Six Different Devices Three different School Levels Elementary ▫ Middle ▫ High Laptop Chromebook iPad Mini Windows 8 Tablet Nexus 7 Kindle Fire

Comparing Mobile Computing Devices in the Context of Teaching and Learning Nancy Hoover Ph.D

Chesterfield County Public Schools Department of Research and Evaluation 1

Comparing Mobile Computing Devices in the Context of Teaching and Learning

Prepared for: Chesterfield County Public Schools Author: Nancy Hoover, PhD – Director of Research and Evaluation Department of Research and Evaluation

2

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Review of the literature ................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Red Data ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Concerns Related to Technology .............................................................................................................. 8 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Research Design.......................................................................................................................................... 10 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................................................... 12 Qualitative analysis of teacher data ........................................................................................................ 13 Research Question 1: When teaching in a blended learning environment, to what extent does a mobile computing device affect a) student achievement, b) student self-efficacy, c) student mastery goal orientation, and d) student motivation? ....................................................................................... 13 Research Question 2: When teaching in a blended learning environment, which mobile learning device is the most easily incorporated in the classroom environment considering the division’s technology infrastructure?................................................................................................................... 20 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Instructional Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 27 Technical Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 28 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 32 References ................................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix A: Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 38 Appendix B: Letter to Teachers to Participate ........................................................................................ 39 Appendix C: Student Consent Form ....................................................................................................... 40 Appendix D: Teacher interview questions .............................................................................................. 42 Appendix E: Student interview questions ............................................................................................... 44

3

List of Tables TABLE 1. DEVICE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH SCHOOLS....................................................................10 TABLE 2. STUDENT REPORTED CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES AND ASSIGNMENTS ...................................................................................15 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' INSTRUCTION USE OF COMPUTING DEVICES ACCORDING TO 21ST CENTURY LEARNING SKILLS .............19 TABLE 4. TEACHER DEVICE USE RECOMMENDATION ...............................................................................................................24 TABLE 5. STUDENT EVALUATION OF MCD FEATURES BY SCHOOL LEVEL ......................................................................................24 TABLE 6. DEVICE COMPATIBILITY WITHIN DIVISION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................26

List of Figure FIGURE 1. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT RED RESPONDENTS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT. ......................................................................8

4

Acknowledgements Many thanks to the team of teachers who fearlessly agreed to participate in this study. Their willingness to take risks using an MCD in their classroom is a measure of the quality teachers we have in our division. The technology department took on the Herculean task of set up and deployment of six different devices, each presenting their own problems, and never missed a step with their typical, day-to-day duties. Mr. Matthew Tobin served as the lead technology integrator on the research team. He worked tirelessly to make sure teachers had the appropriate support and was instrumental in device deployment and collection. Many thanks to Dr. Lisa Abrams and the Ph.D. candidates in her qualitative research class: Sarah Conklin, Erika Dumke, Divya Varier, Kristen Luck, and Amanda Turner. These students, under the direction of Dr. Abrams, significantly contributed to this study through their work on developing teacher interview and student focus group protocols and analyzing the qualitative data. Their work is directly responsible for the rich, qualitative data analysis found in this report. Dr. Kevin Hughes provided statistical analysis advice and Mrs. Jamie Barnes was invaluable in writing the literature review, assisting with the analysis of data and report creation, and in general serving as a one of the lead researchers on this project. Dr. Adam Seldow was instrumental in developing the research design and was truly the force that got this research study complete. Dr. Nancy R. Hoover Director, Research and Evaluation Chesterfield County Public Schools

5

Introduction Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) is scaling up Blended Learning to support a digital curriculum and a growing digital ecosystem. In today’s classroom, both teachers and students require immediate and consistent access to mobile computing devices (MCDs). According to a recent nationally representative sample of teenagers in the Pew Internet and American Life Project study, 93% of teens have access to some type of Internet-connected computer at home; however, 71% of this group shares this computer with other family members (Madden et al., 2013). It follows that many teens may lack consistent at-home access to a computer for learning. This year, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) became one of the first education departments in the United States to require online testing for all state-administered exams. As such, CCPS schools contain computer labs and various arrays of laptop carts for testing and occasional classroom use. Computer labs and laptop carts require students to either leave or rearrange the classroom to engage with the teacher and instructional content in a completely different way than their normal classroom experience. CCPS teachers voice concerns that they cannot fully invest in Blended Learning and prepare their students for college and careers with limited and sporadic access to computers and the Internet. Therefore, the CCPS strategic plan, Design for Excellence 2020, invests significant time and resources in scaling up student access to MCDs. The purpose of this pilot study is to examine, through the voice of students and teachers, the experiences in a well-planned and executed instructional unit where students and teachers have access to various MCDs to support instruction. Specifically, this study set out to answer the following research questions: 1. When teaching in a blended learning environment, to what extent does a mobile computing device affect student a) achievement, b) self-efficacy, c) mastery goal orientation, and d) motivation?

6

2. When teaching in a blended learning environment, which mobile learning device is the most easily incorporated in the classroom environment considering the division’s technology infrastructure? See Appendix A for a definition of terms associated with this study.

Review of the literature The Internet, computers, and mobile technologies are an integral part of today’s digital age youth. As mobile computing devices become smaller and more portable, these devices become tools for lifelong learning for anyone, anywhere, and at any time (Wong & Looi, 2011). The U.S. Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan 2010 states that “technology-based learning and assessment system will be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to continuously improve the education system at all levels” (p. ix). Articles on one-to-one computing, an environment where each student is assigned an MCD, frequently reported that students used their computers in four different ways: a) exploration, b) expression, c) communication, and d) organization of work (Fleischer, 2011). This is similar to Bruce and Levin’s (1997, 2001) proposed taxonomy of technology for learning, which consists of media for: a) inquiry, b) expression, c) communication, and d) construction (Lei and Zhao, 2008). Information available on one-to-one computing notes several positive outcomes including: increased student engagement and use of the computer for writing, analyzing, and researching; a movement toward student-centered classrooms; decreased disciplinary problems; and an increase in student time spent on homework at home (Bebell & Kay, 2010). Additionally, integrating mobile computing devices into instructional practice allows teachers to personalize instruction for students, resulting in increased student motivation. Personalized and seamless learning opportunities are two positive outcomes of one-to-one initiatives. Technology assists with personalized learning because it allows for immediate feedback and

7

can provide resources for remediation, access to the Internet for anywhere/anytime learning, and the ability for students to learn at their own pace. Seamless learning occurs when formal learning time at school extends to informal learning time where students can be self-directed and learn about their personal interests (Chan et al., 2006). The goal is to “empower students to learn wherever and whenever they are stimulated to learn” (Wong & Looi, 2011, p. 2364).

Project Red Data Consistent with the scholarly literature and previous studies, the Project RED seminal one-to-one computing national research project found that when districts properly implement an initiative that provides every student with a computer, disciplinary action goes down, high-stakes test scores go up, fewer students drop out and more students graduate (See Figure 1). Project RED concluded, “In general, respondents say that schools with a one-to-one student-computer ratio outperform non-one-to-one

Figure 1. Percentage of Project Red respondents reporting improvement.

schools on both academic and financial benefits” (Greaves et al., 2010).

Concerns Related to Technology Literature reviews reported very little about the problems occurring in a one-to-one school, but Weston and Bain (2010) report few studies give empirical attention to that issue. Studies cite that technical issues identified as problems within a one-to-one program were small and solvable (Fleischer, 2011). However, Kukulska-Hulme (2007) cited Luckin et al’s (2005) study that describes a need for additional staff time to assist with technical support, account administration, and finding ways to work around features that do not function as required. The Manolo Project (2005) also emphasized the need for technical support in their final report (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007). Ting (2012) reported on the usability of mobile devices and identified limitations, such as “tiny screen size, low computational power, small battery capacity, limited input interface and narrow bandwidth” (p.121). Other concerns listed in the

8

literature included the different levels of student information literacy (Lei and Zhao, 2008) and the ease of plagiarism among students (Warschaurer, 2007) because of the cut and paste features.

Summary Fleischer (2011) reported research on one-to-one is scattered, with some articles reporting laptop programs had positive effects on student learning while others claim more research is needed. In looking at the positive effects, Maninger & Holden (2009) stated one-to-one programs tended to be learnercentered and created a sense of motivation and engagement. Students also reported spending more time at home revising their presentations and documents and having a greater sense of autonomy because they could choose how they learned the material (Fleischer, 2011). Various reports have provided feedback on how schools can implement a one-to-one program. Based on the Texas Immersion Pilot (TIP), Mortensen identified three practices schools must adopt if they want to improve teaching and learning with technology: (a) providing leadership training and support, (b) adapting traditional tools and practices to support technology immersion, and (c) using technology to create 24/7 learning opportunities (2011). Sprankle (2012) also suggests continuous formal assessment using surveys, data of student improvements, on-task observations as well as anecdotal feedback, as this feedback will help in determining if technology is meeting the goals or objectives of the program. Finally, Overbay, Mollette, and Vasu (2011) outlined five lessons when implementing technology: building enthusiasm among staff for a technology program, making sure the plan fits at the school level, building in professional development, encouraging collaboration among teachers, and becoming turnover-proof by having a few teachers act as technology experts and “developing teachers’ expertise and sharing leadership for the initiative” (p. 59).

9

Research Design This qualitative study gathered data from 18 classrooms, six at each school level--elementary, middle, and high and involved over 450 students. Teacher interviews, student focus groups and written teacher reflections provided data that addressed both research questions. Each of the school system’s 62 principals nominated two to five teachers whom they felt would be well suited to participate in the mobile computing device pilot study. From the list of nominated teachers, researchers randomly selected six teachers, and several alternates, from each school level (elementary, middle, and high) to participate in the pilot study. Selected teachers submitted intent (See Appendix B) to participate and once the participant pool was confirmed, each of the six classrooms at the three school levels received a different MCD (see Table 1). Table 1. Device Distribution across Elementary, Middle, and High Schools High

School Level Device

Elementary

Middle

Dell Laptop

Language Arts 4th Grade

Math 6th Grade

Chromebook

Science 5th Grade

Language Arts 7th Grade

Social Studies 9th Grade & Social Studies 10th/11th Grades*

iPad Mini

Social Studies 3rd Grade

Math 8th Grade

Language Arts 9th Grade

Windows 8 Tablet

Social Studies 3rd Grade

Algebra I 8th Grade

Kindle Fire

Language Arts 5th Grade

Physical Science 8th Grade

Nexus 7

Social Studies 4th Grade

Language Arts 6th Grade

English C 12th Grade

AP English, 11th Grade

Not deployed

Algebra II, 10th Grade

*Chromebooks were deployed at two different High Schools

Prior to using the device with their students, teachers sent consent forms home with each student (See Appendix C). Though all students used an MCD on class, only those students who had parent consent were allowed to take the device home with them. Teachers received training on the study parameters and expectations. Elementary teachers decided which content area they wished to use with

10

their students while secondary teachers picked a specific class for the study. Teachers developed a unit plan that spanned no fewer than five lessons, and no more than twelve lessons. Within the unit lessons, students were required to generate products representative of the four primary uses of MCDs as identified in the literature review: a) exploration, b) expression, c) communication, and d) organization of work (Fleischer, 2011). Specifically, units incorporated the following common elements: web-based pre-test, writing sample, multi-media work products, Google Drive / Edmodo usage as creative and communication tools, web-based content/interactives, and a web-based post-test. Technicians established technical support tiers to mitigate any difficulties teachers might have when implementing the device in the classroom. Researchers took care to provide only the level of support that was realistic if the division implemented a one-to-one program. As a result, teachers used the existing technology support help system for all technical support requests throughout the study. Teachers submitted daily reflections that documented student device usage, student time spent on the device and purpose, as well as the details of any issues they or the students encountered with software or hardware, and expounded upon how students used MDCs to guide their own learning. Researchers gathered additional qualitative data from student focus groups, as well as teacher and technology personnel interviews. Emerging themes related to the study provided insight into teacher and student overall perceptions of using mobile computing devices in the learning environment.

Methodology Researchers collected and analyzed data from teacher interviews, student focus groups, and teacher reflections submitted electronically during their technology-infused instructional unit. Members of the research team monitored technical problems associated with each type of MCD used in the study. Researchers developed an interview protocol (see Appendix D) designed to elicit teachers’ perceptions of the use of an MCD within the learning environment. The team interviewed selected teachers using this protocol, digitally recording each interview to aid with data collection. Researchers transcribed and

11

coded interviews to analyze and identify emergent themes. Using an iterative process, researchers developed codes to capture content related to technology integration issues, instructional use and delivery, role of the teacher, feedback, communication, and assessment practices. After the teachers had finished the instructional unit using the MCD, researchers conducted small student focus groups to gain student perspectives on how the use of an MCD affected their learning. As with the teacher interviews, the research team developed a student focus group protocol to solicit similar information from each group of students (see Appendix E). This analysis yielded codes that captured similar themes in the student focus group interviews as found in the teacher interviews. After reviewing the low functionality of the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire, the research team chose not to conduct student focus groups for these two devices. Periodically, if not daily, teachers recorded their reflections of students’ use of an MCD during class. The research team developed a survey for teachers to submit their reflections electronically. At the conclusion of the study, researchers used these reflections to analyze teachers’ observations of the impact of an MCD on student engagement and motivation, as well as examining any technology issues teachers had along the way. Finally, an interview with the lead technology integrator provided a broad overview of the technical issues related to each MCD. These data were compared to teacher observations to provide an overall, qualitative evaluation of teaching with each device.

Results Descriptive statistics Six teachers at each school level, elementary, middle and high, participated in the Mobile Computing Device Pilot Study. Of those 18 teachers, 14 were female (78%) and 4 were male (22%). Teaching experience ranged from 2 to 29 years, with an average of 12 years teaching experience. Selected teachers represented all four content areas, with the greatest participants coming from language 12

arts classes and the least from science classes: 7 English teachers (39%), 5 social studies teachers (28%), 4 mathematics teachers (22%), and 2 science teachers (11%).

Qualitative analysis of teacher data Several major themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis of teacher interviews, student focus groups, and teacher reflections. The emergent themes fell into two broad categories: those associated with the impact of the use of an MCD on the learning environment and technology issues that were barriers to effective use of an MCD in the learning environment. These themes addressed the two research questions for this study. Research Question 1: When teaching in a blended learning environment, to what extent does a mobile computing device affect a) student achievement, b) student self-efficacy, c) student mastery goal orientation, and d) student motivation? In terms of the effect of the MCD’s use in the learning environment, several themes related to student achievement, self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and motivation emerged from the qualitative data analysis of teacher interviews. In addition to teacher perceptions of these four student attributes, an additional theme emerged related to 21st century skills: Expression, Organization, Communication and Exploration. These themes combined to give an overall description of a MCD’s impact on the learning environment. Impact on the learning environment. One theme that emerged from the qualitative analysis pertained to the instructional environment for students. Teachers reported that having a device in students’ hands transformed their role from a teacher-centered classroom to a learner-centered classroom. As one elementary teacher commented, “I think it increases more hands-on, that the students are…doing things more independently instead of me always showing them. And they are discovering how they can do it.” One middle school teacher had this positive comment: “I’ve always wanted to be one of those teachers who talks little and facilitates more

13

and it [device] helps me be able to do that.” A high school teacher reported: “…spending a lot more time facilitating, running around and answering questions, directing....” Teachers reported student use of an MCD increased instructional support and provided seamless learning, extending the walls of the classroom to enhance student achievement. They were able to provide more feedback to students and, as a result, increased opportunities for students to generate a higher quality finished product. As one elementary teachers noted, “...I think they [students] ask for more feedback. ...They would say, here’s our video, what can we fix? ...They would share their paper with me and I would say, oh, you need to edit, you need to look at this paragraph....” Another middle school teacher mentioned that the use of technology provided efficient feedback. The feedback enhanced students’ learning cycle, with one teacher commenting: “I can go immediately in before they get too far and say...let’s back this up, and we can chat about it and I can give them that, so I assess their writing in that way...I can assess before, I can do the formative before we get to the summative.” In addition, as one high school teacher noted, having electronic access to student work made monitoring of students’ work much more convenient: “I like having Google Docs where they can actually just do something in a document and I can go check their folder to see their work.” More efficient monitoring of student work made it easier for teachers to give timely feedback to students, and in doing so provided opportunities for students to increase the quality of their work. A similar theme emerged from teacher lesson reflections. One teacher specifically noted that with an MCD, student achievement seemed greater compared to similar classes in prior years. Her reflection stated, I think my students are coming farther along in their analysis than previous groups. They are more insightful. I'm not sure if this is because of the technology, the way that I have planned the unit, or the fact that they are allowed to interact more frequently and on a deeper level. I love this aspect. I also love that in the middle of instruction, if they have a question, they go seek the answer. They are not only more inquisitive, but they are more willing to find their own answers. They looked up an author that we were discussing and found out all of this information about him. I also love the fact that (other than today's lesson) the technology has made my class virtually paperless. All of the documents are available for student use. I don't have to worry about making copies or students losing things. It is ALL right THERE. Love it. I would definitely love to continue teaching in this manner. 14

Students liked having their own mobile device and even if their specific device was not the most compatible with the division’s network, they felt having a personal device was valuable. Students were especially positive about the convenience of using the device at school; they did not have to go to the computer lab to access the Internet or complete classwork or homework. However, for middle and high school students who had computers and internet access at home, they preferred to use their home computer. “I hardly used it at home because like I don’t like the idea, like you can’t really do anything besides, like they don’t want you to go on Facebook or YouTube, or just do anything on it, so I just basically do everything on my regular computer.” For some students with home access, the MCD proved more valuable at school than at home due to their desire to frequent social networking sites blocked by the school division’s content filter. Student reported using the device for several assignment, projects and activities (See Table 2). Table 2. Student reported classroom activities and assignments Classroom activities and assignments

Other academic uses of device

Personal use of device

Elementary

Social studies and Science; Dr. Seuss Games; Math games; created document on Microsoft Word, journal writing; crated power point presentations; story writing; Edmodo surveys and quizzes; created flash cards; used the Internet to look up words; Edmodo to communicate with teacher; Ideasketch

None reported

Play games*

Middle

English, Math, Social Studies; Created posters by adding pictures and text boxes into a document; web quest; variety of writing tasks; Math homework; took quizzes; peer review

Research for other class work

Surf the Internet

High

Homework; conducted video interviews; Math quiz using Edmodo; used Google docs to share documents and submit assignments

Check grades; used student drop box Google Drive to organize class work; used Google to do research; used calculator, periodic table for reference

Surf the Internet; play games

*“Playing games” in some cases referred to educational games assigned by the teacher

Student attributes. Additional themes that emerged highlighted student engagement and touched on students’ increased self-efficacy and goal mastery. When using an MCD, teachers noted that their students participated more, and felt students focused more in class. As one teacher using the Windows 8 Tablet

15

noted, “Some of the kids that tend to zone out, or, you know, [are] uninvolved, all of a sudden wanted to be part of that [classroom activity], they wanted to be on the technology and using it...” The use of the device offered opportunities for increased collaboration spurring students to take control of their learning and help each other. “They have become better problem solvers...they have more initiative in terms of their own learning and trying to find a different way to use the device to be successful,” noted one teacher. Teachers also noticed instances of positive student interactions, students helping each other. “Especially with peer interaction...they’ll just kind of lean over and just quietly tell the students...Mrs. X said go here instead of saying why can’t you keep up. So I think it really helps better with students getting along with each other.” Additionally, teachers reported students were more self-reliant and independent. In student focus group interviews, students found that easy access information gave them an increased sense of independence and self-reliance. The ability to lookup information as they need it empowered students to take responsibility for their own learning. As one middle school student stated: “I like how you can research something you don’t know, you can just research it instead of asking the teacher. Because she might be doing other stuff, so it’s easier to do that.” Elementary students found their learning was amplified when they used their device to complete their school work: “I sort of learned how to spell a little bit more words because it (the computer) had the spelling check and then it spells the word correctly, now I know how to spell some words.” The use of the device, however, was not without its problems. Not all forms of student engagement during the study were productive. Teachers reported the device was sometimes a source of distraction for some students. “I still have some students who are...playing games or they are not on the right screen...this is kind of a distraction for many of them.” This was also found in the analysis of the student focus group interviews. Several students made comments how the device could distract them from completing their work. Temptation to browse the Internet or play games was a commonly mentioned distraction.

16

In terms of motivation, many teachers reported students showed increased motivation to complete their assignments when given an MCD. Homework completion increased and student work was more thorough and detailed. Teachers provided several examples where students went above and beyond the assignment’s requirements. “I was really surprised at the completeness of it [homework]. Because they wrote complete sentences...And some even went a little step further and even like added pictures or graphics to their homework assignments and I didn’t say they had to do that. So...you know they wanted to do more.” Another teacher commented: “[The students] didn’t realize it...but they actually have done more work and made better connections to their reading and writing even outside the classroom.” Students echoed these same sentiments when asked if the MCD increased their motivation. “I felt more motivated to do assignments rather than if she just gave us a worksheet and we were just sitting, we were doing book work or something,” commented one high school student. Another said, “...being in class and having access to Edmodo and having to do an assignment later at night when I could just easily do it now since I have the access I’m willing to do it now.” A middle school student said, “...if we had free time, we could just pull it up, and we could do that instead of just sitting there and we could be more efficient by doing that.” However, not every student felt the use of an MCD had an impact on motivation: “I used it a little for my schoolwork but I don’t really think it helps ‘gradewise’ or ‘involvementwise,’ I really don’t think it added or took away from my schoolwork.” Though this high school student found no addedvalue with respect to motivation, he did not feel that it had a negative impact either. Despite some students’ apathy towards the use of an MCD, on average in this study students enjoyed the flexibility an MCD offered to complete homework during free time in school or to catch up on incomplete class work at home. Some students even used the MCD to do class work from home on a snow day or when they were absent from school. Researchers found many of the same themes of increased student engagement, motivation, selfefficacy, and mastery goal orientation in the teachers’ lesson reflections. One teacher noted a student who, prior to having an MCD, showed little interest in his work and rarely completed his assignments. In her lesson reflections, she wrote, “I wanted to cry tears of joy today. One of my students who has had 17

very little motivation to do much of anything all year actually participated heavily in today's discussion, particularly concerning the videos that were last night's homework. Homework has been a struggle for him all year long, and here he was helping to guide our class discussion. It was a beautiful moment.” 21st Century Skills. Teachers used the devices in a variety of ways to develop content knowledge and skills. In general, teachers found the use of technology targeted 21st century skills of expression, organization, communication, and exploration. Providing an MDC for each student allowed teachers more opportunities to weave these skills into their lessons. The extent to which students employed these 21st century skills varied by device. For example, some devices lent themselves more to expression (written, visual) than others did, while some were better at accessing digital resources than producing a student composed product. Researchers also found the complexity of device use greater the higher grade levels than the lower grades levels. Table 3 provides examples of how students used the MCDs to demonstrate their mastery of 21st century skills at each school level.

18

Table 3. Summary of teachers' instruction use of computing devices according to 21st century learning skills

Elementary

Expression

Organization

Communication

Exploration

Create presentations using Power Point

Set up presentations and Power Points & set up files and folders

Students can share files with teachers to get more immediate feedback

When doing “word study”, could immediately look up word definitions

Use of Google docs to share and prepare papers with a group

Students collaborated as a group to write a paper

Students take initiative to look up answers to questions before asking the teacher

Journal writing; creating documents on certain topics Use of camera to include pictures in projects

Able to take notes on the device

On a snow day, students communicated with the teacher and finish a quiz

Can record teachers, so students can access lecture information if needed

Teacher able to place assignments in Google docs for quick access Survey students quickly through use of Edmodo

Middle

Students able to keep track of and ask questions quickly Provided students an opportunity to work more at “their speed”

Students create and organize documents in Google docs Collaboration with other students through use of Google tools

Students “expressed” what they learned through creating videos and verbally expression High

Assignments more varied than handing in papers, creating presentations; (i.e., creating movies)

Students less likely to “lose” papers or assignments when available electronically

While learning about other cultures, used devices to record interviews

Use of electronic tools, such as Google and Dropbox, to organize and share work

Students email and ask questions through Edmodo outside of school hours Student home sick communicated with teacher to find what they missed in class

Enhances collaboration among students; willing to help each other Teacher able to share class materials before class starts Students more open to group work

Students “discovered a lot on their own” Students able to conduct more independent research Created own questions for a test (contribute questions to possibly be on test)

When students have questions, will sometimes look up answers before asking the teacher Lessens “gaps in knowledge” because all students can search for answers

Absent students have ability to access work

One advantage students noted in using an MCD was that increased access to the Internet made it easier to turn in assignments. The mobility of the device proved to be a real asset to students: “...you don’t have to be sitting at a computer desk, you can have it like at your regular desk, you have the Tablet there with the notes pulled up and your paper right next to it so you could just copy them, so that was helpful. “Turning things in, like once you get assignments on Google Docs like to look at something you

19

just get right on and look at it, or turn it in...” Easy access to Google Docs for organization and ease of taking quizzes were two advantages noted by students in the study. The use of an MCD enhanced collaboration among students. Middle school students reported it was easier to communicate with peers through the chat capabilities of Google Docs, and they felt that they got to know their peers better this way. Increased access to their teacher, using Edmodo, was another positive. High school students, on the other hand, did not feel the MCD changed how they communicated with their peers. Student focus groups did reveal that many of the noted collaboration advantages were device specific. For example, the Chromebook seemed to lend itself well to online collaboration but this was not the case with the Windows 8 Tablet. In addition to the 21st century skills of expression, organization, communication, and exploration, simply using technology to take notes and complete assignments proved an advantage. Students reported that it was faster to type notes and assignments compared to writing notes or completing assignments on paper. Younger students felt it was less strenuous to type and older students reported it saved time and helped them work more efficiently. As one middle school student explained, “I’m a fast typer so I’m able to write a paper in around 15 minutes typing, but whenever I write it will take around 45 minutes to actually write the paper, so it makes it a lot quicker and I'm able to take it home and actually work on it at home.” The use of MCDs enhanced opportunities for students to strengthen their 21st Century Skills in a way that supported their learning. Research Question 2: When teaching in a blended learning environment, which mobile learning device is the most easily incorporated in the classroom environment considering the division’s technology infrastructure? Through teacher interviews, two major themes emerged regarding how MCDs integrated with the division’s current technology infrastructure. The first theme pertained to the initial technology issues and the learning curve for teachers and students. The second theme identified barriers that had negative impacts on the use of an MCD in the classroom.

20

The learning curve. Teachers noted there was an initial learning curve/start up time associated with using the devices that ranged from technical issues to device issues. Teachers reported sporadic difficulty accessing the wireless network across all devices. One teacher whose students used the Windows 8 Tablet said, “...I'd say probably the first three classes that we had it, it was glitchy. The very first class, we had difficulty logging into the network and so it took us pretty much an entire class period just to get everybody logged on, get them on the same screen, to get them where they needed to be. The second class...they weren’t comfortable using the Google Tools...And so at the very beginning...I spent a full class period going over, this is how you use Google, this is how you can share things, this is how you make copies...” Another teacher commented: “We are not able to access Edmodo through the iPad. We've had a lot of difficulty doing that, so they [students] haven’t been able to use it.” Teachers also discussed the initial time needed to teach students how to use the device; however, the amount of time required varied by device. For example, in classrooms using the Windows 8 Tablet, students and teachers spent some time just becoming familiar with a new operating system before they could begin to use the device for instructional purposes. Despite the learning curve in the classroom, teachers felt the extra effort was worth the benefit. Students were also frustrated, at times, learning to use the MCD. Training at the elementary level was especially challenging because students required training on the technology itself while at the same time learning new content material. Upper level students were a bit more technology-savvy and reported an easier transition to using an MCD. Though there was a learning curve for all devices, the magnitude of the learning curve seemed to be device specific. For example, students using the Chromebook reported a much easier time learning to use the device than those students who used the Windows 8 Tablet. As one high school student using a Chromebook explained, “It wasn’t too complicated because it was just like a basic computer like a laptop. It had differences but the transition wasn’t too hard. Like some kids did struggle but like after a while, they were able to pick up and everybody was on the same page in one unit.”

21

Barriers to effective use of an MCD in the learning environment. The second theme related to barriers associated with the division’s technology controls and business practices. Teachers felt less district central control of technology would provide more flexibility for teachers to maximize the device’s use. Comments made by teachers included: “…Add more programs to the laptop…because a lot of times I think some of the programs we have to ask if they can be installed.” (Laptop), or “..When I needed assistance it was because [of] an administrative controlled [issue] that I couldn’t fix…” Teachers expressed frustration with blocked access to certain web-based resources that prevented students from using some digital resources during class. “Most of the things we wanted to access we’ve been able to, with the exception of...videos or things I want [students] to see, YouTube is...the main provider and we [students] can’t access that at school.” Students echoed these same frustrations with the quality of the wireless connectivity in the school. Students reported the Wi-Fi in their school was slow at times, especially when many people were trying to log on at the same time. This limited their ability to use the device for class work. “...at school it takes like a really long time and at school you only have like two or three bars and at home you have all four bars.” Researchers detected the same theme when analyzing teacher reflections. Teachers expressed difficulty just getting a device to operate within the division’s technology infrastructure. For example, a teacher using the Nexus 7 noted: “[The] Nexus 7 does not support Flash player, so many websites do not operate on this device to their full capability. A patch was put on my Nexus 7 to add flash player, but the integrators [technology coaches] tell me they can't do this on the student devices.” Another teacher, assigned the Kindle Fire, wrote, “[The] devices will need to be able to sign onto the CCPS wireless school internet NOT the guest internet. Many sites that I want to get to are blocked, the biggest one being my.ccpsnet.net [student portal]. If we can't get to the page that should be the one source to provide all access then what’s the point? Something to think about in the future.” From the student perspective, restricted access to web content, such as YouTube, was problematic at times: “I’m not sure if websites were blocked on the Tablets but a lot of websites that we were 22

supposed to go on at least on my tablet, like wouldn’t load at all.” One additional concern expressed by students was the battery life of their assigned device and limited charging units/plugs in the classroom. Despite their efforts to charge their device overnight, there were times when they needed to charge their device during the school day. When they needed to charge the device in class, there were not enough plug points: “And there’s not that many plugs and some kids [need] to plug in the computer and there’s only four plugs in the classroom.” Ironically, an additional barrier for students came as a result of the aforementioned advantage of enhanced collaboration and communication among their peers. The chat feature within Google Docs allowed increased communication and collaboration among students; however, students’ restricted online identity hampered that communication. The exclusive online use of numeric student IDs, rather than student names, made it difficult to determine with whom one was communicating. Unable to identity classmates undermined the effectiveness of this app: “...one time I used the Google chat looking at an assignment and I chatted with someone. But the struggle, the downfall with that is you can’t see anybody’s name, so all you see is like the student number.” Thirteen teachers, crossing the span of all four devices, made recommendations based on their assigned device. Overall, three devices received favorable recommendations, while the remaining three devices received unfavorable recommendations. Teachers provided additional comments to clarify their recommendations (see Table 4). Student focus group analysis yielded a similar table listing positive and negative features for each device (See Table 5).

23

2

2

1

Possibly Comments

1

Windows Tablet

Laptop

2

Nexus 7

No

Chromebook

Yes

iPad Mini

Recommendation

Kindle

Table 4. Teacher Device Use Recommendation

1

3

1

“...difficult to use”

They’re used to the apps, the variety of free apps, wealth of resources.

Operating system with more functionality

Works well with the school network

Really small, hard to type, not easy to use

Windows 8 software is a new operating system

No keyboard, Not able to print

Work on the glitches, and the accessibility to apps

The need for access to Wi-Fi at home in order to save could be a problem

Less training needed for the device

Front facing camera is an issue

No keyboard, touch screen issues, and camera issues

Integration was “terrible, terrible, terrible...”

Size consideration, may be better suited for elementary

“For middle schools students, this would be the best choice

may be more novel for elementary students

Nexus does not support Flash

Tablets yes, Window Tablet, probably no

“...there were more functionality issues

Flash issues

Table 5. Student Evaluation of MCD Features by School Level Device*

Positive Features

Negative Features

Dell Laptop

Easy to use; typing made completing work faster; helps prepare for using technology in higher grades

Takes a long time to load; students accidentally shut down by pressing the power button; mouse would get stuck; heavy to carry with other school books

iPad Mini

Record features; spell check in word processing; learning games applications

Could not connect to Edmodo; websites would not load

Chromebook

Keyboard; access to Google Docs; flexibility of using device to complete work at home/school; loads/boots quickly; six hour charge; small size; easy to learn; access to e-textbook; hands-on learning

Less memory on device to store documents; touchpad was not user friendly for selecting and downloading; copy and paste feature; lack of features compared to laptop (e.g., toolbar, Paint, other accessories); inability to work offline; camera issues

Windows Tablet

Automatic save feature when using Google Docs; easy to switch between tabs; less complicated than laptop; tile format; easy access to search engine to look up information; handier compared to laptop; compact; touch screen; big screen

Uses a lot of battery power; no features to conserve power and takes a long time to charge; keyboard is not userfriendly, especially for math (using numbers and expressions); cursor did not work consistently; no lock screen feature; camera and video feature issues: freezes, no clear indicator when recording; playback feature issues;

*Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire not evaluated by students

24

Technical challenges. Frustrations expressed by teachers in their daily reflections surrounding the use of the MCD were validated by the division technology integrators’ experience in setting up each device both before deployment and while working with students and teachers during the study. An interview with the lead technology integrator provided keen insight to the ongoing challenges of working within the division’s technology infrastructure and meeting the instructional needs of the classroom. He noted, “One of the biggest challenges for the division if every student is to have a MCD will be balancing the need to manage devices from a central level while giving teachers maximum flexibility to access the digital resources they need for quality instruction.” Six important technical themes emerged related to the ease of use for each device within the division’s technology infrastructure. For each theme, integrators rated each device as compatible, challenging, and extremely challenging. Researchers defined each category as follows: Compatible: Technicians could enter most device and network configuration settings centrally, and distribute to devices over the network; devices connected to the wireless network quickly and consistently without re-entering authentication credentials; the software tools required for the pilot worked consistently on the device (e.g., Google Docs, Edmodo, etc.). Challenging: Technicians could enter some device and network configuration settings centrally, and distribute to devices over the network; devices connected to the wireless network with occasional issues, and sometimes required re-entering authentication credentials; some of the software tools required for the pilot worked consistently on the device (e.g., Google Docs, Edmodo, etc.). Extremely Challenging: Overall, this designation was reserved for devices that would require major changes to the existing CCPS network infrastructure, or for devices that did not function well in the day-to-day teaching and learning activities. Specifically, technicians in some cases could not enter network configuration settings centrally, and had to configure each device by

25

hand; devices rarely connected to the wireless network without issue; and, most of the software tools required for the pilot worked consistently on the device (e.g., Google Docs, Edmodo, etc.). The first technical theme, mobile device management, was associated with the efficacy and ease of installation of software necessary to keep track of devices. Mobile device management for some devices provided important configuration settings that enabled wireless connectivity and other administrative functions within the school. In some cases, the mobile device management software would allow updates and enable requested software programs to be installed from a central location. Technology integrators also evaluated the network compatibility for each device against the ease with which students could access the Internet, a requirement for students to access and effectively use the device to enhance learning. The remaining technical themes were associated with those 21st century skills research showed were enhanced by student use of an MCD. Document creation represented the 21st Century Skill of “Expression.” The other 21st Century Skills categories were served by the following tools: Google Docs - Organization; access to Edmodo - Communication; and, access to digital resources - Exploration. The lead technology integrator for the research team summarized each device with respect to these themes (see Table 6). Table 6. Device Compatibility within Division Technology Infrastructure Mobile Device Management

Network Compatibility

Document Creation

Access to Google Apps

Access to Edmodo

Access to Digital Resources

Laptop

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Chromebook

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

Compatible

iPad Mini

Compatible

Compatible

Challenging

Compatible

Compatible

Challenging

Windows 8 Tablet

Challenging

Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Challenging

Compatible

Kindle Fire

Extremely Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Challenging

Challenging

Nexus 7

Extremely Challenging

Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Extremely Challenging

Compatible

Compatible

26

Discussion Instructional Discussion Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) has a strategic plan designed to support the division’s vision of providing an “engaging and relevant education that prepares every students to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing world” (CCPS, 2012, p. 5). The division’s mission statement reflects the desire to “emphasize and support high levels of achievement...with options and opportunities to meet the diverse needs and interests of individual students.” (CCPS, 2012, p. 5). To this end, this study sought to evaluate the impact of an MCD on learning environment and determine what might be issues that need addressing in the event the division moved to a one-to-one mobile computing program. The qualitative data from this study supports Bebell & Kay’s (2010) findings that when using MCD, student engagement increased and the learning environment shifted toward student-centered classrooms rather than teacher-centered (Bebell & Kay, 2010). Teachers in this study described how their role changed within their own classroom - moving to a student/learning-centered classroom rather than the primary source for content knowledge. They reported increased homework completion and were very positive about the effect the use of an MCD had on the quality of student work. Students reported an increased sense of motivation and interest in their work. As Maninger & Holden (2009) found in their study, students in this study benefited from a shift from a teacher-centered learning environment to one that was more learner-centered. As a result, students felt more in charge of their learning and this autonomy had a positive impact on their motivation, self-efficacy and goal mastery. As noted by Bebell & Kay’s study (2010), students and teachers in this study reported an increase in homework completion and as a result, more efficient feedback, teachers felt the quality of work increased as well. Students felt positive about the ability to complete their schoolwork when and where they had the time as opposed to restricting their work based upon their location. The ability to work in their classroom without having to rely on a reserved computer lab, or in other locations when they just had some free time, provided increased opportunities to work more efficiently. The use of an MCD extended the 27

classroom for students to learn anywhere and at any time. Extending the classroom beyond the brick and mortar walls seemed to give students a sense of autonomy in their work that promoted self-direction. Teachers reported students asking for feedback more frequently during the learning, and using applications such as Google Drive allowed teachers to provide that feedback more efficiently. These findings are similar to previous studies that found that the use of an MCD extended students’ learning time and encouraged them to be more self-directed in their learning (Chan et al., 2006). As Wong and Looi (2001) noted in their research, the goal of providing students with an MCD is to “empower students to learn wherever and whenever they are stimulated to learn” (Wong & Looi, 2011, p.2364). Teachers and students general felt positive about the use of an MCD; however, not all students were equally enthusiastic. The elementary students, in general, were more excited to use an MCD in class than older students, who were more subdued in their reviews. It could be that older students have more access to advanced electronics through their phones and computers, making using an MCD device in class less novel for them. The advantage, however, was that all students had a common device that allowed instruction to be tailored to just one device. Despite some lukewarm feelings, no students cited a disadvantage to using an MCD. Student concerns centered more on technical limitations than the use of the device itself.

Technical Discussion To put the technical challenges of using the MCDs in the CCPS computing environment in perspective, it is helpful to have a brief description of the CCPS network. The CCPS network is comprised of 72 facilities connected to primary and secondary datacenters through an all fiber wide area network (WAN). The WAN connectivity provides access to a switched local area network (LAN) inside schools for approximately 31,000 total CCPS-owned computing devices, as well as up to 250 connections/school for personal devices. Schools connect to the datacenter via 100 Megabit per second (Mbps) fiber connections, and the datacenter is connected to the Internet via two connections totaling approximately 800 Mbps of data transfer speed. School LANs are both wired and wireless and provide 28

10/100/1000 Mbps connections to the device. CCPS utilizes Microsoft’s Windows Active Directory Services and McAfee’s WebGateway 7 for proxied content filtering. In sum, there are a sufficient number of wireless access points for student device connections, and adequate bandwidth available for all students involved in the MCD pilot to stream media simultaneously. As noted in the literature review, few studies focused on technical issues occurring in a one-toone mobile computing program. Those studies that did cite technical issues noted the problems were small and solvable (Fleischer, 2011). Furthermore, though several studies exist that evaluate the impact of an MCD on the learning environment, most studies only used one device. This study, however, attempted to evaluate six different devices while also considering the impact of an MCD on the learning environment. While the impact on the learning environment seemed to be similar for each device, there was wide variability with regards to technical issues, making the use of some MCDs extremely challenging. Some devices presented such a challenge that despite much effort to use the device as directed by the research team, teachers and students found that the device simply would not support the needs of the learning environment. Specifically, the Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7, when placed on the division’s network, presented several challenges that earned the devices poor ratings from teachers and students. The size and complexity as well as the security requirements of the CCPS network made it challenging to use some MCDs in the classroom. For example, CCPS uses school-specific network proxies to direct Internet data traffic through the Web content filter and back to the device. Some of the devices supported the use of “.pac” file scripts to dynamically manage network proxies, while others required static proxy address entry. Furthermore, some devices/management consoles automated account and wireless settings while other devices required “by-hand” entry of all settings. Due to network incompatibility and the increased demand on the guest wireless network at the high school level, it became clear in the set up phase that the Kindle Fire was not at all viable in a high school setting. In fact, researchers eliminated the Kindle Fire from the study at the high school level.

29

One of the most difficult challenges, however, was managing content and application distribution to devices. At the time of this study, several devices connected to proprietary application libraries such as: Apple’s App Store, Kindle Fire’s App Store, App Store for Android, the Chrome Web Store, and the Windows 8 App store. The “app stores” as a whole seemed to work better on an individual device basis than they did at scale. For example, Apple uses the Volume Purchase Program (VPP) with schools. According to Apple’s website: “The Volume Purchase Program allows educational institutions to purchase iOS apps and books in volume and distribute them to students, teachers, administrators, and employees” (Apple in Education, 2013). While this statement was true, there was great difficulty sharing the apps with the devices in an environment when students used a personal Apple ID to download their own apps, mixed with the school’s Apple ID used for the apps provided to students as part of the VPP app acquisitions. Furthermore, the technology team had to use a third-party mobile device management (MDM) software, Airwatch, to manage the delivery of app purchase codes to individual iPad Minis. Managing this at a scale beyond this study would be challenging. The challenge of purchasing and deploying apps at scale was not unique to the iPad. Even with the use of a third-party MDM, the technology department was not able to successfully deploy apps to Android devices, including the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7, nor to the Windows 8 tablets with the exception of existing applications deployed through the district’s existing Active Directory Group Policy. One app store did, however, make the large-scale deployment of apps manageable and effective the Google Chrome Web Store. Combined with Google’s App marketplace, technicians were able to deploy apps to schools, classes, and individual machines. Technicians experienced a similar ease of application deployment with the Windows 7 laptops since they were part of the existing Active Directory structure. As a result, these apps were subject to existing application deployment Group Policies. There are two key distinctions, however, between Google’s app deployment and deploying applications through the more traditional Active Directory Group Policy structure. First, the apps deployed through the Chrome Web Store and Google Apps Marketplace are largely designed to work on the Web; whereas, the programs currently deployed by Group Policy, such as Microsoft Office, are by-and-large designed to 30

work locally on the machine. For example, the Chrome Web Store’s Pixlar Image Editor directs the user to a web-based image editor, while Microsoft’s Office Picture Editor is a local program designed to work without a connection the Web. Second, in the current Microsoft Windows environment, a system administrator is the only employee authorized to deploy applications to student and staff machines. By contrast, a system administrator in the Google Chrome environment may empower teachers, school principals, curriculum personnel, or any member of the district organization to select, purchase, and distribute applications to the student computers under their purveyance. For the purposes of this pilot, the technology integrator (technology coach) filled this role. The implications of empowering educators to “own” the process of distributing content and applications to students are significant. By removing the technology “middle man,” curriculum and school administrators can more deftly navigate the dynamic world of learning applications based upon instructional decisions rather than technology considerations. Despite the technical challenges, teachers and students were resourceful and found workable solutions around many of the technical problems that arose but often at the expense of instructional time. This mirrors what Fleischer (2001) found but also supports Kukulska-Hulme (2007) finding that sufficient technical support must be provided to minimize technical issues. Students mentioned battery power, limited charging plugs, and other features such as tiny screens or the lack of a keyboard as limitations with some MCDs. These findings were supported by Ting’s (2012) study that noted the functional usability of an MCD could impact its effectiveness in the learning environment. Finally, as Overbay, Mollette, and Vasu (2011) noted, when implementing technology programs in school, such as the use of MCDs in the learning environment, it is important to plan ongoing comprehensive professional development for teachers. Providing opportunities for select teachers to become building-level MCD experts can help smooth the transition into a technology-infused learning environment. Though teachers in this study were given preliminary training, it became clear that when the device was not working well in the learning environment that teachers were less likely to use the device. It followed that in some cases student frustration with technical issues surrounding their device dampened their desire to use the device. 31

Conclusion Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) is scaling up Blended Learning to support a digital curriculum and a growing digital ecosystem. The division’s current technology model requires students to leave or rearrange the classroom in order to engage with computers in a different way than their normal classroom experience. CCPS teachers voice concerns that they cannot fully invest in Blended Learning and prepare their students for college and careers with limited and sporadic access to computers and the Internet. Therefore, the CCPS strategic plan, Design for Excellence 2020, invests significant time and resources in scaling up student access to MCDs. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine, through the voice of students and teachers, the experiences in a well-planned and executed instructional unit where students and teachers have access to various MCDs to support instruction. The following research questions guided this study: 1. When teaching in a blended learning environment, to what extent does a mobile computing device affect a) student achievement, b) student self-efficacy, c) student mastery goal orientation, and d) student motivation? 2. When teaching in a blended learning environment, which mobile learning device is the most easily incorporated in the classroom environment considering the division’s technology infrastructure? To answer the first research questions, qualitative data were analyzed. Teachers reported students were more engaged in their learning and the quality of their work improved. Additionally, students were more self-directed and benefited from more efficient feedback from teachers through the use of an MCD. In general, teachers and students reported the use of an MCD in the learning environment was an advantage. Not all the data were positive. Some high School students were less enthusiastic about using an MCD as it did not offer many advantages that they did not feel they had with their own electronic devices. Despite the lack of enthusiasm, high school students did report they liked the ability to do their work anywhere at any time. The use of MCDs in the learning environment enhanced the active use of

32

21st Century Skills: expression, organization, communication, and exploration. Technical issues with some MCDs mitigated these benefits to students. When the device worked, students and teachers were able to leverage all the advantages of the MCD to enhance instruction. When challenges were present, the device quickly became less effective at enhancing learning. This study examined six different devices that represent the span of current MCDs. The Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7 proved the most challenging and received the lowest ratings from teachers and students. While the Windows 8 Tablet did have some positive points, keyboard issues and the unfamiliar operating system seem to outweigh many of the advantages of using an MCD. The iPad Mini was compatible with the division’s technology infrastructure and was easy to manage centrally, but lack of a keyboard and the absence of software needed to watch Flash-based videos did prove to be an issue for teachers and students. The Chromebook received high ratings from teachers and students, and worked well within the division’s technology infrastructure. The one major concern raised was the minimal data storage on the device and the need for Internet access to realize the full potential of the device. The Windows 7 laptop provided the smoothest integration into the division’s network, but students and teachers mentioned its bulkiness and limited battery life as possible drawbacks. The results from this study show great potential in the use of an MCD in the learning environment. The qualitative data from teacher interviews and student focus groups indicate a positive impact on student achievement, self-efficacy, mastery goal orientation and motivation. Technical issues found in this study, however, have major implications for any large-scale use of MCDs in the learning environment. Prior to any implementation of a one-to-one computing program, the school division should carefully consider the instructional needs of each school level and select devices that meet those instructional needs, keeping in mind this might mean different devices for different school levels. Considerations must be given to the demands large-scale use of MCDs would place on the network and a well-developed plan to provide needed technical support for teachers and students is essential. In addition to technical considerations, targeted professional development focused on best practices to integrate technology in should be high priority for those responsible for curriculum and instruction. 33

This study pointed to positive student and teacher outcomes with respect to using an MCD in the learning environment; however, questions remain. This study was short in duration and some of the enthusiasm could have been due to the novelty of using an MCD. The primary focus of this study was to examine the effect of MCDs in the classroom; however, there was no evaluation of the quality of technology integration or a comparison of teachers’ use of the MCD to instructional technology best practices. In this study, device functionality affected the level of technology integration. Once technical issues are resolved, a subsequent study could examine the quality of technology integration as it relates to students’ critical thinking and self-direction. Students today have easy access to technology that was unheard of just a few short years ago. Unfortunately, the last frontier of technological accessibility is often the classroom. Should there be any doubt concerning the advantages of the use of technology in the learning environment, this study should ameliorate those concerns. As the division considers options for the future, one-to-one computing could very well provide the opportunity for students to engage with dynamic learning materials at their own pace, anytime, from anywhere.

34

References Apple in Education. (2013). The Apple Volume Purchase Program. Retrieved June 18, 2013 from http://www.apple.com/education/volume-purchase-program/. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2) [Online journal]. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=jtla Chan, T.W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29. Chesterfield County Public School (2012). Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved on October 29, 2012. Retrieved at http://myuchesterfieldschools.com/wpcontent/uploads/school_info_files/compplan_2020.pdf. Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review,7(2012), 107 -122. Greaves, T.; Hayes, J.; Wilson, L.; Gielniak, M.; & Peterson, R., (2010). The Technology Factor: Nine Keys to Student Achievement and Cost-Effectiveness, MDR 2010. Retreived on October 5, 2012. Retrieved from Http://pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/ProjectRED_TheTechnolgyFactor.pdf Kukulska-Hume, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts. What have we learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8(2), 1-16. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97-122. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U., (2013). Teens and technology. Pew Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech/Summary-ofFindings.aspx

35

Maninger, R. M., & Holden, M. E. (2009). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a middle school one-to-one laptop initiative. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 5–33. Mortensen, C. (2011). Mission Possible: Keys to One. International Society for Technology in Education, 16-21. Overbay, A., Mollette, M. & Vasu, E. (2011). A technology plan that works. Educational Leadership, 68 (5), 56-59 Sprankle, B. (2012). A plan for technology integration (May). NewBay Media, LLC. Retrieved on October 8, 2012. Retrieved from www.TeachingLearning.com or http://www.techlearning.com/Default.aspx?tabid=67&EntryId=3524 Ting, Y.L. (2012). The pitfalls of mobile devices in learning: A different view and implications for pedagogical design. Journal of Educational Computing Research 46(2), 119-134. Weston, M.E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about one-to-one laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 6 (2010). Wong, L.H., & Looi, C.K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57, 2364-2381.

36

Appendices

37

Appendix A: Definition of Terms Blended Learning Environment. A combination of learning/instructional delivery that takes place not just within a school classroom but also in part through an online delivery with a component of student choice regarding the time, place, and pace of learning (CCPS, 2012). Mobile Computing Device. A portable computing device that can be taken with a student to accomplish tasks or assignments anytime, anywhere. One-to-One Mobile Computing Program. A program that supports a ratio of one mobile computing device per student in selected grades, typically grades 3–12. Student Achievement. The degree to which students learn content of unit as measured by teacher- or division-generated assessment. Student Self-Efficacy. Students’ belief in their ability to accomplish a goal or outcome (Kirk, 2012). Student Mastery Orientation. A student’s desire to learn the content without needing external motivators such as rewards or grades; the desire to learn for the sake of increasing their competence for selfdevelopment (Bulus, 2011).

38

Appendix B: Letter to Teachers to Participate Dear (Teacher’s Name,) You have been randomly selected by the Department of Research and Evaluation to participate in a mobile computing device pilot study. This study will run for approximately one month and you will be given a class set of mobile computing devices for one of your classes. Substitute teachers will be funded by the Department of Research and Evaluation. If you agree to participate you will be required to:    

Attend a training session in January where you will: Learn more about the device you were issued Develop a pre and post unit assessment Work with a Technology Integrator to incorporate technology based assignments that fit within the themes of exploration, expression, organization, and communication.  Issue to students the: o Ethical consent forms o Pre and post experimental surveys o Mobile computing device o Administer and grade the pre and post unit assessment o Participate in a teacher interview at the end of the experiment o Work with the Department of Research and Evaluation in distributing materials, mobile computing devices, and gathering data in the timeframe provided. If you agree to these terms and you would like to participate in the experiment, please complete the following information and return to Jamie Barnes in the Department of Research and Evaluation. Teacher Name: ______________________________________________ Teacher Signature: ___________________________________________ Date Signed: ________________________________________________

Research and Evaluation Only: Document received on: _________________________

39

Appendix C: Student Consent Form Memo to: Parents and Student participating in the Mobile Computing Device Study From: Dr. Nancy R. Hoover, Director of Research and Evaluation Date: January 25, 2013 Subject: Mobile Computing Device Study Consent Chesterfield County Public Schools is conducting a pilot study on the use of mobile computing devices in the classroom. Six core-content teachers from each school level: elementary (grades 3-5), middle (6-8), and high (9-12), were selected to have one of their classes participate. I am pleased to inform you that the research team selected your student’s class to participate in this important study. Teachers will issue each student a mobile computing device for the duration of the experiment, which will last approximately one month, starting sometime in mid-February. During the pilot study, all students will use the mobile computing device in the classroom for instructional purposes. The Department of Research and Evaluation will be collecting student data during the study. Students in the study will complete a pre- and post-survey about their attitudes towards learning and participate in a focus group about their experience using the mobile computing device once the study concludes. Scores from a pre- and post-unit assessment will provide data on student learning; classroom observations will evaluate student time on task while using the device. Student data will remain anonymous; the research team will not link student names to any surveys, pre- and post-test information, focus group discussions, or any classroom observation data. Students who receive permission from a parent or guardian may take the device home; otherwise, the device will remain in the classroom. The mobile computing device is a tool for learning and the expectation is that students will comply with CCPS’s Standards of Student Conduct, Section C, Paragraph 12 - Student Use of Technology (http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/chesterfield/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=8VTRVW6FE5BF), both during and after school hours. These devices have the capability of accessing the Internet via WiFi. CCPS encourages parental involvement through student home access of the internet. Students should take reasonable care of the mobile computing device while participating in this study; any malicious damage, lost, or theft of devices will be reported to the police for further investigation. The opportunity to use this device to enhance education is a privilege that we are able to offer students provided they use extra caution and act responsibly. We hope that you recognize the importance of this pilot study. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Nancy Hoover, Director of Research and Evaluation, at 804-279-7396 or [email protected].

40

Parent Consent: mobile device issued to student I have read the Mobile Computing Device Study expectations and I understand all information collected on my student will be kept confidential and his or her name will not be linked to any data collected. I also understand my student will be using a mobile computing device in class; the following consent options will determine if my student will take the device home. Please check your consent choice: ___I give permission for my student to take the mobile computing device home. ___ I DO NOT give permission for my student to take the mobile computing device home CHILD’S NAME (printed): ______________________________________________________ SCHOOL: ______________________________________ GRADE: _________________ GRARDIAN NAME (printed) ___________________________________________________ GUARDIAN SIGNATURE_________________________________________DATE_________ GUARDIAN CONTACT INFO (phone and email):___________________________________

Student Informed Consent to Participate I am aware of the Mobile Computing Device Study expectations. I understand when using a mobile computing device, I will follow CCPS CCPS’s Standards of Student Conduct, Section C, Paragraph 12 Student Use of Technology (http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/chesterfield/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=8VTRVW6FE5BF), both in and out of school and I will take care of the device. I will use the mobile computing device in an appropriate manner. In keeping with the CCPS’s Standards of Student Conduct, I will NOT download any content to the mobile computing device unless agreed upon in advance with my teacher. I agree to return the mobile computing device in good condition at the conclusion of the loan period. I also understand that any malicious damage, lost, or theft of my device will be reported to the police for further investigation. STUDENT NAME (printed) ______________________________________________________ STUDENT SIGNATURE ___________________________________________DATE______ SCHOOL: ______________________________________ GRADE: _____________________ Research and Evaluation Staff Only Date Permission Slip Received:______________________________________________ Brian Jones gave permission to use this from which was adapted with permission from school librarian Kathy Parker at http://marianslibrary.wordpress.com/

41

Appendix D: Teacher interview questions Interview date: ___________ Interviewer: ______________ Demographics

1. Gender

2.

3.

4. Race/Ethnicity

 Male

 African American

 Female

 Asian American

5. Device  Chromebook

6. Subject area in which device was used  English

 Dell latitude laptop  Caucasian/White  iPad Mini Grade Level  Elementary  Hispanic/Latino  Kindle Fire  Middle  Other  Nexus Tablet  High School  Windows Tablet Years of teaching experience (including this year): __________

 Mathematics  Science  Social Studies  Other ________

Teacher Interview Protocol Opening Script: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today about your experience in the Mobile Computing Device pilot. My name is _____________ and I am a VCU doctoral student working with the CCPS study team. The purpose of this interview is to learn from you how [device] is working in the classroom. Please know that we value your opinions and appreciate your honesty about your experience with using the [device]. The results of the interviews with MCD pilot teachers will be summarized and used to inform district-level decisions about the most effective mobile computing device to integrate in classrooms on a larger scale. With your permission I would like to record this interview, your identity and what you say will be kept confidential. Your name will not appear in the interview transcript or any summary reports. The interview will last about 30-45 minutes. Introduction 1. When you were selected for the pilot program, why did you agree to participate? A. How have you integrated technology in the classroom before? B. How do you use technology outside of the classroom? Listen and probe for personal/ non-instructional/administrative uses 2. What class did you choose to use the [device] in? Why did you select this class? Technology Integration 3. How does/ did the [device] integrate with the division’s current technology infrastructure? Listen and probe for challenges to using device, ability to handle technology issues without expert assistance, capability of device A. In what ways did the [device] integrate well? B. In what ways could the integration into the technology infrastructure have been improved? C. What types of supports are needed to use the [device] for teaching?

42

Probe: Describe any experiences with the [device] that required additional support? Integration with Instruction 4. How does using the [device] affect your planning time? Listen and probe for the role of device in lesson planning and application to standards

curriculum/state

5. How does using the [device] affect classroom instruction? Listen and probe for ease of use, advantages, use of traditional instruction methods, problem-based learning approaches, or the device as a distraction

experiential or

6. How has using the [device] influenced your role in delivering instructional content? Listen and probe for how teacher role may have shifted to more of a facilitator/coach instruction

from director of

7. What types of instructional activities/learning experiences work well with the [device]? Probe: Does the [device] support a range of learning activities? 8. What types of instructional activities are challenging with the [device]? Listen and probe for learning activities related to student expression, communication, exploration, and organization Impact on student learning and the classroom 9. Please describe how using the [device] has affected the classroom environment or climate? Listen and probe for impact on discipline, collaboration, communication, participation, opportunities for collaboration, peer interactions, teacher-student interactions 10. How has the [device] been working for at home for students? 11. How has student learning and development been influenced by the [device]? Listen and probe for perceptions of student outcomes related to expression, communication, exploration, and organization 12. How has the [device] influenced your assessment of student learning? Listen and probe for the types/forms of assessment, how teachers provide feedback to students, and their use of assessment information to inform instruction Closing 13. Would you recommend the [device] for district wide distribution? Please explain. 14. If the [device] was implemented division wide, what further suggestions or recommendations would you offer to other teachers, administrators, or district personnel? Closing Script: Thank you for your time today. If you have any questions you can contact Dr. Nancy Hoover in Chesterfield County Public Schools at 804-279-7396.

43

Appendix E: Student interview questions Student Focus Group Protocol I. Introduction Good afternoon and welcome to our focus group session scheduled for ______ (date). Thank you for taking the time to participate today. Our names are _________ and __________ and we are graduate students at VCU. We are working with Chesterfield County Public Schools on a project to learn how students like using the [device]. Our meeting today will last about 30 minutes. II. Description of Focus Group: The purpose of our meeting is to find out about how you like using [device] in class and for completing assignments. Before we begin, we will review some guidelines or rules that will help our meeting run smoothly. We will be recording the session so that we can make sure we understand your comments; it will help us if you speak one at a time. Also, we want to make sure that what you say during our meeting will be kept confidential – we will not tell anyone what you say or tell anyone your name, this includes your teacher and principal. We will share the opinion of the group with the school district so they can make a decision about using [device] in more classrooms. It is also important that you agree to keep what is said during this meeting confidential by not telling anyone outside of this room what anyone said during our meeting. We are interested in all of your thoughts – both good and not so good (positive and negative) about using the [device]. When you answer the questions please don’t mention the names of other students or teachers. Topic 1. Usage 1. 2.

What did you like about the [device]? What didn’t you like about the [device]? Probes: What are some problems you had with the [device]? Can you give us an example of a time that you had trouble with the device? How often was there trouble accessing the Internet? (e.g., Accessing Wi-FI)

3.

What are some of the ways you used the [device]? Probe: Can you give us examples of how you used the [device] at home/school?

4.

How confident/comfortable do you feel using the [device]? Probe: Did you need your teacher to help you learn how to use the [device]?

Topic 2. Achievement/Learning Tools 5.

What about the [device] made schoolwork (writing, doing research or math problems) easier? harder? Probes: How did you organize your work using the [device]? How it was used it to complete assignments? How did using the [device] help with writing?

44

How did you go about finding information on the internet to complete assignments using the [device]? Listen and probe for comments about specific features of the device such as screen keyboard and camera. 6.

How do you use the [device] to do your homework? Probe: Did the [device] distract you from completing your homework?

7. When you are using the [device] do you like to work alone or with other students in your class? Probe: Do you like working in groups when you have to use the [device]? 8. How did you use the [device] to communication with your classmates? Your teacher? Probe: Was it easier to communicate using the [device]? Topic 3. Motivation 9. Can you describe how the [device] affected how much you wanted to learn about (math, science, English, or social studies)? Probe: Do you feel like you want to participate more in class or get your assignments done when using the [device]? Probe: Did you like class more when using the [device]? 10. How did using the [device] make you feel about learning and doing your school work? Probes: How did using this [device] change your work? Did you spend more time on your work? Did you try to do a better job or work harder on your assignments? Did you feel more responsible for your school work? III. CLOSING: Before we end our meeting, are there any other comments that you have or topics that we missed in our discussion? Thank you for your help with this project.

45