Social Media in the Classroom: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

                                                               

            What role should social media play in education?  This issue is an ongoing debate in which advocates point out the benefits of social media for today’s digital learners, while critics call for regulations and the removal of social media from our classrooms.  Finding the middle ground can be quite a challenge in this day and time.

            Let’s begin by considering the pros of using social media as a learning tool in education.

1) It is a familiar tool, so turn it into an educational tool.

    Students today are fluent in Web and social networking technologies and are therefore comfortable using them.  Teachers can use this knowledge to their advantage in order to enhance their students’ learning experiences.  Social media can promote collaboration and discussion, create meaningful dialogue, encourage student interactions, and even allow students and teachers to connect in new and exciting ways.  In fact, most of our students are on social networking platforms and can probably show us a thing or two in return (Lederer, 2012; Osborne, 2012).

2) The potential to appeal to different learning styles.

     "The varied types of media and information found on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn can appeal to a wide range of learning styles, no matter whether a student naturally prefers kinesthetic, audio, or visual learning" (Osborne, 2012, para. 13).  These websites provide a platform where students can have discussions, exchange ideas, and find answers to their questions.

3) Relevant, real-life learning.  

     "Students entering the workforce can use social networking sites to help them find employment.  For example, with LinkedIn, students can establish a professional web presence, post a resume, research a target company or school, and connect with other job seekers and employers.  Some college career centers and alumni associations use Twitter to broadcast job openings as well as internships.  Students can also follow businesses or professional organizations on Facebook and Twitter in order to stay updated on any new opportunities or important developments in their field" (Lederer, 2012, para. 7).

4) Resource availability.

     "There is an endless range of free resources available through social media, both linked and hosted.  Students have access to current news feeds, can follow public figures, and can even learn a new language or improve software skills.  Facebook and Twitter’s search functions make them both a valuable and free set of tools" (Osborne, 2012, para. 6).

5) Enhance student engagement.

     Social media can be used as an effective method to increase student engagement.  Today’s students are generally portrayed as being “glued to their devices,” so teachers can use this to their advantage by incorporating this technology, which the students take an interest in, into their instruction (Osborne, 2012).  "Students who rarely raise their hands in class may feel more comfortable expressing themselves on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube" (Lederer, 2012, para. 5).  These social networking platforms therefore can help stimulate discussions among students who otherwise may be too shy or intimidated to respond out loud (Lederer, 2012).

6) Improvement of communication.

     "Social media can be a great way for students and teachers to communicate effectively if conducted within a controlled environment" (Osborne, 2012, para. 8).  Teachers can answer students’ questions by using a Facebook page or Twitter feed, post homework assignments and lesson plans, send messages and updates, schedule or announce upcoming events, and share interesting websites and multimedia content (Lederer, 2012; Osborne, 2012).

7) Improvement of research skills.

     Having research skills and being able to find information online is becoming more and more important in the workplace.  These skills "can be taught to the students through lessons designed around social media platforms" (Osborne, 2012, para. 7).

8) The promotion of digital citizenship.

     In today’s educational setting, students have to learn about how to appropriately conduct themselves online.  If they behave in ways that are considered cyberbullying, they will have to face the consequences.  Students also need to understand privacy policies and the transfer of data online.  These lessons can all be taught by introducing students to online platforms within the traditional school curriculum (Osborne, 2012).

9) Ease of access.

     Using social media in the classroom requires no expensive equipment or modern upgrades.  A computer or mobile device with an Internet connection is all that is needed (Osborne, 2012).

10) Teachers can improve their own knowledge and skills.

       As teachers become more familiar with these platforms, "they are making themselves more aware of issues surrounding their students today" (Osborne, 2012, para. 5).  This way, if a student is being harassed over Twitter, then the teacher will know how to search profiles in order to investigate the situation at hand (Osborne, 2012).

            Now let’s consider the cons of using social media as a learning tool in the classroom.

   1) The gimmick factor.

     "Unless social media is incorporated into a class plan so that it contributes to an objective lesson aim, then it could become nothing more than a waste of time" (Osborne, 2012, para. 16).  Social media should have a purpose in the lesson and not just be used for the sake of incorporating technology into the classroom.

2) Distractions.

     Teachers complain that social media is distracting in the classroom.  They maintain that Facebook and Twitter divert students’ attention away from the learning process (Lederer, 2012).  "Unless teachers properly supervise their students, it can be difficult to follow through with a lesson based on Internet research" or social media platforms (Osborne, 2012, para. 17).

3) Limiting face-to-face communication.

     Some teachers believe that by using social media in the classroom, students are missing out on valuable lessons in real-life social skills.  The lack of these skills could put students at a disadvantage during college admission or job interviews.  Even at social gatherings, students need to be able to express themselves and connect with others (Lederer, 2012).

4) The risk of cyberbullying.

     Social media can be a weapon of malicious behavior.  Cyberbullying is widespread on social networks and teachers need to be aware of this and monitor student activity for any signs of bullying (Osborne, 2012).  In a study done by Indiana State University, it was found that almost 22% of college students admit to being harassed online and of this group, 25% reported that they were bullied through a social networking site (Lederer, 2012).

5) The possibility of malware infections or phishing scams.

     "Social networks are now a breeding ground for scam artists who try to lure both children and adults into exchanging personal information.  They also try to gain access to computer networks.  Teachers and school systems need to be aware of this risk and should monitor student usage accordingly" (Osborne, 2012, para. 23).

6) Continual social media change.

     Social media is constantly changing.  Schools and teachers must keep up-to-date with these changes to platforms and their security settings and act accordingly (Osborne, 2012).

7) The need to filter and plan.

     Schools have the responsibility of protecting their students from inappropriate communication, images, videos, and any other content found on these social media sites.  "The use of social media platforms has to be planned and executed appropriately in order to ensure the safety of the students" (Osborne, 2012, para. 24).

8) Exposing the “haves” and “have nots.”

     When introducing social media use in the classroom, students may be asked to bring their own devices, especially if the school does not have the facilities to supply each student with a device.  This can cause a problem because it "can highlight divides between students who can afford certain devices and those who cannot" afford them (Osborne, 2012, para. 27).  This can lead to bullying of the lower income students.

            After reviewing the pros and cons of social media, one can see that this will continue to be an issue that schools and teachers will have to consider very closely when determining the role social media should play in their classrooms.  Today’s students come from a tech-savvy generation that is very comfortable conducting much of their life through social media channels.  These students use YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter as tools for learning and collaborating on a daily basis, so schools have to decide whether or not to find ways to integrate these tools into their classrooms as educational learning tools.  You decide.  Do you give social media in the classroom a thumbs up or a thumbs down?

References

Lederer, K.  (2012, January 19).  Pros and cons of social media in the classroom.  Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/01/19/pros-and-cons-of-social-media-in-the-classroom.aspx

Osborne, C.  (2012, April 10).  The pros and cons of social media classrooms [Web log post].        Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/the-pros-and-cons-of-social-media-classrooms/15132

SMARTBoards: How Smart is Smart?

               SMARTBoard interactive whiteboards are a technology that is quickly gaining popularity due to the interactive power they possess.  Some questions that are arising about this form of technology are- “How do SMARTBoards change the classroom?”  “What do teachers and students think about SMARTBoards?” and “Does SMARTBoard use in the classroom impact students?”  In the educational world, there are differences of opinion.  However, one thing that everyone can agree on is that technology is only as effective as the teacher using it.

            Recently, SMARTBoards have become an essential component of many classrooms, but up until their implementation, most teachers were still using the traditional white board.  Some reasons for this trend follow:

• ·         SMARTBoards can accommodate different learning styles in order to meet the needs of the students in the class.  Tactical or kinesthetic learners can use the screen and learn by touching and marking on the board.  Auditory learners can learn through the discussions that can easily include auditory clips, and visual learners can observe the teaching on the board as well as view visual pictures, videos, graphs, or other visual aids included in the lesson (Professional Learning Board, 2103).
• ·         SMARTBoards are neater, do not have the cleanliness hassle, and are easier to maintain than traditional white boards (Professional Learning Board, 2013).

            SMARTBoards allow images from the teacher’s computer to be displayed on the board for the students to see.  These images can then be modified on the screen, using a pen or a highlighting tool.  The touch screen feature allows teachers to run programs directly from the screen simply by tapping the application with their finger and this touch screen feature even makes scrolling with the finger easy as well (Professional Learning Board, 2013).

            While most teachers understand the “why” of SMARTBoards, many still struggle with the “how.”  Listed below are just a few ideas on how SMARTBoards can be used in the classroom setting.

• ·         SMARTBoards can be used as a note-taking tool.  Students can take turns coming up and writing important points on the board.  In higher grade levels, teachers can appoint students to type out notes on the computer as they talk, allowing the other students to view and take them down in their notebooks (Professional Learning Board, 2103).
• ·         SMARTBoards can be used to enhance brainstorming in the classroom.  They can be used to put together text ideas as well as images, diagrams, and videos (Professional Learning Board, 2013).
• ·         Review games can be played with ease on the SMARTBoards in order to prepare students for upcoming tests or simply to check student comprehension (Professional Learning Board, 2013).
• ·         SMARTBoards are incredibly dynamic in nature due to the fact that all forms of media such as videos, photographs, graphs, maps, illustrations and more can be displayed on the board (Professional Learning Board, 2103).

            SMARTBoards are a part of the future of education in one school system in Minnesota.  In the Cloquet Public Schools, teachers were surveyed to see what they thought about this tool after a year of implementation in their classrooms.  Some of the results of the survey follow:

• ·         While all teachers reported that the SMARTBoards were used daily, 67% of these teachers used the technology at least 50% of the day (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         Of these same teachers, 100% felt that creative presentation models that meet multiple learning styles have the potential to be either as effective or more effective as small group instruction (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         When this group of teachers was asked about movement in the classroom, 75% agreed that the use of the interactive SMARTBoard increased their use of movement in instruction, not only for themselves, but for the students as well (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         Ninety-four percent of the teachers polled felt that SMARTBoards allowed students to become intensely engaged in the instruction (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).

           

            Some comments made by the surveyed teachers in support of this technology are listed below.  They are as follows:

• ·         SMARTBoards allow teachers to teach to “all” their students’ learning styles daily (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         Teachers are able to actively engage students by designing a myriad of lessons with endless variations (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         SMARTBoards allow teachers to engage every learning style and allows for many opportunities to use their strengths and work on areas that need improvement as well (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         Previously, with whole group instruction, the rest of the class would get restless and lose focus, but with the SMARTBoard, students stay engaged and patiently wait their turn to go up to the board (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012). 
• ·         SMARTBoards not only allow teachers to reach many students at once, but they also allow for cooperative learning among students (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012) .
• ·         Lower achieving students and students with emotional and behavioral disorders were very in-tuned while using the SMARTBoard and were also able to complete their individual work (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).
• ·         Students that normally have difficulty paying attention in class were much more engaged with the use of the SMARTBoard (Cloquet Public Schools, 2012).

These comments are just a few of the many that the teachers of the Cloquet Public Schools provided when surveyed about SMARTBoard use in their classrooms and the impact on their students.

            Some of the tools and features of SMARTBoard that can help teachers use their boards more effectively in their classrooms are:

• ·         Question/Answer in the gallery
• ·         Erase to reveal (hides answers)
• ·         Link to an animation
• ·         Grab a picture from a website
• ·         Grab a web address
• ·         Link games and interactive websites to teachers’ webpages
• ·         Scanning tools
• ·         Export to PowerPoint
• ·         Freeform tools (camera tools)
• ·         Dual page display
• ·         Rotation/Locking tools
• ·         SMART video
• ·         Format background color

            While SMARTBoards were said to help teachers and students focus on teaching and learning, they were also found to be a great sharing tool.  The SMART Notebook software allows teachers to e-mail saved files to students and/or colleagues at any time during or after the lesson.  Teachers can even upload their favorite lessons to the SMART Exchange website, so their colleagues can find them quickly and easily to use in their own classrooms.  This allows for sharing and collaboration among teachers for the benefit of their students.

            On the flip side of the coin, some call SMARTBoards a “Dumb” initiative.  These opponents of SMARTBoards feel that SMARTBoards are not a cost-effective way of improving learning.  These same people made the following arguments against SMARTBoards:

• ·         SMARTBoards do enable teachers to efficiently save content on the white board, but that this can be done in various other ways such as screenshot, screencast, Microsoft OneNote, scanners, and cameras at a much smaller budget (Staton, 2010).
• ·        "SMARTBoards do not change the model that is broken.  They just make that model way more expensive because teachers usually still control the content, stand in front of the classroom, and manage the students through a lesson they would rather not be managed through" (Staton, 2010, para. 5).  SMARTBoards do not give students an adaptive learning environment, do not differentiate instruction although they do make it a little more media savvy, do not enable social feedback, do not reduce teacher workload, and do not make lesson planning more efficient.  SMARTBoards are just an attractive white board (Staton, 2010).
• ·         SMARTBoards are an administrative cop out.  Instead of re-imaging what schools and classrooms look like, administrators just spend money on technology and buy things to say they are trying to help their teachers and students be more successful.  "It is less risky to buy objects you can see and count than spend money on more ambitious initiatives, such as reading and math remediation for students" (Staton, 2010, para. 6).

These are just a few of the arguments that the opponents of SMARTBoards provided as to why they felt SMARTBoards were not the best way to improve student learning in a cost-effective manner.

            Another article, by Keith Fowlkes (2013), even discussed why tablets were the better option for classrooms, instead of SMARTBoards, especially for higher education.  He contends that Tablets open a whole new world for students and faculty and it is a world that is within financial reach.  "He asserts that tablets can connect to a video projector, digital monitor/TV, or Internet broadcast stream to draw, highlight, and interact with whatever is on the screen without the aid of a SMARTBoard" (Fowlkes, 2013, para. 8).  Tablet users, with the right conferencing services and wireless video systems, can share their screens with the instructor and the entire class in real time.  Students can access electronic textbooks, Internet resources, library systems, other literature, and much, much more right from the classroom and use them in real time discussions (Fowlkes, 2013).

            Considering all of the arguments from both points of view, these interactive boards can either be “SMARTBoards” or “DUMBBoards” depending on who you ask.  Both sides have been presented here, so now it is time for you to decide…. Are they “SMART” or are they “DUMB”?  The decision is yours.

References

Cloquet Public Schools.  (2012, October).  How do SmartBoards change the classroom?   Retrieved from http://www.cloquet.k12.mn.us/curriculum.cfm?subpage=511729

Fowlkes, K.  (2013, January 9).  Why tablets will kill Smart Boards in classrooms.  Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/why-tablets-will-kill-smart-boards-in-classrooms/d/d-id/1108091?

Professional Learning Board.  (2013).  Using Smart Boards in the classrooms.  Retrieved from             https://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/using-smart-boards-in-the-classroom/

Staton, M.  (2010, May 12).  Why Smartboards are a dumb initiative [Web log post].  Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-smartboards-are-dumb-initiative.html

The Ins-and-Outs of Online Learning

            Online learning, for students and teachers, seems to be one of the fastest growing trends in educational uses of technology, especially when considering data from the last decade.  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of K-12 public school students enrolling in a technology-based distance education course grew by 65% from 2002 to 2005.  In the 2007-2008 school year, it was estimated that more than a million K-12 students took online courses.

            While online learning may not be the best fit for everyone, it is an alternative option.  The one-size-fits-all approach that currently predominates our classrooms is no longer the answer, not if our students are all expected to be prepared for the 21^st century.  The personalization of content that online learning allows could make a big difference for some students by allowing them to progress at their own level and pace.  Online education could be well suited for the students who might otherwise drop out of school, the athletes that regularly miss class due to sporting events, the bored but gifted student who just needs to be challenged, and the students with special needs of all types.  Online learning can help all these students study, advance, and learn at their own pace (Zinny, 2013).

            After reviewing the literature, it was found that one of the most basic characteristics for classifying online activities is its objective.  Some online learning activities serve as a replacement for face-to-face instruction (virtual courses), while others serve as an enhancement of the face-to-face learning experience (activities that are in addition to the face-to-face activities) (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).  According to the research, the success of these two objectives is evaluated differently.  Online learning, used as a replacement for face-to-face instruction, is considered to be successful if it provides learning online without sacrificing student achievement.  If student outcomes are found to be the same whether the course is taken online or face-to-face, then online learning can be used as a cost-effective method in situations where there are not enough students to warrant an on-site instructor, such as is often the case in rural schools or for students in specialized courses (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).  However, in contrast, online enhancement activities that produce learning outcomes equivalent to, but not better than, those resulting from face-to-face instruction alone was considered to be a waste of time and money because the addition did not show improvement in student learning outcomes (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            A second important characteristic for classifying online learning was the type of learning experience.  The literature focused on three types of learning: expository instruction, active learning, and interactive learning.  In the traditional or expository learning experiences, the content is delivered to the students through lectures, written materials, or other mechanisms (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).  In active learning experiences, the student has control of what and how he or she learns, through online drills, simulations, games, and other inquiry-based manipulations (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).  In collaborative or interactive learning experiences, the content is "emergent as learners interact with one another, the teacher, and other knowledge sources as well" (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010, p. 3).  In this instance, the teacher acts more as a facilitator, while the students interact with one another and the technology.

            The third characteristic used to classify online learning was the extent to which the learning was synchronous or asynchronous.  Online learning that is synchronous refers to instruction "occurring in real time, whether it is in a physical place or a virtual place" (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010, p. 4).  Online learning that is asynchronous refers to instruction with a "time lag between the presentation of instructional stimuli and student responses" (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010, p. 4).

            Along with the three main characteristics listed above, there were many other features that also applied to online learning.  These included the type of setting (classroom, home, informal), the nature of the content (subject area, type of learning), and the technology involved (audio/video streaming, podcasting, simulations, videoconferencing, screen sharing) (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            Online learning, defined as learning that takes place partially or entirely over the Internet, is often associated with the following myths that are used to criticize this form of instruction.

            - Myth # 1: Online learning will reduce the need for teachers.  This is not the case, however, because "surveys and interviews have come to show that the number one reason for student success, either in a classroom or online, is a caring teacher or instructor" (Ebersole, 2012, para. 3).  Also, data shows that online classes are often more strict about class sizes than traditional classes, setting a maximum of 20 to 25 students per section, thereby creating the need for more qualified teachers, not fewer (Ebersole, 2012).

            - Myth # 2: All online courses are the same.  Again, this is not the case.  The courses vary from one end of the spectrum to the other, meaning that some formats are text-heavy electronic correspondence courses, while others are courses full of color, graphics, animation, and simulations (Ebersole, 2012).  Some online courses even offer "capstone assessments that can test a student’s ability to apply concepts and make decisions based on what they have learned" (Ebersole, 2012, para. 4).  While these are not cheap, they are engaging and effective measurements of student growth (Ebersole, 2012).

            - Myth # 3: The quality of outcomes is less for an online student than for one who has received the same instruction in a classroom.  Decades of research has proven this to be a false statement.  In fact, it has found that the outcomes for those studying at a distance do not differ from those in a classroom (Ebersole, 2012).  Contrary to what some believe, students do not have to be watched like a hawk in order to learn.

            - Myth # 4: You do not know if the person doing the work is the person receiving the credit.  This same argument can be made about any type of learning.  It is not unique to online learning alone (Ebersole, 2012).  Even students in regular classroom settings can turn in work they either copied from someone else or that someone else did for them.  This issue can occur in any educational setting.

            We cannot let myths such as these hold us back.  Our focus should be on student learning and achievement and what works best for the individual student.  Online learning has the power to advance our society when used appropriately and with students who will benefit from this type of learning.  Online learning is not for everyone, so careful thought and consideration should be given when determining whose needs can best be served by this type of learning.

            Overall, the available research concerning online learning suggests the following:

            - Promoting self-reflection, self-regulation, and self-monitoring leads to more positive online learning outcomes (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            - Students who learn in online groups provide scaffolds for one another (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). 

            - Online learning studies, of the effects of individualizing instruction, found positive effects for students (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            -  Tools or features prompting students to reflect on their learning were effective in improving outcomes (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            - The effects of including different types of online simulations were modestly positive (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            - Although it is generally recommended that online learning use instructors or other adults as online moderators, research support for the effect of this practice on student learning was mixed (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).

            Online learning is quickly growing, but despite its popularity, online learning continues to be seen in a negative light by some.  The thing to keep in mind, however, is that online learning is not for everyone.  Students should consider what is best for their learning needs and for the ones who decide that “online classrooms” are not for them, there will still be the “brick and mortar classrooms” for them to attend.

References

Ebersole, J.  (2012, August).  The myths of online learning.  Forbes.  Retrieved from             http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2012/08/24/the-myths-of-online-learning/

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K.  (2010). Evaluation of evidence-        based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.  U.S. Department of Education.  Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy   Development.  Policy and Program Studies Service.  ED-04-CO-0040.  Retrieved from            http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Zinny, G.  (2013, November 8).  Is online learning transforming education?  Huffington Post.        Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-sanchez-zinny/ron-packards-education-fo_b_4219682.html

Bring Your Own Device: Helpful or Harmful?

            In order to help their students evolve into 21^st century learners, school are beginning to take advantage of technology.  With today’s economy and tight budgets, many schools are looking for ways to bring technology into the classrooms, but without bringing along the costly burden of purchasing a device for each student.  A potential solution that is being explored is “Bring Your Own Device”, or BYOD, which allows students to bring their personal laptops, tablets, iPads, and smartphones from home to use for instructional purposes in the classroom.  BYOD is a promising idea for schools that lack the monetary means to support the demands of technology because it takes advantage of the existing technology that students already possess and are familiar with.  As good as it sounds, however, the BYOD program has met some criticism from both staff and administrators who feel that some of the challenges that come with the program more than outweigh the presumed benefits.

            The BYOD initiatives, which were recommended in the United States Department of Education’s 2010 National Education Technology Plan (NETP), are hoped to not only help cut costs, but help increase student engagement as well.  The BYOD program brings with it several security concerns, including data protection and compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (Scholastic, 2013).  In order to avoid data security conflicts and protect student information, the wireless infrastructure for the BYOD program should provide a student network that is separate from the one used by teachers and administrators (K-12 Blueprint, 2013).  There should be a built-in authentication procedure which enables monitoring of Internet usage to ensure that only legitimate users are allowed access to the network (K-12 Blueprint, 2013).  A web filter can be used to provide Internet access controls, but the negative impacts are that it can affect the speed of the Internet and block desired content as well.  The protective wireless infrastructure for a BYOD program therefore must maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of student information that is stored online, while monitoring Internet usage to ensure students are abiding by the school’s acceptable use policies (K-12 Blueprint, 2013).

            Those in favor of BYOD feel there are many educational benefits related to the program.  Some feel it promotes greater participation, engagement, and student accountability in the classroom when the device is personally owned by the student (Concordia University, 2013).  Some feel it is cost-effective because parents provide the devices as well as the repair and maintenance costs, instead of the schools (K-12 Blueprint, 2013).  Others feel that the students’ devices are "more robust and more up-to-date than the traditional computer labs and mobile technology carts" (K-12 Blueprint, 2013, p. 2).  Still others argue that the flexibility of personalized devices supports the different learners and their needs (K-12 Blueprint, 2013).  Overall, the advocates of BYOD feel that this program has the potential to positively impact educational outcomes.  These supporters feel that the BYOD program will support 21^st century learning by creating an environment that focuses on the Four Cs of 21^st century education: communication, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration.

            Through the implementation of BYOD, teachers can take advantage of several features that are found in most mobile devices.  "These features include data organization tools, web-based applications for classroom polling and quick tests, video for creating multimedia projects, and audio for podcasting and radio broadcasts.  Other uses include QR Codes (Quick Response Codes), digital storytelling, language learning, and probe attachments for measuring data" (K-12 Blueprint, 2013, p. 4).

            Although there are benefits to the BYOD program, there are a number of concerns as well.  Some feel that schools will have to devote a large amount of their technology budget in order to meet the growing demands for bandwidth due to the increase in the number of devices on campus.  Some also are concerned with getting buy-in from all parties involved, including teachers, administrators, parents, students, and staff.  Special considerations should be given to parental support, average household income, and the percentage of students who own their own device because these factors all play a part in determining whether the program will be successful or not.  Another concern is the need for professional development and training for those responsible for implementing the program (Concordia University, 2013; K-12 Blueprint, 2013; Scholastic, 2013).

            Educators also have worries about the BYOD program because some feel that the presence of the various electronic devices inside the classroom will be a distraction for some students (Concordia University, 2013).  Another concern is that although some sites and applications may be blocked, students may find ways around these restrictions.  Other educators feel that the BYOD program will "increase the divide between the lower-income and higher-income students" (Concordia University, 2013, para. 7).  Their concern is that the lower-income students will either feel inferior due to having to check out a laptop or tablet from school since they cannot afford one, or that lower-income students may face bullying since it will be easy to distinguish between the students who have their own devices and those who do not.

            BYOD case studies from two separate school systems, one in Georgia and the other in Ohio, suggest that the BYOD program has been a success in their individual school districts.  Forsyth County Schools in Georgia attributes their successful program to its strong network of technology advocates.  The district school board as well as the local communities are very supportive of the use of instructional technology and have high expectations for its use in the classrooms (K-12 Blueprint, 2013; Scholastic, 2013).  Oak Hills Local School District in Ohio also has implemented a successful BYOD program.  Their program allows both students and staff to bring in their own devices.  The school district believes that by using technology in the classrooms, their students will be better prepared for work in the 21^st century world.  The program is supported by a strong network of IT professionals, teachers, and students working together to ensure its success (K-12 Blueprint, 2013). 

            Each school district must consider what is best for their students when determining if the BYOD program is right for them.  One thing to remember is that the school’s vision of the learning environment should focus on what will best support and prepare the students for life outside of the classroom.  In making this decision, educators should keep the following quote by John Dewey in mind: “If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.”

References

Concordia University.  (2013).  What is BYOD (Bring your own device) and why should teachers care?  Concordia University.  Retrieved October 16, 2013, from    http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/tech-ed/what-is-byod-bring-your-own-device-and-why-should-teachers-care/

K-12 Blueprint.  (2013).  Bring your own device toolkit.  K12 Blueprint.  Retrieved October 16,   2013, from http://www.k12blueprint.com/byod

Scholastic.  (2013).  BYOD to school?  Scholastic.  Retrieved October 16, 2013, from             http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3756757