BYOD - Bring Your Own Devices

             “Technology is a powerful tool, which can motivate and encourage students to approach learning in new and often clearer ways” (Meltzer, 2012). In addition, "Technology in the classroom can enhance what and how a student learns and helps teachers cater to the unique needs, skills, interests, and learning styles of their students," (Nagel, 2012).  That being said, placing these powerful learning tools in the hands of each and every student, is a task that is often easier said then done. The painful truth faced by many school districts across the United States is that growing budget cuts in education have limited and made purchasing an adequate amount of tablet computers, iPod Touches, laptops, Kindles, and an assortment of other technical devices and software is simply unfeasible. One trend that is gaining momentum and is helping to fill the technology equipment gap in schools is Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), which allows students the opportunity to bring in and use their own technology in the classroom.

           

How it Works

       

            School districts who implement the BYOD system in their schools does not shift the sole responsibility of purchasing technology equipment the students use into the hands of their parents and families. It simply means that under the BYOD system, “students would also have the option to use their own smartphones and tablet computers to complete class projects or access learning resources while at school” (Doll, 2014, May).  Therefore, “the right BYOD solution enables schools to protect their technology investment by building on what they already have while retaining the flexibility to adapt to new services, solutions, and devices as they emerge on a case by case basis” (Cisco, 2012).

            The success of any BYOD program begins with a strong infrastructure that has been designed to support the bandwidth used by a multitude of different devices in schools as well as “adequate network filtering services that provide privacy safeguards for students that will limit the amount of personal information shared in compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA” (K-12 Blueprint, 2014). To assure that things run smoothly at the core of most BYOD school programs, are specific policies that not only clearly define what types of devices are acceptable and the times they may be used and how, but also policies defining the expectations of respectful use of electronics in the classroom and the due process procedures that a school will follow if these policies are violated. To assure that policies are followed all parties involved in the BYOD program will be required to sign an acceptable use agreement, which will act as a contract that protects both students, teachers, and schools throughout their participation in the program. Users who violate or fail to follow the policies set forth by a school are subsequently banned from the BYOD program either temporarily or permanently based on the level of offence that occurred.

            A schools BYOD program is only as strong as the teachers implementing it in the classroom. To assure that a schools infrastructure remains secure, and that policies are upheld in the classroom, teachers need to be provided with active and continuous professional development opportunities, so that they can gain a full understanding of the impact the introduction of these devices will cause in their classrooms. Also prior to the first personal device entering the classroom, clear communication needs to be established between a school and the parents and students, so that they fully understand not only the acceptable use agreement they are signing, but to fully understand the professional learning expectations they must uphold when it comes to using their personal technology in a school setting.

Who is BYOD appropriate for?

            At present most BYOD programs are geared for older students and “are typically introduced between eighth and tenth grade” (Doll, 2014, May). This however does not mean students of younger ages could not handle the responsibility of bringing their own devices to school.  A successful BYOD program is possible at any age as long as a strong infrastructure has been put in place, and all parties involved understand and support the student’s responsible use of technology in the classroom.

What Types of Devices

            "In today's world, most students, like their adult counterparts, are attached to mobile devices of some kind whether in or out of school” (Nagel, 2012). Today’s students keep their mobile devices on them at all times,  and are not just using them to communicate with friends and download music, they also use their technology to study, work on homework assignments, and conduct internet research. Therefore, in most BYOD programs, portability is key and capitalizes on the popularity of mobile/hand held devices by designing policies and programs that actively incorporate the use of smart phones, tablets, e-readers, and laptops into the curriculum.

Pros & Cons of BYOD

            Like all new educational initiatives they come with both advantages and concerns.  The chart below lists many of the core pros and cons of the BYOD system.

Pros

Cons

Student Participation increases.  “When new technologies are incorporated into everyday learning students become more interested in the material, and thus are more likely to succeed” (Doll, 2014).       Learning becomes student driven. “With the technology they are using for BYOD, students have more authority over their own learning. They can pose questions and do research instead of just listening to lectures that directly transfer knowledge” (Saponaro, 2014)       Student collaboration and communication increases. “Collaboration is key to engagement in today’s classrooms”. Therefore “a BYOD initiative can provide students with far greater opportunities to interact virtually with teachers and with other students on assignments, projects and content creation” (Saponaro, 2014).      Cost Savings. “When students are allowed to bring their own devices to school, the district is not required to purchase as many tablets or laptops. These savings can then be directed towards other technological advancements, such as the acquisition of interactive whiteboards” (Doll, 2014).        Personalized Instruction.  Technology allows students to “learn and excel at their own pace” (Saponaro, 2014). “ For students with disabilities BYOD is a plus because they can bring their assistive technologies to the classroom” (Mitchell, 2015).         A new way of learning. “Schools looking to remain ahead of the curve in terms of innovation find that the BYOD program fosters a positive image in the community and can work wonders in attracting students outside of district lines” (Doll, 2014).         Increases the learning of 21st century skills. “ Through the use of technology, all student have the opportunity to apply problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, collaboration skills, and self assessment, leading to improved self confidence and a lifelong love for learning” (LaMaster & Stager, 2012).         Increase strength of school technology acceptable use policies When policy and practice are aligned, the amazing possibilities presented by using BYOD surely outweigh the challenges” (Nagel, 2012).

Causes Distractions. “The presence of electronic devices in the classroom will promote distraction on the part of students. Although certain sites and applications may be blocked, tech-savvy students are likely to find ways around these restrictions” (Doll, 2014).         Will increase the socioeconomic divide. “Educators worry that implementing bring your own device will increase the already significant divide between students from high- and lower-income families as it is easy to distinguish between students who have their own devices and students who need to borrow equipment from the school” (Doll, 2014).         Security. “BYOD brings with it a host of security concerns, including data protection and compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)” (K-12 Blueprint, 2014).       Theft of Equipment. “The introduction of high quality technology devices in schools poses a potential risk that these devices could get damaged or stolen during school hours” (Mitchell, 2015). Therefore, schools will need to have insurance policies in place to protect themselves from having to replace or reimburse any lost or damaged equipment.       Create increased opportunities for cyber bullying and other problems associated with social media may come with them. “Many students don’t understand how much they should share online, and they could end up posting information that could jeopardize their academic, or even professional, futures” (Chadband, 2012).       Shift in Teaching pedagogy. “A BYOD program requires a significant amount of curriculum analysis and redesign in order to take full advantage of mobile device features” (K-12 Blueprint, 2014).  Therefore, schools taking on BYOD programs need to provide additional professional development to both parents, students, and staff on the logistics of how to use personal devices appropriately in an educational setting, but also course work in digital citizenship.        Equipment misuse and abuse. Many parents argue that BYOD will allow “unfettered digital connectivity in schools which could lead to “the consumption and creation of inappropriate content” (Panagos, 2013).

Personal Opinion

            Looking at the topic of BYOD from the perspective of a Technology Integration Specialist, I am a huge supporter of Bring Your Own Device programs in schools, as the introduction of new devices will not only create endless academic possibilities for both teachers and students, it will more importantly serve to justify technologies role in 21st century education by transforming “schools into exciting and motivating arenas for student learning” (Meltzer, 2012).  In addition, in examining the pros and cons of BYOD programs in detail I believe the advantages that a BYOD program can offer to students far outweighs many of the concerns. That being said I do not believe that the current BYOD program model used in most schools is the best fit for every type of school community.  For the last fourteen years, I have had the privilege to work in an inner city school district. The district is far from perfect, and like most schools in a similar urban setting, the socioeconomic struggles faced by our schools and our student’s families, outweighs the privileges and resources available.  The digital divide present in our district is not just a small factor that can be easily overcome by the introduction of a few cell phones it is an insurmountable hurdle as approximately seventy percent of our students are from low socioeconomic families, live in shelters or are homeless, and have the bear minimum to get by. That being said, the impact of a BYOD program, under the current model would be minimal on student achievement in my school district, as most students do not have the financial means to rent, let alone purchase an up to date mobile technology device they could use in school. In my school community a BYOD program would just highlight the inequalities that currently exist for our students. I am a believer that all students deserve to be taught equally. “The only way to guarantee equitable educational experiences is for each student to have access to the same materials and learning opportunities” (LaMaster & Stager, 2012).

            Therefore, for a BYOD program to be successful in a low-income school community, a secondary program model would need to be developed that reaches out into a schools community to be successful. They say it takes a village to raise a child, so in the case of a school district who students are struggling financially corporate donations or equipment, and state wide programs may be key to getting students mobile devices/ and laptop computers, that they can use in school and out as well as internet access at home. I have been fortunate to see a model of this in action when I visited the Henderson School in Boston, whose classrooms are outfitted with a potpourri of technologies, from smart phones, to tablets, and a variety of technical that allow for interactive learning to occur equally for all students.

            As I said before like most educational initiatives there are come with both advantages and concerns that need to be considered when adopting any new programs. Current BYOD programs used in schools nationwide are not immune to this as they offer both benefits and limitations to student learning.  Am I a supporter of Bring Your Own Device Programs in schools, yes, however I feel for them to provide equal opportunities for all students to learn, several models need to be developed to support the variety of school environments and students who will be participating in them. After all the end goal is to increase student achievement for all, not simply create opportunities for some.

References

Cisco Systems, Inc. (2012). BYOD in education. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from: http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/46096_byod_ed_aag.pdf

Chadband, E. (2012, July). Should schools embrace “bring your own device”?.NEA Today.  Retrieved January 7, 2015 from: http://neatoday.org/2012/07/19/should-schools-embrace-bring-your-own-device/

Doll, J. (2014, May). The pros and cons of BYOD in the classroom. NOVA Solutions, Inc. Retrieved January 7, 2015 from: http://www.novadesk.com/blog/bid/75344/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-BYOD-in-the-Classroom

K-12 Blueprint. (2014). BYOD and COPPA. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from: http://k12blueprint.com

LaMaster, L. & Stager, G. (2012, February). Is BYOD the answer to our problems or the worst idea ever? Leading and Learning with Technology. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from: http://technologycourses.wiki.mtnbrook.k12.al.us/file/view/BYODSolutionoProblem.pdf

Meltzer, S. T. (2012). Step-by-step professional development in technology.  Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Mitchell, J. (2015). Is BYOD a good thing for students?. Kevgroup. Retrieved January 7, 2015 from: http://kevgroup.com/byod/

Nagel, D. (2012, April). ‘Banning is not the answer’ to mobile and social tools in schools. The Journal. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from: http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/04/11/banning-is-not-the-answer-to-mobile-and-social-tools-in-schools.aspx

Panagos, T. (2013). The future of education: BYOD in the classroom. Wired. Retrieved January 7, 2015 from: http://www.wired.com/2013/09/the-future-of-education-byod-in-the-classroom/

Saponaro, T. (2014). 6 benefits of BYOD in the classroom. eLearning Industry. Retrieved January 7, 2015 from: http://elearningindustry.com/6-benefits-byod-classroom

Classroom Technology Configuration and Design

            “Interactivity, learning, and collaboration are keys to successful student engagement in classrooms today. Research shows that supporting active learning pedagogy with technology can positively affect student performance” (Sansivero, 2014). Unfortunately some of the biggest obstacles to the use of technology in the classroom is not with how the technology is being used to support learning activities, it is in the way that technology is configured and arranged within a given learning space. The basic idea and look of a classroom hasn’t changed in decades or possibly hundreds of years depending on where you look, however our knowledge about effective technology-enabled spaces and implementation of technology-enabled teaching and learning is accelerating rapidly. Although some classrooms remain apparently untouched by technology, many classroom configurations have begun to change to incorporate easy access to computer(s) and to facilitate the discussions, problem solving and decision-making that inevitably follows their use. Therefore, having the correct devices and connections in the appropriate classroom locations is vital to a useful and effective active learning environment.

            “ The arrival of even one computer in the classroom can have a profound effect on the way students learn and the way the classroom operates” (Eadie, 2001, February).  Similar to how Blooms Taxonomy now serves as “the backbone of many teaching philosophies, in particular those that lean more towards higher order thinking skills rather than content,” technology serves as a foundation for changing the design and function of a classroom (Airasian, 2000). Teachers integrating computer use into their curriculum, soon alter their classrooms to reflect the changes in student learning behaviour that inevitably emerges as a result of its use. Creating space in the classroom for computers and peripherals such as a printer, network connection and large monitor initiates the transformative process and with each new device added leads the teachers working in this environment to re-evaluate how classroom activities are being instructed and inevitably will alter learning experiences to those that work best to meet set learning objectives.

            Creating an ideal learning space that utilizes technology therefore in not an easy task, as teachers, schools, and Technology Integration Specialists must look closely at the needs of who will be using the technology, and weigh it against the logistics of available space, as well as budgetary costs. One means of accomplishing this is through the use of a budget matrix, which lists preexisting technology scenarios a school may have, their current cost and identifies any potential issues that could arise when weighed against a variety of learning activities.  One common technology configuration existing in schools today is classrooms that contain only one computer. The pros of this configuration is that the cost per classroom is minimal, however a big con in this design is that it limits the type of activities that it can be accomplished on the device, as the number of students who have access to its use is restricted to one or two at a time. However, like most technology tools, the time constraints and limitations set by the one computer can be overcome with cleaver planning that utilizes center based activities or the addition of a projector that would allow an entire classroom of students to access learning activities. On the other end of the technology configuration spectrum are computer labs with thirty or more computers. The positive aspect of these shared spaces is that it provides students a 1:1 access to technology, which allows for research based projects to be completed in a timely fashion. However, just like a classroom with only one computer potential issues arise when it comes to availability of use as several classrooms in a school environment often access this one-shared space.

            Yes, it is true that Technology of any kind can be taxing to a limited school budget. What is important to understand is that with the wide assortment of devices and tools available on the market today there is high quality technology available to meet any budget big or small.  Gone are the days when schools had to chose solely between Apple or PC computers. In truth some of today’s most enriching classrooms are configured with a menagerie of technology devices and tools obtained through grants, fundraising, and corporate donation. So what is the ideal solution to the classroom technology configuration puzzle? The answer is there isn’t one. What is most important to understand is the “best practice in classroom design recognizes the notion that teachers will expand or change how they use technology over time” and therefore technology purchases, much like technology based learning activities should be selected and designed with flexibility in mind (Leiboff, 2010).  In addition, since no to educators, teach alike, continuous input from a staff is critical to the effective use of technology and the success and design of any classroom space.

References

Airasian, Peter W.; Cruikshank, Kathleen A.; Mayer, Richard E.; Pintrich, Paul R.; Raths, James; Wittrock, Merlin C. (2000). Anderson, Lorin W.; Krathwohl, David R., eds. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7. Retrieved January 2, 2015 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom's_taxonomy

Eadie, G. (2001, February). The impact of ICT on schools: classroom design and curriculum delivery, a study of schools in Australia, USA, England, and Hong Kong.  Schools for the Future. Retrieved January 3, 2015 from: http://adrianhicks.weebly.com/uploads/3/5/2/1/3521343/the_impact_of_ict_on_school.pdf

Leiboff, M. D. (2010).  Rethinking classroom design guidelines.  Retrieved December 22, 2014 from : http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/06/02/rethinking-classroom-design-guidelines.aspx.

Sanvisivero, G. (2014, September). Keys to engagement, connectivity challenges in a technology rich classroom. Retrieved January 3, 2015 from EdTech Digest: https://edtechdigest.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/keys-to-engagement/

Assessment Tools

5-2 Data Assessment Link

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gGHa24iHJP5O3NS8O7fqDd4MPNjIRE8WflacxuDVaa4/edit?usp=sharing

            Classroom assessments when implemented consistently and used effectively can provide teachers with not only a window into what their students know and understand, assessments can also provide teachers insight into the effectiveness of their own pedagogical practices, and areas within their instruction that may still require work.  What is important to understand is that gathering this vital information does not require the use of complicated tools or a sophisticated statistical analysis of assessment results, it simply requires teachers to “tally how many students missed each assessment item or failed to meet a specific criterion then use these tallies to pay special attention to the trouble spots that arise” (Guskey, 2003, February).

            A prime example of this is clearly demonstrated in the Grade 6 Mathematics assessment data shown within the above linked spreadsheet.  As the collected data reveals there is a significant difference between each of the learning standards students were tested on and the results that were achieved in this ten question test. For example as the table shown on the data overview sheet reveals most of the class successfully met learning standard M:03:FA: 6.3 however, the opposite could be said about standard M:03:FA: 6.2 which broadcasts the need for a whole class reteach on this particular topic.

            Delving deeper the data collected from this math assessment assists the teacher further by providing a baseline snapshot of where each of his/her students are in relation to each of the standards presented as well as aides the teacher in identifying both individual and groups of students who are struggling to meet a majority of the standards as well as those students who are gradually progressing to meet them and those excelling and ready to move on to learning more advanced concepts, as shown on page 2 of the above linked document titled “students groupings”.  As the chart on this sheet reveals by classifying students into small groups based on whether they have met or have yet to meet each of the learning standards, the teacher can visually see where additional support and instruction is needed, as well identify opportunities for students to learn and support each others understanding of the standards based on the results of this one test.  In moving forward the teacher can use this data collected from this one test as motivation to try alternate methods to reteach concepts that students didn’t quite reach yet, as well as use the information as a prompt to open lines of communication with each of his/her students making them and active part of their learning process.

            What is most important to understand is that this data like most assessments is only one measure of each of the student’s understandings of the standards presented and should not be held as the soul determinant of their overall performance level. Like most data collected it should be looked at in combination with a variety of artifacts, like observations, in class and homework assignments as well as exit slips before passing final judgment on what students actually need to succeed. “The more data sources that suggest a particular need among students, the more confident teachers can be about moving forward instructional changes to fulfill that need” (Logan, 2014).  

            The tools teachers choose to use to gather their data like most things in education can vary greatly from classroom to classroom. However, one thing is for sure the process of collecting and sharing the results of assessments is getting easier with the ever-expanding technologies available for use by educators via the Internet.  Two powerful Web 2.0 tools currently available that are particularly conducive to data collection are ZoHo Creator, and Google Docs. Both of these online applications offer users the ability to create visually stunning spreadsheets that are both flexible and easily expandable.

            For example, the Grade 6 Mathematics assessment document linked to this post was created using the sheets application of Google Docs. As illustrated, the format of the spreadsheet created was very similar to spreadsheets created using Microsoft Excel.  For teachers familiar with using this traditional office application, the transition to using Google’s online version of spreadsheets will be quite smooth, as this web-based tool offers similar tool buttons, and functions.  The biggest perk of this online software, besides to being free, is that once documents are created information can easily be shared via a link as above, or via email to a select few. In an educational setting this can be extremely useful, because it allows teachers a platform to view, share, collaborate, and analyze the data collected from one or more classes on one spreadsheet from virtually anywhere, at anytime.  In addition, the ability to color code particular data segments can reveal learning trends and gaps that are occurring within a class or grade level that may have previously been overlooked simply by looking at scores or percentages alone generated from tests taken.  Finally Google Docs also allows teachers the ability to download and save completed spreadsheets to their computers for later reference.

            Another option available for collecting data in a school setting is ZoHo Creator. ZoHo Creator, unlike Google Docs is a web-based application that requires a paid membership to use after a fifteen-day free trial. The greatest difference between ZoHo Creator and the Google Docs application described above is that the tools and functions contained within this application are quite different and somewhat complex from other spreadsheet applications. In a school setting this could pose a problem for teachers who are just learning to use technology or struggle to learn new applications, and thus may require additional training and practice before being fully implemented and used for data collection.

             “The job of the teacher is to be faithful to authentic student learning experiences” (Alber, 2011, December). Therefore, when it comes to assessing the performance level of their students it is important that the data they collect from assessments is current, ongoing, and used to actively drive the instruction they provide to students on a daily basis.  Adding teachers in achieving this goal are web-based tools like Google Docs, and ZoHo creator that are paving the way to easing how data is viewed and analyzed both in school and out.    

References

Alber, R. (2011, December). Three ways student data can inform your teaching. Edutopia. Retrieved December 15, 2014 from: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-student-data- inform-teaching rebecca-alber.

Google, Inc. (2014). Google Docs [Website] Retrieved December 18, 2014 from:   https://docs.google.com

Guskey, T.R. (2003, February). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership. 60, 6-11. Retrieved December 19, 2014 from:http://www.ascd.org/publications/

educational-leadership/feb03/vol60/num05/How-Classroom-Assessments-ImproveLearning.aspx&sa=U&ei=vqCVVJFSwp028ueDmAo&ved=0CCAQFjAA&usg   =AFQjCNGiLKmr98NsFHBnVlPTcy0NIJW5Zw

Logan, L. (2014). 5 ways to use data to improve your teaching. Amplify. (/). Retrieved December 16, 2014 from: http://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/5-ways-to-use-data-to improve-your-teaching.

Southern New Hampshire University (2014). EDU 641 data assessment guidelines and rubric.      Retrieved December 15, 2014 from: https://www.snhu.edu/webdocs.        EDU_641_Data_Assessment_Rubric(1)-1.doc

ZoHo Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2014). ZoHo Creator [Web Application]. Retrieved December 18. 2014 from: http://www.zoho.com