July 4, 2013
By Dray Breezy
- Abstract
- Avenues of Development
- Introduction
- Mobile Technology
- Pre-toddler
- Distinguishing between formal and informal settings
- Theories and Models
- Cyber bullying
- Virtual Learning Assignments
- Actor-Network Theory
- Counterarguments
- Conclusion
Abstract
With the rapid immersion of mobile devices into K-12 classrooms, educational leaders were forced to create a plan for dealing with these devices. For many this was in the form of an outright ban, but as the classroom density increased for these products, this solution became impractical. As Merchant writes, “[There is a] dominant perception that mobile practices are disruptive in formal education” (2012) While this argument can be made, an outright ban on mobile devices not only infuriates students, but parents alike.
For the vast majority of children, these devices are bought by parental figures in order to make communication and for some, geo-tracking with the child easier and more direct. With apps such as Skype, Oovoo, and Facebook Chat, a parent has multiple mediums in which to contact his/her child. To disable that medium would surely cause rising tensions and safety concerns between parents and administrators. Since prohibition of these devices is unreasonable, the next logical step is incorporating them into the classroom through means which are beneficial to both the student and the teacher. These “digital epistemologies” would need to follow two basic avenues of development
Avenues of Development
1)Help students at all stages to develop a critical appreciation of the uses (and abuses) of mobile technology
2)Consider how educational experiences might be enhanced or transformed through the use of mobile technology (Bruns 2008; Guedon, 2001)
While in theory this lays the foundation for incorporation of mobile devices in an educational setting, the problem lies in the fact that there have been no federal or state sanctioned comprehensive plans put into place to deal with these devices. There are many arguments/counter arguments for the inclusion of these devices in classrooms however many valid questions need to be answered in order to properly plot the effect these devices will have on the epistemic balance of a classroom. The fundamental questions are,
How are these devices used in both formal and informal settings?
What are the benefits of mobile tech use?
What are the disadvantages or counterarguments to higher use in the classroom?
What will greater use of these devices achieve?
Are these devices a better alternative to traditional methods of teaching and learning?
This action research project will attempt to answer these questions using both anecdotal and empirical evidence. This evidence will come in the form of official studies and research done on the effect of mobile devices on student’s acquisition of knowledge and use that empirical evidence to support my hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between iPad use, exacerbated mental growth and digital literacy. Our main focus group will be students aged 3-15.
Introduction
Over the last 20 years classroom dynamics and epistemologies in Western educational settings have changed drastically. The western educational system, created in the 18th century sprouted from the ideals of the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment, focusing on structure and integrity in a globally competitive sphere (Timmerman, 2010). This model persisted well into the 20th century yet for many was seen as “compulsory, cold and dark” (Timmerman, 2010). In response to these sentiments, alternative forms of schooling were created which focused less on structure and a factory model of education but applied more energy towards personalized instruction and collaborative (teacher-student-parent) methods of pedagogy. However beginning in the late 20th century a new variable inserted itself into educational spheres, both alternative and traditional. This variable came in the form of mobile technology.
Mobile Technology
Mobile technology can be defined as any portable user interface which allows students connectivity to the mobile web. Mobile technology can be a smart phone, laptop,netbook, tablet,etc, but for this specific research project I will be focusing on the integration of tablets in an educational setting. All of these devices have injected an unprecedented variable into classrooms- unlimited information at every student’s fingertips. While this may seem to have no disadvantages, under closer review both teachers and administrators alike have noticed that these devices have notably altered the balance of the classroom, the likes of which have never been witnessed in modern scholastics. Because the rise of this technology was so rapid and unprecedented, educational leaders had not planned how to integrate these technologies into the classroom, much less discover how these tools could be used for pedagogical purposes.
As Timmerman states, “Use of technology to teach seems to be part of a big theoretical discussion, but its application is still minor” (2010). It seems as though until national leaders can come to some sort of compromise regarding mobile devices in the classroom that it is free-for-all policy with schools and teachers. Passing the point of outright bans (most classrooms are far too saturated with these devices for that to be a plausible solution) as Guy Merchant argues in his piece, Mobile Practices in Everyday Life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited, “[A] New vision of schooling is required-one that incorporates the new literacies and is responsive to emerging patterns of social organization” (2012). One of those new literacies, mobile literacy was now teetering on what Merchant terms the “digital divide” (2012) He argues that similar to how “email built-on, extended, and transformed the exchange of memos and letters”, mobile devices have the potential to exponentially heighten the classroom experience if regulated correctly. This essay will attempt to reinforce that ideology.
Pre-toddler
While little empirical data exists chronicling the effect of toddlers (Ages 1-5), there has been some mentioning of the “pass back effect”. (Chiong, 2010) This is the phenomenon of adults passing their mobile device back to their children and allowing those children to pick and choose which apps to use. Chiong argues the pros of this method are,
Encourage “anywhere, anytime” learning
Reach undeserved childrenImprove 21st-century social interactions
Mobile devices can help bridge the gap for larger technologies
He argues that the cons of this method are,
Media consumption leads to academic lethargy
Most teachers see cell phones as distractions
Poorly designed mobile devices do more harm than good
While Chiong sees the benefits of mobile devices in toddlers and younger, the vast majority of his essay uses empirical evidence to argue that the biggest effect of mobile devices in very young children enhances their potential for success. Because these devices provide “anywhere, anytime” learning the ability for children to learn and absorb new information is limitless, which is an unprecedented phenomenon. While before only the privileged were allowed access to information in informal setting, now children of all backgrounds have at least some rudimentary access and understanding of technology. While the long-term effect of technology exposure to children younger than four has yet to be fully examined and propagated into a hypothesis, one can see that these devices will play a large role in the mental development of our youth.
Distinguishing between Formal and Informal settings
Now that I’ve made my claim it’s important to distinguish between formal and informal settings due to the fact that they play an important role in understanding how mobile devices interact in the classroom. Informal settings for our focus group would include any interactions students were a part of that had no direct adult supervision. Formal settings for our focus group would include school and most extracurricular- any activities that enforced direct adult supervision. Our classrooms fall into a formal setting, the teacher being the adult supervisor but mobile devices have begun to change the landscape of the classroom, reducing its formality.
An Ofcom survey conducted in 2011 found that 65 percent of students ages 12-15 use his/her phone mainly for social networking. While texting, music, and gaming scored well, social networking has the lead on our youth. We live in a world saturated with technology, everything and everyone is a click away. Through apps such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Twitter virtual identities have superseded meaningful personal connections. In this regard, the informality of mobile devices through “realtime backchannel discussions” has overwhelmed the formality and structure of the “fragile” classroom. (Reid, 2012) As Merchant claims, “the boundary between online and offline social networking is becoming increasingly porous” (2012). Mobile devices have bridged the gap between students so that they no longer have to be in an informal setting to find a release from frustration at the authoritarian education system. Mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets are the closest humankind has gotten to self-reciprocating gratification, with no idea, concept or object being too difficult to solve. But the question remains is this merging of formal and informal structures good or bad for education?
Merchant argues that, “there are [a] number of reasons why everyday practices may not be readily transferable to educational contexts”, later going on to claim, “Everyday mobile practices tend to be driven by individual preference and need” (2012). The traditional classroom’s success hinged on the idea of cooperation based learning methods. Sharing, group work, and collaborative projects are fundamental to the success of any classroom. Mobile devices place on the other end of the spectrum, being very isolative and generally requiring privacy. Therefore the use of these devices in the classroom contradicts any proper teaching aesthetic that a teacher might have. Instead of groups working together to solve an answer, each student just pulls out their tablet and googles it. In this regard it seems as though mobile devices discourage learning and cooperation and also places the teacher in the role as lesser to these smart devices. “Having easy access to resources encourages laziness.” (Valstad, 2010) Merchant further claims, “The relationship between everyday practices and educational practices is as contentious in the area of technology as it is elsewhere (media studies, popular culture, new literacies)” (2012) The key for teachers and administrators is finding balance and leading the movement not resisting it.
Theories and Models
Following the wave of mobile devices into the classroom was a wave of theories and models that would help the teacher navigate this new classroom structure. Merchant postulates that, “Were technologies merely objects totally divorced from human praxis, they would be so much ‘junk’. Once taken into praxis one can not speak of technologies in themselves but as the active relational pair, human-technology” (2012). Applying this to Schatzki’s social practice theory which asserts that practices are “organized nexuses of activity that involve bodily doing, sayings, and relatings” which constitute the human interactions that form social order, one can infer that technology and more specifically mobile devices are “subtly insinuating itself into the capillaries of everyday life” (2012) Because contemporary practice theory is “susceptible to innovation and change” it allows for the migration of mobile devices from taboo to routine. This becomes especially more prominent in the classroom because of the structure of the education system. Merchant proposes that schools are, “a mesh of practices and material arrangements [that] provide an established institutional order that is governed by chains of action and commonalities of purpose” (Ibid. 474). While the rise of most classroom technology (projectors, televisions, computers) did not alter the fundamental order, mobile devices throughly altered the system. Merchant writes, “Radical change, is only likely to occur when “conscious intervention” (from the inside or outside) reworks goals, alters rules, and redesigns projects”(2012)
Although the immersion of mobile devices in the classroom was not conscious, it certainly reworked goals and altered rules. Examples of this can be seen in comparison of classroom settings previous to mobile devices. While previous to these devices a homework assignment might have been to go to the library and check out a book, now in our post-immersed society an assignment might be to download an e-book version. Another example of altered rules is how schools systems had to create awareness of cyber bullying and employ tactics to curb its rise.
Cyber Bullying
Previous to the mobile device wave, cyber bullying did not exist and its rise couldn’t have been foreseen. The merging of mobile devices into the classroom was not just contrasting the dynamic of the classroom; it was creating a new one. However Merchant argues that, “most organizational change is piece-meal and gradual, with modifications in some practices being accompanied by continuities in others” (2012). As this compromise between technology and the classroom is made, more questions arise as to the implications of these devices of learning and assessment.
Virtual Learning Assignments
In The Role of Virtual Learning Environments in a Primary School Context Monica Johannesen states that, “Assessment is a vital part of educational practice” (2013). If mobile devices are going to be included in the classroom shouldn’t teachers find the most efficient way to use them? VLE or virtual learning assessments come in the form of Moodle and Blackboard but could also be expanded to tablet use. Organization apps such as evernote already fringe on this market. Assessments done through a VLE, also known as e-assessments provide teachers with more empirical data to assess a student’s growth. Unlike their traditional counterparts, these are able to assess “new educational goals such as metacognition, creativity, project work, and communication skills.” (Johnnesen, 2013).The ability for the VLE to simulate and role-play with the student allows for a formative assessment as opposed to summative assessment.
Actor-Network Theory
This form of assessment relies heavily upon the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) of cognitive study. This theory focuses on the “processes of creation, modification, and sometimes destruction of networks and human and non-human actors” (Johannesen, 2013) Sound dramatic right? In this case, the student would be the Actor and parents, teachers, mobile devices and any outside variables would be the network, also known as the “actants” (Latour, 1992 p.241). These “actants” or “entities that do things” react with the actor to create a dynamic network. These actants could react in a positive way to further a student’s growth or react negatively and hinder a student’s growth. Mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets by default are neutral actants. Therefore it is how the student uses the device which will define whether it is a positive or negative actant. However Johannesen contests that actants can work together in a “network of aligned interest” to secure a common goal. In this case, the teacher could guide the student’s use of the tablet in a positive direction. This bending of the network is split between two terms, enrollment and negotiation. The actor-student enrolls both the mobile device and teacher into his/her daily routine, creating a network. Because this networks only aim is stability, the actor-student negotiates a cohesive goal between the two actants. With the teacher being the dominant actant, he/she must suit his mobile devices purpose to the goals of the teacher. What this theory proposes is that mobile devices can be molded to fit the needs of the teacher and administration while remaining cohesive units in the student’s classroom and network.
They ain’t ready!
In The Five Central Psychological challenges facing effective Mobile Learning, Melody Terras and Judith Ramsey argue that we “inhabit a world where use is driven by technology availability and function rather than technology that is shaped by and understanding of user psychology” (2012). The underlying tone of this passage is that while many of the younger generation have these mobile devices, some of them may not be mature enough to reconcile their individual preferences with the teacher’s rules regarding mobile device usage. That seems like the understatement of the century. In these cases, the teacher must be prepared to offer rationale for the prohibition of mobile devices in a classroom setting.
Counterarguments
The opposition to “edutainment” has strong counter arguments that must be taken into account in this essay (Nixon Hateley, 2011) Because this is an issue that affects the majority of Americans (52 percent of all children 0-8 have access to a newer mobile device at home), the question must be raised if these mobile devices are harming our youth more than they are helping (Cahill McGill-Franze). The strongest argument in opposition to digital saturation argues that our obsession with mobile connectivity rests in the “desire-acquire-dispose circuit” which supplements our consumer oriented society. (Merchant 2012) The argument is that mobile devices should not become integral to our human existence because they fuel unnecessary waste and addiction to novelty. This theory supports the claim that it is not necessarily a student’s yearning to be connected to a much larger social network that prompts the decision to buy a mobile device but the yearning for the next newest gadget. Therefore these devices propagate addictive like qualities in which users are replacing yearning for knowledge in a classroom with yearning for novelty through a smart device.
Terras and Ramsey claim that “mobile devices are ‘cognitive artifacts’- devices that augment human cognition” (2012) As stated earlier, mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones replace the need for traditional methods of inquiry such as library research, or even something as mundane as searching a dictionary for a word. While they state that mobile devices “have a number of unique characteristics such as portability, connectivity, convenience, expediency, immediacy, accessibility, individuality, and interactivity” through the use of certain utility apps (calculator, calendar, notes) certain human cognitive functions evaporate.
Helen Nixon compounds this ideology with the comment, “Individualized, open-ended opportunities for play can be greatly hampered by the programmed response of mobile phones, scripts, embedded in talking dolls, and the musical score that is a push-button away in an electronic box” (2011) Terras and Ramsey couple this phenomenon with the sentiment that many mobile devices are hyper stimulating our youth because of the surplus of stimuli that these devices provide. They write, “…when the learner moves from context to context, the environmental stimuli change and there is an associated greater risk of interruption, distraction, and reduced concentration.” (2012) While the tablet may initially provide a great resource for the student it can be argued that its surplus of functions may overshadow the teacher or instructor. I’m sure many instructors agree that having mobile devices in a classroom often distracts students more than it focuses them.
Merchant plays devil’s advocate in opposition to classrooms being saturated with mobile devices claiming, “Enterprise of education, although egalitarian by intent, is organized, maintained, and serviced by the same dominant groups that succeed in it” (2012). This means that communities that are already ahead of the technological curve, typically communities of a higher socio-economic status will flourish regardless because of high digital literacy. If modes of learning and assessment through mobile devices are applied to lower income communities, the achievement gap will only increase as those students are expected to grasp completely foreign topics. Because these communities don’t understand the technology, they will most likely become apathetic towards it, or not use it to its maximum efficiency, further maintaining the status quo. This irregularity can only be curbed by having a more comprehensive plan for mobile device education in these communities.
Conclusion
The majority of responsibility in handling the saturation of classrooms with mobile devices falls into the hands of teachers and educational leaders. Merchant argues that teachers and leaders need:
To be convinced of the practicality of these devices
Know how to manage potential levels of distraction
To exercise their own necessary (and imagined) control over learners and learning (2012)
Because the prohibition of these devices is a moot topic, administrations must move forward with comprehensive legislation on the use of mobile devices by students and teachers alike. These devices have the potential to morph the classroom and educational experience into possibilities that haven’t been plausible until now. K.Crampa illuminates a possibility in her essay when she states, “The ability to adjust content to student level and allow self-paced learning may thus lend mobile technology as an ideal tool for implementing differentiated instruction” (2011) What seems most daunting about approaching mobile devices in the educational sphere is that the possibilities are endless and due to the constantly evolving nature of these devices, any curriculum stemming from or about these devices will need to be constantly updated and revised for currency. Regarding tablet use in the classroom, Reid proclaims, “The iPad may in fact be the right combination of mobile tool and connected device for the classroom to meet this kind of need” (2012). Incorporating tablets into daily practice can greatly increase a student’s purposive, perfunctory, visual-spatial, and haptically driven thinking process. (Simpson Walsh Rowsell, 2013). If properly regulated and controlled, these devices have the ability to benefit the educational system while supplementing traditional curriculum and didactic methods.