BYOD as the “…trend for individuals to use personally owned

technology--such as tablets or smart phones - in the working environment” (p. 12). The BYOD

movement not only affects working environments, but also affects educational institutions as the

ownership of personal devices increase in society. According to the Groupe Speciale Mobile

Association, mobile learning (m-learning) “… is broadly defined as the ability to access

educational resources, tools and materials at anytime from anywhere using a mobile device” (as

cited in Herro, Kiger & Owens, 2013, p. 30). While some schools embrace the growing demand

for teachers and students to use personally owned devices in classrooms, others cautiously

approach the implementation of BYOD.

As the use of technology increases in the classroom, schools oftentimes encounter barriers

to implementation and use of new technology. When educational institutions implement one

element of BYOD, they must also consider how the BYOD implementation affects other

integrated elements within the organization. As technological innovations evolve over time,

many innovations merely supplement teaching styles in the classroom. Moreover, it is important

to consider that, as technology changes over time, whether educational institutions have a

balance to integrate technology into pedagogy or other plans and strategies for the school. Raths


(2012) explores Hannover Public School District and Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy in their

interest to deploy a one-to-one laptop program. This potential venture proved to be too

expensive, which led them to BYOD. For some schools, BYOD programs alleviate budgetary

constraints to fund additional computers and laptops in the classroom.

Although the adoption of BYOD saves schools from purchasing additional workstations or

laptops, this movement also reflects the trends in society for ownership and use of personal

mobile devices. Common Sense Media (2013) compares the changes in media use from 2011 to

2013 of children ages zero to eight. Interestingly, toddlers under the age of two are now tech

savvy and children are growing up in a digital and mobile world. Disparities in mobile device

ownership continue to exist among income levels; however, overall children’s use of mobile

devices doubled in the past two years. These factors potentially affect the BYOD movement’s

momentum and trajectory for the future in our schools.

Implementing BYOD: Is Your School Ready?

Now that your school has recognized the advantages of starting a BYOD initiative, what

must you do to get ready? A look at leadership, network, devices, and training is a good start.

Leadership

It is highly recommended for school leadership to work with their instructional

technologist and IT department to fund the BYOD project, and provide adequate training and

information for all stakeholders. Without funding for networks and training, the purchased

devices will not be very useful. Limited network capacity makes devices too slow for efficient

use, and teachers who have never trained for, or seen BYOD models, will not find good

classroom use for the program. Moreover, they will find BYOD to be a distraction from the


curriculum instead of enhancing learning. School leadership must also be on board for aligning

policy to allow students and teachers to bring in and effectively use personal devices. Old

policies prohibiting cell phones, for instance, are not conducive to BYOD. Leadership in the

schools can facilitate technology in general through policy, allowing accessibility to sites. Karen

Cato, of the Department of Education, stated that most schools over apply CIPA, or the

Children's Internet Protection Act, and recommends that a process for unblocking sites be in

place to avoid overzealous application of it, so that technology use can be optimal (Barseghian,

2011). CIPA really has only two major sections: blocking harmful content such as obscenity,

pornography, or pictures harmful to minors; and establishing internet safety policy that monitors

online activity of minors and teaches them appropriate and safe online behavior (FCC,

2013). To go beyond these basics can hinder the potential that technology use in education

offers us all.

Network

Technology planning needs to include two networks, keeping sensitive metadata in a

dedicated network not available to the public network for the security, and privacy of personal

information (Johnson, 2013; Ullman, 2011). How much broadband is required to run school

technology and a separate student Wi-Fi network? It is necessary to have enough Wi-Fi strength

for its use not to slow down connectivity through the heavy demand that arises from so many

devices tapping it at once. Fox, Waters, Fletcher, and Levin (2012) estimate the current veracity

needed and plans for growth in years to come in The Broadband Imperative table below:

Technology planning needs to include two networks, keeping sensitive metadata in a

dedicated network not available to the public network for the security, and privacy of personal


information (Johnson, 2013; Ullman, 2011). How much broadband is required to run school

technology and a separate student Wi-Fi network? It is necessary to have enough Wi-Fi strength

for its use not to slow down connectivity through the heavy demand that arises from so many

devices tapping it at once. Fox, Waters, Fletcher, and Levin (2012) estimate the current veracity

needed and plans for growth in years to come in The Broadband Imperative table below:

Table 1. The Broadband Imperative: Recommendations to Address K-12 Education

Infrastructure Needs. State Educational Technology Directors Association

Devices

The very nature of BYOD presupposes that students will bring a variety of devices to

school and this need must to be coordinated. Tablets, net-books, laptops, and cell phones are all

possibilities. Microsoft, IOS, and Android must all coordinate here. One ground-leveling web

service is the concept of cloud computing (Johnson, 2012). In the cloud, users can share any

manner of documents and functions just by virtue of having an Internet connection. The

prominence of this emergent technology is one of the greatest reasons for keeping a dedicated

and separate network for sensitive information; it is also a wonderful enabling concept for

BYOD. It is now possible to cross check applications and websites across multiple devices

through new applications like Adobe Edge Inspect, Remote Preview, Grunt + Live-Reload, and


Emmet LiveStyle. Any of these would be great tools in the support center for a school’s BYOD

program.

(Osmani, A. (Nov. 25, 2013) Synchronized Cross-device Mobile Testing retrieved

from: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/tooling/synchronized-cross-device-testing/)

Training

The Instructional Technologist needs to plan for both teacher and student training in

classroom management and use. Schools should hold parent information sessions as needed to

keep parents on board with changes. They will want advice on which devices are most

appropriate for their child, how to access loaned devices if they cannot afford them, and

information for maintaining them and keeping them free of viruses (Boland, Jones, Lyons,

Shultz, & Taylor, n.d.). Schools must integrate regular professional development with

technology across all subjects. Most of all, teachers need to be focused on learning goals, and the

Common Core only increases the emphasis of this focus (Fitzpatrick, 2014.) Student training


should be a goal applied across all curricula so that they can become critical consumers of

information who are able to assess the validity of it (Walling, 2012). Until professional

development and training integrate learning goals into technology, technology appears to be a

threat by demanding undo time and attention away from this purpose. Therefore, any technology

initiative will take off only with proper modeling and proven increases to learning.

As we shift into an ever increasingly technological world, education is changing with it.

The art of learning uses new tools, which we can harness, and find already in the hands of our

students. Working through these four areas of BYOD will make it possible.

Considering all aspects of the implementation process of BYOD, many have been

mentioned thus far. In the following part of this literature review, the authors will examine

proper use of technology and devices for students, staff, and others involved in the movement

towards BYOD. There are many aspects to consider with respect to proper use, and the authors

of this paper examine how teachers use student information, how teachers use technology

ethically, how students use technology ethically, how teachers can use technology to combat

cheating, and digital citizenship.

Proper Use

Teachers have a responsibility to use student information in an appropriate way. Students

are using their own devices to complete work, need a safe way to save their work, and are

sometimes asked to display their work. There are several ways to safely save student work

without having to concern parent permissions. Students can save their work on a school server,

which is private, so only those within the school and logged in to the school network have access

to it (Walsh, 2013). Not all parents want their child’s work displayed, so this is where proper


permission and appropriate paperwork are a must. Schools must request permission from parents

to display any student work in an outside setting, including blogs and other websites that any

Internet user can access (Walsh, 2013). It is unclear as to whether or not permission is required

for student work to be displayed on a secure website with limited access through a user name and

password, but advice to administrators and teachers is to err on the side of caution and get parent

permission (Walsh, 2013).

Schools can take steps to ensure that student information is protected. Often, schools

gather and organize information about students, from social security numbers to birth dates to

addresses, and it is important to keep that information very secure (Brown, 2013). When getting

new equipment, some technology departments, such as that at Liberty University, go to such

extremes as breaking the hard drives with a mallet to ensure that data cannot be removed from

the devices once they are no longer in use (Brown, 2013). Additionally, teachers need to be

trained on how to appropriately access student work and information. Brown (2013) reports that

63% of breaches or lack in security are a result of human error, and only 8% on technological

failure. Brown (2013) gives the following advice to those using technology: be careful of where

you leave your laptop, be careful of where you use your computer, and be careful of using thumb

drives.

Another issue within teachers accessing student information is appropriate ways in which

companies and schools justify their access of student files. This is similar to issues with

companies and outside sources managing data in apps that are used within the companies. It is

important to consider who manages and has access to the data in apps (Overton, 2013). When


schools require students to use apps, students are sometimes using their own personal

information. This makes schools liable for this information.

Similarly, when the teacher has access to student work, he or she must know how to use it

appropriately. Comparing the teacher to a company and the students to the employees, it makes

sense that the company can see what the employees are doing. But who else should have access?

This is an important question to consider, especially when adopting a BYOD program. It should

be evaluated by a technology team within a school system and shared with parents, bringing the

point of appropriate permissions granted by parents back to light again.

In any school system, teachers who have access to technology need to be trained how to

use it. Teachers are widely respected as those who are very ethical. There is a significant

challenge in training teachers to identify what they can and cannot use (Walsh, 2013). If a

teacher finds something on Google Images, they need to understand whether or not they can use

it. The citation is also very important. Teachers often struggle with identifying what can be used

from the Internet and how they need to cite it. Ward (2013) noted that in her school system, the

teachers use Discovery Education to teach science. However, the school system and Discovery

Education have a strict contract where Ward cannot use videos from Discovery Education on her

blog or make the content available to students through an outside resource. Knowing the

limitations of the technology resources within the school system is essential for teachers.

Ethical use of technology does not only apply to teachers, but to students as well. Students

have access to limitless items on the Internet, so teachers are responsible for teaching students

how to use it appropriately (Walsh, 2013). When students bring their own devices, they may

have programs and apps that do not directly relate to school. It is important that we teach


students in schools about plagiarism with respect to technology and the Internet, and how to

avoid it, in order to help them become effective and contributing members of society (Brown,

2013).

Teachers can promote students’ Digital Citizenship. In Ribble’s 2011 Digital Citizenship

in Schools, the authors focused on nine areas on digital citizenship. There are three categories:

Respect, Educate, and Protect that encompass the nine areas. The nine areas are identified as:

Digital etiquette, digital access, digital law; digital communication, digital literacy, digital

commerce; digital rights and responsibility, digital security, digital health and welfare. All school

leaders and teachers need to teach students to be good digital citizens, in preparation of them

becoming technologically responsible adults, as the Internet and technology are seen as

indispensable resources (Ribble & Miller, 2013). Some argue that students are more able to cheat

with the advent of technology (Cornwell, 2013), however when students were given pencils and

no teacher said not to because pencils would permit them to plagiarize. With technology in

schools, as with any form of communication, it remains the responsibility of teachers to teach

students ethical use and the components of digital citizenship. Brown (2013) suggests using

discretion before clicking on anything. In an opinion article about whether or not to use BYOD,

Jen LaMaster notes that students are likely to test the limits of acceptable use because they are

teenagers, but would rather them do so in the school rather than out on the, “wild, un-filtered

web,” (LaMaster & Stager, 2012).

Teachers can educate students on how to identify plagiarism and what it is, but teachers

can also use technology to combat cheating. Brown (2013) states that there are ethics with

respect to copyright and plagiarism, and notes that there are technologies available to identify


plagiarism. Brown (2013) gives specific examples: Microsoft Word—it has the user’s name in

the program along with additional information in the properties setting that the user may be

unaware of, such as the time the document was created and when it was last edited; TurnItIn and

Safe Assign are used by universities and high schools to identify plagiarism. Brown (2013)

presented the case that students are often unaware of these technologies and are shocked when

they are caught cheating. He also shared that students feel the punishment for their cheating does

not often fit the crime, and that schools develop policies for what to do when students cheat.

It is essential to proper device use, that educational professionals teach students how to use

technology properly and how to practice Digital Citizenship. Teachers and other school staff

need to be taught how to use technology ethically with respect to student information and work.

All in all, proper use will promote an effective BYOD program within a school system.

Accessibility

In a school that plans on implementing BYOD, the leaders of the project must consider

accessibility for students. If students are expected to bring their own devices, it is essential that

they have the means to do so. In this section, the authors examine how students obtain devices

within families, government programs, private programs, and school programs for ensuring that

students have devices.

Some students are fortunate to have personal devices for use in school. A study,

conducted by Cisco, of 1,000 full-time working Americans analyzed that approximately 53

million Americans have smart phones (KMWorld Staff, 2013). If the devices belong to working

Americans, it is unlikely that these would be available for student use in school.


Technology is not available to all people, so Collins & Halverson (2009) suggest putting

computers and Internet in schools and making it available for students outside of school to give

students similar school-related experiences. Even when students can take devices home, they

might not have access to the Internet at home (“Free Government Cell Phones,” 2013). It would

be difficult to complete school-related assignments without access to the Internet outside of

school. The United States Government has created programs to provide low-income families

with free cell phones, and is working towards providing free Internet services for these same

families.

Cell phones are great, but do not provide low-income families with what they need in

today’s world ("Lifeline Internet," 2013). The families need high-speed broadband Internet

service, which will allow them to search for jobs and to help their children succeed in school.

There are currently no government programs for free Internet, though they are getting close.

Kansas is the only state to provide free Internet, and the companies who provide families with

free cell phones, along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have been looking

at this program as a guide (“Free Government Cell Phones,” 2013).

Lifeline currently has an Internet program for low-income families with their own

devices, where they can get Internet for $9.95 per month ("Lifeline Internet," 2013). The FCC

supports Lifeline becoming a smart phone Internet provider as well as a cell phone provider.

Within the next year, Lifeline is going to permit those who qualify for a free government cell

phone to get a government smart phone (“Lifeline Internet,” 2013). The FCC is still testing this

program and there is no guess as to the cost for the smart phone (it may exist whereas the cell

phone is absolutely free with 250 minutes and 250 texts—those who qualify can increase these


amounts for $5-$10/month, etc.). The plan is to have savings from Lifeline reforms be used to

cover the costs of Internet so it is free for families in need (“Lifeline Internet,” 2013). The

concern would be that the devices are provided at a rate of one per family, so not all children

within the family would be able to use the smart phone for school use in a BYOD program.

In addition to this government initiative, there is also one researched private initiative that

can provide students with devices for BYOD. Onslow County Schools (North Carolina), used

wireless industry funding to learn about the use of smart phones to promote success in math.

Allen (2011) found that smart phones were provided for students in Algebra I &II, and geometry

at Dixon High School and Southwest High School in order to use a specific program (Project K-

Net) that links math with mobile learning devices. School systems could look into Onslow

County Schools to learn how to find private (as opposed to government) funding to provide

students with devices for BYOD.

No matter the means, when a school system intends on implementing a BYOD program,

it must consider accessibility for students. As projected by the Horizon Report (2013), Mobile

Learning is likely to be implemented in many k-12 schools within the next year. In order for

schools to prepare students for a successful future, they must consider how they are going to

implement mobile learning and provide for a BYOD program within the school system.

Successes and Struggles of BYOD

Research of bring your own device (BYOD) suggests that districts are successful when

there is involvement of stakeholders, well designed school policy, professional development and

a plan for financial sustainability (Schrum, 2010).


Project Red is a research organization that has studied schools and their best practices for

inclusion of technology and this organization provides a sample timeline to begin a program

which in turn can keep BYOD programs from failing.

This extensive sample timeline has elements that exist in most research studies and shown

proven success of BYOD programs. Some of the elements are to create the leadership team,

investigate best practices, have a shared vision and mission for the program that aligns with the

district goals and mission, examine the current state of the district, have project plans for each

aspect of the program, have device(s) that will best assist students in achieving the district's

learning goals, write request for proposals (RFPs) for hardware, software and infrastructure,

select service plans and insurance, upgrade your infrastructure, have student-centered, provide

teacher and parent training and roll out devices to students (Project Red, 2013).

Having a collaboration of stakeholders such as parents, teaching staff, administrators,

community leaders and students as part of the BYOD process serves to solidify this type of

education instruction in the learning environment.

Research has shown that BYOD programs are successful when there is formal training

that assists teacher in integrating devices into the curriculum. In a pilot program in a Midwestern

school that introduced iPods to grades PK-4, it was found that teacher professional development

and preparation was key to managing devices, evaluating apps, and considering appropriate

pedagogical approaches toward content integration (Schrum, 2010). As part of a BYOD

implementation plan it is a must that schools plan for financial sustainability of infrastructure to

support the student’s that are bringing their own devices.


New technological innovations have proven unusable to a wide variety of teachers,

whether because schools lack the capacity to implement them well, policies are not congruent

with technology use, or the culture of the school is not supportive of technology (Schrum, 2010).

Inequality of equipment is a failure of BYOD programs, not all students have devices or

the same type of device. The students that utilize school equipment may have to share a device

with others and therefore not have the full benefit of the device. In one study 1:1 computing or

one student one device allowed the student to use the device for a wider array of purposes than

do students with less ubiquitous access to computers (Schrum, 2010).

Levine (2013) brings up issues such as theft, disruptions to learning, control/classroom

management and privacy being breakdowns in a BYOD program. Theft of a device is an issue

because it can take time to get another device, once a device is received all the data has to be

placed on to it and all of it may not be readily available. Then this leads to a disruption of

learning because the device replaced may not have all the apps, documents, photos and other

media utilized for learning. Control/classroom management is an issue in BYOD programs

because Levine (2013) states that students are legally permitted to install any software they want

on their personal device. With this in mind how does a school with a BYOD program incorporate

classroom management software for a student’s personal device and still be within legal

guidelines. Lastly in terms of privacy Levine (2013) poses two questions; "If a school were to do

a normal security scan of a child’s laptop and find inappropriate material on the device, can they

take action? If they do, do they open the door to a privacy violation suit, or does their inaction

invite another suit for quietly condoning the inappropriate behavior?"


For a school to rebuild a failed BYOD program the person(s) in charge will have to instill

confidence of stakeholders that processes that did not work are a minor set back and they are

willing to work harder to make a stronger program. Taking ownership and not blaming one

person or possibly the technology can provide an atmosphere of cohesion and that the

ineffectiveness of part of the program was not a wasted effort.

When it becomes known what parts of the BYOD program did not work, the restructuring

process can begin. The stakeholders can take a look at what worked in the program through

anonymous surveys of participants and have their program evaluated by a group that has had

success with BYOD.

Teacher reactions to BYOD implementation are diverse. Some welcome the addition to

the education environment while others do not want to have anything to do with seeing a device.

Teacher’s reactions are based on issues of lack of adequate training in using devices with

education instruction and lack of support from administrators for continuous professional

development. Yet other teachers feel as though the professional training received coupled with

the knowledge of how to access help when needed, has boosted their confidence in teaching

students within the BYOD program.

The student participants in research performed by Gikas and Grant (2013) described many

advantages in which the mobile devices assisted in their learning. These advantages are in

accessing information quickly, communication and content collaboration, variety of ways to

learn, and situated learning.

Although technology has greatly changed the world around us, there is not been enough of

an impact as it relates to PK-12 education and in some instances higher education as well. It is


the opinion of these authors that research alone can not be the fix for BYOD implementation; we

must all pool our resources to create a collection of best practices to integrate technology and

education.

Positive and Negatives of BYOD

A limited number of districts have implemented the BYOD movement in the classroom

with advanced preparation and community involvement. Without proper preparation the

movement is likely to fail and not be truly effective for the students in the classroom. As an

effort to close the digital divide, districts are writing grants for one to one programs which, allow

students to have their own device to effectively implement technology. In Downes & Bishop

(2012), students were more engaged in lessons with technology integration from a one to one

laptop program. Students were able to access the material from home and school by using

Google docs and websites. Students felt more organized and were more efficient in completing

their assignments. Teachers, parents, and students felt that a technology enriched curriculum had

a positive impact on learning rather than a traditional approach to learning. Some schools

struggle with receiving appropriate funding for their school's technology program even after

grant writing and lack of funding through parent-teacher organization (PTO) funding.

Relying on funding from grants and other monetary organizations doesn't have to be a

barrier. BYOD has offered this cost-effective trend to help schools find an alternative way for

their community to integrate technology. Oak Hills Local School District has implemented

BYOD by using advanced preparation in order for the movement to truly be effective for their

students and the curriculum. The district considered using a one to one program by buying

laptops for their schools, but the administrators had to reconsider because of a 10% reduction of


their budget. After implementing BYOD, the school district saved $1.27 million dollars (Intel

Education, 2012) using students’ devices and already available resources in their classrooms for

students that did not have their own devices.

The preparation for college and the real world involves technology and already is part of

the twenty-first century learners. Twenty-first century skills are important for our education

because these skills promote critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity; which is required

for our work force. Without twenty-first century skills, people are relegated to low-wage and

low-skill jobs (Kay, 2010). Ninety percent of college students save time with studying and

researching using a variety of devices such as mobiles, tablets, ereaders, and digital textbooks,

ninety-eight percent of college students use a device for school and fifty-three percent use

etextbooks. (Violino, 2012). The future relies on the use of many devices to complete tasks.

Walling (2012) describes how there needs to be more of a variety of devices and that there are

not enough in schools. Making sure students are connected in the classroom using a variety of

devices that are able to perform tasks in the classroom can be a challenge. If students do not have

a device or not allowed to bring in a device that is compatible with the school's requirements, it

can have a negative effect on the classroom curriculum. The intention of closing the digital

divide can be damaged if students without a device are nor provided with a device from the

school.

Students become connected and engaged during collaborative projects in a student

directed setting with BYOD. If BYOD is successful, it changes schools for the better. If schools

do not implement the BYOD movement effectively it can have a negative perspective on BYOD

in the schools and cause more headaches than learning. Solidifying a strong infrastructure with a


large bandwidth is imperative in this movement. Students and teachers will quickly become

frustrated and connection will easily be lost. The preparation for the BYOD movement in a

district should consider increasing their network and infrastructure so all students are able to

connect at the same time and from anywhere in the building (Intel Education, 2012).

Safety is a concern with the use of BYOD's in the classroom and should be consistently

implemented. Walling (2012) describes the safety of the Internet and how there is dangerous

content on the Internet and to make sure students are using the Internet appropriately. Making

sure teachers and administrators are constantly monitoring websites and applications is

imperative. Firewalls are another concern for the BYOD movement because it is important for

students and the district to update any virus checks and software updates, which promotes a

question of who will provide these services?

Effective Preparation for Implementing BYOD

BYOD is becoming a trend that can be an answer to our schools with low budgets and

implementing technology in the schools. Intel Education (2012) has effectively implemented this

program by following these steps:

1. Engage the community

- involve parents, students, staff, business leaders, and board members

2. Develop a team

3. Develop the physical infrastructure

- increase the network and bandwidth

4. Develop the software infrastructure

-a cloud based website so students can access the curriculum from anywhere and store their work


5. Develop a portal

-a cloud based website that have useful applications that are easily accessible from anywhere

6. Develop an acceptable use policy (AUP)

-develop procedures and expectations of BYOD usage. Outlines appropriate and inappropriate

behavior for using devices in and out of the classroom. This is strictly enforced with

consequences if misused.

7. Build a curriculum

-objectives, coursework, digital citizenship

8. Consider devices

-outline the device recommendations for students that is user friendly and professionally

development friendly for teachers. Support of software that will be needed for the coursework.

(Java, Flash, Adobe).

9. Provide ongoing professional development

Further Research

Based on the literature that has been reviewed, BYOD can be low cost and engaging for

students, which that allows student directed learning using student chosen devices. Therefore,

safety is still a concern and should be considered for further research. How can we protect

students from Cyber Bullying? How can we ensure the safety from potentially at risk websites

and applications?

Another consideration for further research is the use of software updates. Who is

potentially responsible for updating virus protection software and Microsoft Word updates? Will

the district provide these costly updates for the students’ personal devices?



References

Allen, R. (2011). Can mobile devices transform education? Education Update, 53(2). Retrieved

from

http://educ639byodmovement.wikispaces.com/file/view/Can+Mobile+Devices+Transform

+Education.pdf/467801202/Can%20Mobile%20Devices%20Transform%20Education.pdf

Barseghian, T. (2011, April 26). Straight from the DOE: Dispelling myths about blocked sites.

[Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/04/straight-

from-the-doe-facts-about-blocking-sites-in-schools

Boland, M., Jones, O., Lyons, C., Shultz, S. A., & Taylor, C. (n.d.). BYOD: An educational

opportunity. Unpublished manuscript, EDUC 639, Liberty University. Retrieved from

http://www.codytaylor.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/EDUC639_LitReview_BYOD_T

aylor_Cody.pdf

Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, D. (2013). Presentation: Ask the Expert Presentation – Dr. David Brown. [Video file].

Video posted to Liberty University Blackboard http://liberty.edu

Castelli, C. (2012). The BYOD challenge. Telecom Asia, 23(9), 28. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA312403405&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=022236c50e6d53e

205050251720050b8

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital

revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Common Sense Media (2013). Zero to eight: Children's media use in America 2013. Retrieved

from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/zero-to-eight-2013-infographic

Cornwell, T. (2013). A Cloudy Outlook for BYOD? National Mortgage News, 37(33), 8.

Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA329573459&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=591d3fd61c5ec8d

4ecc82657420eaa6a

Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their

experiences with technology. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282258744?accountid=12085

Federal Communications Commission, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. (2013,

February). FCC consumer guide children’s internet protection act (CIPA). Retrieved

November 30, 2013 from the FCC website:

http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.pdf

Fitzpatrick, J. (2014). Technology in the common core. MACUL Journal 34(2), 12-13.

Fox, C., Waters, J., Fletcher, G., & Levin, D. (2012 May 21). The broadband imperative:

Recommendations to address K-12 education infrastructure needs. Retrieved from

http://www.setda.org/web/guest/broadbandbriefing

Free government cell phones. (2013, September 4). Free government cell phones expanding into

Internet smartphones. Retrieved from http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/free-

government-cell-phones-expanding-into-internet-smartphones


Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student

perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and

Higher Education, 19, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Harris, P., & Walling, D. R. (2013). The learning designer: Merging art and science with

educational technology. TechTrends, 57(5), 35-41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-

013-0689-2

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), 30-40. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA345775236&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=ac5da342fd9c7c

9120467d5e5d14d695

Intel Education (2012). BYOD (bring your own device) readiness checklist for school districts.

Retrieved from http://k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/BYOD-Readiness-Checklist-

School-Districts.pdf

Intel Education (2012). BYOD case study: Oak Hills local school district. Retrieved from

http://k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Case-Study-OHLSD_0.pdf

Intel Education (2012). BYOD planning and implementation framework. Retrieved from

http://k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/BYOD-Planning-Implementation-

Framework.pdf

Intel Education (2012). Challenges of BYOD. Retrieved from

http://k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/BYOD-Challenges.pdf


Intel Education (2012). Getting started with BYOD. Retrieved from

http://k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Getting-Started-with-BYOD_0.pdf

Johnson, D. (2013). Top ten school library game changers of the past twenty-five years. Teacher

Librarian, 40(4), 28-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1346366257?

accountid=12085

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013).

NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, P. (2013). K-12 blueprint: A planning resource for personalizing learning. Retrieved

from http://www.k12blueprint.com/

Kemshall, A. (2012). Are you ready for BYOD 2.0? Database and Network Journal, 42(6), 12-

13. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA312510116&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=6bfff04a44d4e39

844c1f818fda7eadd

KM World Staff. (2013). The truth about BYOD. KM World, 22, 1-1, 21. Retrieved from


Lalande, M. (2012, June 4). BYOD in the 21st century. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSXyfX8ABhA

Levine, E. (2013). Demystifying the BYOD model in K-12 education [Web log message].

Retrieved from

http://www.guide2digitallearning.com/blog_elliott_levine/demystifying_byod_model_k12

_education


Lifeline Internet. (2013). Lifeline internet: A welcome addition to the lifeline phone program.

Retrieved from http://www.cheapinternet.com/low-income-internet/lifeline-%20internet

Osmani, A. (2013.) Synchronized cross-device mobile testing [GIF image] retrieved from:

http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/tooling/synchronized-cross-device-testing

Overton, L. (2013). Breaking the BYOD chains. E.Learning Age, 12-13. Retrieved from


Raths, D. (2012). Are you ready for BYOD: Advice from the trenches on how to prepare your

wireless network for the bring-your-own-device movement. T H E Journal [Technological

Horizons in Education], 39(4), 28-32. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?

id=GALE

%7CA292008620&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=7a4f30dab49273

e1c899a6fedcfd7422

Ribble, M., & Miller, T. (2013). Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students

to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 17(1), 135-144. Retrieved from the Education Research Complete database.

Schrum, L. (2010). Considerations on technology and teachers: The best of JRTE. Eugene, OR:

ISTE.

Thomas, K., & OBannon, B. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers’

perceptions. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30 (1), 11-20. Retrieved

from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA345775231&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w#contentcontainer


Ullman, E. (2011). BYOD and security. Tech & Learning, 31(8), 32-34,36. Retrieved from


Walling, D. (2012). The tech-savvy triangle. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to

Improve Learning, 56(4), 42-46. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0586-0

Ward, M. (2013, November 19). Mrs. Ward’s blog. [Web log comment 3]. Retrieved from

http://tsteebeducation.blogspot.com/2013/11/educ-639-muddiest-point-

blog.html#comment-form

Documents

Mobile Learning: BYOD · Web viewThe Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement has gained popularity over the past several years. In order to implement the program and to determine