- Email: [email protected]
Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers answer the call
Accepted Manuscript Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Answer the Call Blanche W. O’Bannon, Kevin M. Thomas PII:
S0360-1315(15)00062-7
DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010
Reference:
CAE 2801
To appear in:
Computers & Education
Received Date: 18 July 2014 Revised Date:
16 January 2015
Accepted Date: 16 February 2015
Please cite this article as: O’Bannon B.W. & Thomas K.M., Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Answer the Call, Computers & Education (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Answer the Call
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
Kevin M. Thomas Bellarmine University
RI PT
Blanche W. O’Bannon The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Author Note
Blanche W. O’Bannon, Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee; Kevin Thomas, Frazier School of Education, Bellarmine University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Blanche O’Bannon, 445 Claxton Complex, Knoxville, TN. Email: [email protected], phone: 865-974-0498, fax: 865-974-6302.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 1. Introduction Described as portable computers and the Swiss army knife of technologies, mobile phones have historically been banned in K-12 schools due to the perception that they are
RI PT
disruptive. A number of factors including, but not limited to, their increasing ubiquity, their ability to provide students with anywhere learning opportunities, the growing
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) movement, and mounting demands by parents, students,
SC
and school stakeholders, have resulted in a gradual lifting of the ban. A recent survey
conducted by Bradford Networks (2013) found that 89% of colleges and universities and
M AN U
44% of K-12 school districts in the United States and the United Kingdom allow students to bring their own devices to use on school networks. As more and more K-12 schools have opened their doors to mobile phone use, the benefits and barriers associated with their integration have materialized.
TE D
Preservice teachers find themselves in an interesting dichotomy with respect to mobile phone integration. Whereas previous attempts to provide 1:1 integration have been made with students who have digital devices, this generation of preservice teachers
EP
is among the first to have grown up in a 1:1 world. Ownership of digital devices among the Millennial generation (ages 18-34) was reported by Zickuhr (2011) to be 95% mobile
AC C
phone, 57% desktop, 70% laptop, 74% iPod, 63% game console, and 5% tablet—only 1% do not own one of these devices. In fact, one could argue that today’s preservice teachers are the students whose teachers believed used their mobile phones to disrupt class. On the other hand, preservice teachers are also the former students who identified the ban on mobile phones as the number one barrier to the integration of technology in the classroom (Project Tomorrow, 2010) and were increasingly using their phones to
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM complete school assignments (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Considering that teachers are the gatekeepers to technology integration in the classroom, preservice teachers will play an important role in the success or failure of mobile phone
RI PT
inclusion in the BYOD initiative. 2. Literature Review
Student learning, engagement, motivation, and productivity are positively influenced
SC
by technology (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). Mobile devices, such as mobile phones, are
no exception. They provide teachers and students with the benefits traditionally found in
M AN U
1:1 computing—and more. The increasing ubiquity and instructional features of these devices has made mobile learning “one of the key current trends of educational applications for new technologies” (Wu et al., 2012, p. 818). 2.1 Benefits to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom
TE D
The foremost instructional benefit linked with mobile devices is their ability to involve students in meaningful learning opportunities from anywhere (Traxler, 2009). For example, students use mobile phones to access the Internet. Allowing teachers and
EP
students to conduct online research is a benefit of 1:1 computing (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke, 2007). In a survey of 1,121 teachers, Authors (2014) found that student access
AC C
to the Internet was identified as the number one benefit of using mobile phones in the classroom. Currently, one fourth of teens use their mobile phones as their primary method of accessing the Internet (Madden, Lenhart, Dugan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013). A survey of 2,462 Advanced Placement (AP) and National Writing Project (NWP) teachers revealed that the most popular way they use mobile phones with students is to complete Internet research (Purcell et al., 2013). In addition to conducting research, 73% of the
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM respondents noted that their students used personal mobile phones to complete assignments, while 79% of the teachers required their students to access assignments online, and 76% required them to submit assignments online. Mobile phones can also be
RI PT
used to access online tools (e.g., Dropbox, Web 2.0, Poll Everywhere) and apps (e.g.,
PBS mobile apps and Illuminations) for classroom use. Further, the Internet can be used for communication, collaboration, and cooperative problem-solving (Harris (2002).
SC
Students also use their mobile phones to communicate through sending/receiving
text messages. Texting supports anywhere interaction; communication; and collaboration
M AN U
among teachers, students, and content (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). For example, Thomas and Orthober surveyed 46 high school students in three classes who received teacher-generated text messages on a variety of course-related topics. Results indicated that students found the use of teacher-generated text messaging to be beneficial in
TE D
increasing communication and interaction (student-to-teachers and student-to-content). Further, according to Plester, Wood, and Joshi (2009), texting can also improve students’ phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading ability.
EP
Recording audio and video is another useful feature of mobile phones for improving student literacy. Student-created podcasts can improve students’ reading, writing, and
AC C
listening skills (Smythe & Neufeld, 2010). Podcasts and/or vodcasts (video casts) also assist teachers in the differentiation of instruction by appealing to audio or visual learners (Smaldino, Russell, Heinich, & Molenda, 2005). Additional instructional benefits of mobile phones include providing teachers the ability to personalize instruction (Steel, 2012), create student-centered learning opportunities, collaborate (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007), and differentiate instruction
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007). Further, teachers and students also use traditional instructional tools on mobile phones, such as the calculator and digital camera (Authors, 2014). Regardless of the abundant benefits of mobile phone integration, the barriers to their use
RI PT
must be considered. 2.2 Barriers to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom
While mobile phones provide many of the benefits associated with 1:1 computing, they
SC
also share some of the same barriers. For example, in a study of two middle schools,
Dunleavy et al. (2007) found that 1:1 computing could be disruptive and a distraction.
M AN U
Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, and Purcell (2010) agree that the most common dispute against the use of mobile phones in the classroom is the disruption they cause. And this assertion is supported by two recent studies involving university students. Baker, Lusk, and Neuhauser (2012) conducted a study with 882 university students regarding the
TE D
classroom use of electronic devices. Generally, these students felt that any use of mobile phones was disruptive to learning. Of specific concern were making calls, checking and sending text messages, and checking email. Additionally, McCoy (2013) conducted a
EP
study with 777 college students and discovered that 80% believed that using digital devices in the classroom, such as mobile phones, distracted them from learning.
AC C
Additional studies support the findings of these researchers. Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever (2011) investigated the effect of texting during instruction. Results indicated that academic performance decreased when students texted during class. Similarly, educators worry about the influence of textese, the abbreviations and slang associated with texting, on written language skills. Yet, research on this issue is mixed. Coe and Oakhill (2011) examined the effect of student texting/textese and
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM literacy and reported a positive relationship, whereas Drouin and Driver (2012) identified that texting negatively affects students’ literacy. Additional concerns include students’ use of mobile phones for cheating, sexting,
RI PT
and cyberbullying. Studies (Commonsense Media, 2010; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012)
confirm that students use their mobile phones to cheat. Teens also use their phones for sexting, the practice of sending sexually explicit photos and/or messages via a mobile
SC
phone. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 4% of teens ages 12-17 who own mobile phones have sent these types of messages (Lenhart et al., 2010), and
M AN U
15% have received such messages. Another concern is cyberbullying, which is bullying that takes place through the use of digital technology. While cyberbullying can occur through the use of the Internet and social media, Holfeld and Grabe (2012) conducted a study with 665 middle school students and discovered that offenders used their mobile
TE D
phones to bully others in 41% of the incidents.
Traditional barriers to technology integration—fear of change, lack of training, modeling, lack of personal use, motivation, and a negative school environment (Bitner &
EP
Bitner, 2002)—also hinder the integration of mobile phones into the classroom. These barriers can also prevent teachers from developing the knowledge, pedagogy, and self-
AC C
efficacy necessary to move past “low levels” of technology integration and enable teachers to take full advantage of the instructional benefits that technologies provide (Ertmer & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The potential negative uses associated with the use of mobile phones have prompted school officials to ban them from the classroom, thus creating an environment that denies teachers the training, modeling, knowledge, and motivation to recognize the instructional benefits associated with their use.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 3. Purpose of the Study The benefits and barriers associated with the use of mobile phones in the classroom have resulted in disparity and confusion. Should mobile phones be integrated into
literature on preservice teachers’ perceptions of this topic.
RI PT
instruction? What are the views of those entering the profession? There is a gap in the
The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers’ perceptions of the use
SC
of mobile phones in the classroom. Specifically, we examined their support for mobile
phone use in the classroom, their view of the usefulness of specific mobile phone features
M AN U
for school-related work, and their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. In addition, the study examined the relationship between their use of mobile phones and their technology expertise and their views of the benefits and barriers to mobile phone use as well as the distractions associated with their use.
4.1 Research Design
TE D
4. Methods
Guided by the recommendations of Creswell (2013), we used a survey approach to
EP
investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions of the use of mobile phones in the classroom. Survey research was the preferred method of data collection because of its economy,
AC C
rapid turnaround, and the standardization of the data (Babbie, 2012). Data were collected through a cross-sectional web-based survey (see Appendix) developed specifically for this study and is discussed in the Data Source segment of the Methods section. 4.2 Participants
Preservice teachers (N = 255) from two universities in Kentucky and Tennessee were invited to participate in this study. Of these, 245 (96%) completed the study. The
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM preservice teachers who comprised this convenience sample were similarly distributed between the states, with 113 (46%) located in Kentucky and 132 (54%) located in Tennessee. One hundred thirty (53%) were aspiring to become early childhood or
RI PT
elementary teachers. Eighty-two (33.5%) were in middle or secondary teacher education programs, and 33 (13.5%) were enrolled in K-12 teacher preparation programs in areas such as special education, art, and music.
SC
One hundred ninety-seven (80%) were female, and 48 (20%) were male. Two
hundred fifteen (88%) were Caucasian, 10 (4.0 %) were Latino/Hispanic, eight (3.0%)
M AN U
were more than one race, six (2.4%) were Asian, four (1.6%) were African American, and two (.08%) were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The mean age was 22.93 (SD = 5.69). Two hundred fourteen (87.3%) owned smartphones, and 31 (12.7%) owned basic mobile phones.
TE D
4.3 Data Source
The survey (see Appendix), developed by the researchers, was based on current literature associated with mobile phone use. The survey consisted of 56 items and was
EP
used to gather demographic data as well as the type of phone owned, participants’ use of mobile phones, their support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom, and their
AC C
perceptions regarding useful mobile phone features and the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom, as well as their perceptions of disruptions caused by their use. The survey contained a mix of question types including Yes/No, checklists, open-ended, and Likert-scaled questions using 5-point scales (SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree). We classified Likert scaled items in themes. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was administered on phone
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM use, useful features for school related work, benefits, barriers and disruptions. Benefits, barriers and disruptions each resulted in single factors. Phone use and useful features for school related work failed to result in constructs that made conceptual sense. Therefore,
RI PT
individual items were examined descriptively and overall means were used in
comparisons. For internal consistency and reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were calculated and interpreted for each theme based on the rules (.9 = high level, .8 =
SC
moderate, .7 = low level, .6 = acceptable level, and <.6 = unacceptable level) (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991). The themes include 11 items related to the benefits of using mobile
M AN U
phones in the classroom (α = .94), 8 items related to the barriers associated with using mobile phones (α = .84) and 6 items associated with disruptions to class caused by using mobile phones (α = .73).
Participants linked to the anonymous online survey from a web page with the
TE D
consent form. No login was required, and participants completed the survey in one sitting. However, given that the survey did not timeout, they could leave the computer for short periods and return later to finish. The approximate time for completion was 10-
EP
20 minutes, depending on the individual.
Content validity was established for the survey by using experts (n = 5) in the field
AC C
of educational technology who reviewed the survey individually and marked information they felt was unclear or inappropriate. Additionally, the survey was distributed to preservice teachers (n = 40) in a technology course to check for understanding. Most questions were retained (n = 52), and five were revised as suggested by the experts and students to better communicate the questions. None were eliminated. 4.4 Data Collection and Analysis
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM The researchers distributed the invitation to participate, the consent form, and the survey online. Upon receipt, preservice teachers read the consent form, and those who wished to participate proceeded by linking to the survey, which was constructed in
RI PT
Qualtrics. Completion and submission of the survey indicated consent. The resulting data were analyzed, descriptive statistics were calculated to identify frequencies and means, and appropriate statistical tests were administered as needed. Results
SC
5.
Most of the preservice teachers reported that they were experienced users of
M AN U
technology. Using a 5-point scale (1 = novice; 5 = expert), the preservice teachers were asked to rate their expertise with technology (M = 3.69, SD = .692). An additional review revealed that approximately a tenth of the preservice teachers (9.8%) reported that they were experts. Most (52%) reported their proficiency at level 4, whereas 36% rated
novice (.4%).
TE D
their proficiency at level 3. Far fewer (2.0%) reported their proficiency at level 2 or
5.1 Support for the Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom
EP
The preservice teachers were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I support the use of mobile phones in the classroom.” The results revealed M
AC C
= 3.23, SD = 1.081. Almost half of the preservice teachers (45%) indicated their support for mobile phone use in the classroom, while 25% of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (30%) were undecided. They were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I think mobile phones support student learning.” The results revealed M = 3.43, SD = 1.056. More than half of the preservice teachers (58%) indicated that mobile phones support student learning, whereas
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM far fewer (21%) of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (21%) were undecided. 5.2 Use of Mobile Phone Features
RI PT
Using a 5-point scale (1 = Never; 5 = A great deal), the preservice teachers were
asked how frequently they use 22 features of mobile phones apart from making/receiving phone calls (see Table 1). Over half reported that they use mobile phone features the
SC
most: sending/receiving texts (M = 4.78, SD = .573); using the clock, alarm, timer (M =
4.71, SD = .697); taking a picture (M = 4.29, SD = .974); accessing social networks (M =
M AN U
4.24, SD = 1.345); and accessing the Internet (M = 4.21, SD = 1.307). The features they use the least were playing a podcast (M = 1.86, SD = 1.043), posting audio online (M = 1.74, SD = 1.051), scanning a QR code (M = 1.59, SD = .944), and creating a QR code (M = 1.25, SD = .672). Overall mean for phone use (M = 3.29, SD = .746).
TE D
5.3 Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work
Participants were asked to identify the features of mobile phones that they believed could be useful for school-related work. Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), the
EP
preservice teachers reported how strongly they agreed or disagreed that 22 mobile phone features could be useful for school-related work (see Table 2). Those identified as most
AC C
useful were accessing the Internet (M = 4.36, SD = .769), using as a clicker/polling device (M = 4.27, SD = .765), using an educational app (M = 4.24, SD = .782), reading a book (M = 4.10, SD = .953), sending and receiving email (M = 4.07, SD = .908), using the calculator (M = 4.05, SD = .879), playing a podcast (M = 4.03, SD = .8125), and using the calendar (M = 4.02, SD = .844). The features they believed to be the least useful were sending/receiving texts (M = 2.73, SD = 1.208), sending/receiving tweets (M = 2.44, SD
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM = 1.229), and accessing social networks (M = 2.35, SD = 1.180). Overall mean for useful features for school-related work (M = 3.57, SD = .651). 5.4 Benefits to Mobile Phone Usage in the Classroom
RI PT
Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), participants indicated how strongly they
agreed or disagreed that the benefits to using mobile phones in the classroom included increases in access to technology, student engagement, student motivation, student
SC
creativity, student/teacher productivity, collaboration, communication, and digital fluency, as well as providing anytime/anywhere learning opportunities, opportunities for
M AN U
differentiation of instruction, and decreasing the digital divide. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.94. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be benefits; however, they thought some were more beneficial than others (see Table 3). They indicated that mobile phones were most beneficial in developing
TE D
digital fluency (M = 4.08, SD = .780), providing anywhere/anytime learning opportunities (M = 4.05, SD = .843), providing opportunities for differentiation of instruction (M = 4.03, SD = .839), and increasing access to technology in the classroom (M = 3.94, SD = .823).
EP
Of the benefits cited in the literature, participants perceived that mobiles phones were less beneficial in facilitating student creativity (M = 3.60, SD = .993), increasing collaboration
AC C
(M = 3.58, SD = .993), increasing student engagement (M = 3.56, SD = 1.157), and increasing student/teacher productivity (M = 3.29, SD = 1.116). Overall mean for benefits (M = 3.75, SD = .754).
5.5 Barriers to Mobile Phone Usage in the Classroom Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), participants indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that student access, cheating, cyberbullying, disruption of class,
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM negative impact of texting on writing, sexting, and access to inappropriate content were barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.84.Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be
RI PT
barriers; however, they were more concerned about some than others (see Table 4). They identified cheating (M = 4.10, SD = .790), disruption of class (M = 4.08, SD = .931), cyberbullying (M = 3.95, SD = .911), and access to inappropriate information on the
SC
Internet (M = 3.94, SD = .973) as the primary barriers to using mobile phones in the
classroom. They also agreed that sexting (M = 3.71, SD = 1.040) and the negative impact
M AN U
of texting on writing (M = 3.69, SD = 1.044) were barriers. Of the barriers cited in the literature, they were least concerned about student access to phones (M = 3.58, SD = .974). Overall mean for barriers (M = 3.81, SD = .664).
5.6 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Disruptions to Instruction
TE D
The preservice teachers who strongly agreed or agreed that mobile phones caused disruptions in class were routed to a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), where they indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that ringing, texting, playing games,
EP
listening to music, searching the Internet, tweeting, and parents calling/texting students during class were disruptions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the
AC C
questionnaire is 0.73. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be disruptive; however, they were more anxious about some than others. They identified texting (M = 4.49, SD = .672), playing games (M = 4.41, SD = .684), tweeting (M = 4.18, SD = .844), and searching the Internet (M = 4.05, SD = .864) as the primary disruptions when using mobile phones in the classroom. They also agreed that ringing (M = 3.91, SD = 1.006)
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM and listening to music (M = 3.88, SD = .916) were disruptions. They were least concerned about parents calling/texting students during classes (M = 3.59, SD = .990). 5.7 Relationship Between Use and Preservice Perceptions
RI PT
To determine whether there was a relationship between phone use by the preservice
teachers and their perceptions of the useful features, benefits and barriers associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no
SC
relationship between use and barriers (r = -.046, p = .477). However, there were positive relationships between use and benefits (r = .257, p < .001) and use and useful features (r
M AN U
= .230, p < .001). As phone use increases, the preservice teachers are more positive about the usefulness of features and the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom. 5.8 Relationship Between Technology Expertise, Gender, and Preservice Perceptions To determine whether there was a relationship between the technology expertise
TE D
of the preservice teachers and their perceptions of the benefits, barriers, and disruptions associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no relationship between technology expertise and barriers (r = -.014, p = .830)
EP
or disruptions (r = -.022, p = .759). However, there was a positive relationship between technology expertise and benefits (r = .278, p < .001). As technology expertise increases,
AC C
the preservice teachers are more positive about the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom. Correlations were also administered to determine if there was a relationship between perceptions and useful features, benefits and barriers. No significant relationships were found were perceptions (features, p=.698, benefits, p= .783; barriers, p=.867). Independent t-tests was used to determine if there were differences in
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM perceptions with regard to gender. No significant differences with gender were found (features, p=.871, benefits, p= .310; barriers, p=.173). 6. Discussion
RI PT
6.1 Preservice Teachers’ Support for the Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom
Almost half of the preservice teachers in this study supported using mobile phones in the classroom. This finding indicates an upsurge in support as compared to earlier
SC
research conducted by the Authors (2013) involving 93 preservice teachers that found only one fourth of the preservice teachers supported their use. The earlier study also
M AN U
found that over 50% of the preservice teachers were undecided, whereas only 30% of the participants in the current study were unsure about mobile phone inclusion. These outcomes could suggest that preservice teachers who were once undecided about the use of mobile phones in the classroom are changing their minds. This shift toward inclusion
school culture.
TE D
could be a result of the lessening of two barriers to mobile phone integration—access and
As preservice teachers’ phone use increased, their perceptions of the useful features
EP
for school related work and their perceptions of the benefits to using mobile phones increased. This finding suggests that future teachers who are comfortable with phones
AC C
will be willing to use them in the classroom. Increasingly, schools are allowing teachers/students to use mobile phones in the classroom. In a survey of 200 high school principals, Obringer and Coffey (2007) found that only 21% of the schools allowed students to use mobile phones. Six years later in 2013, Bradford Networks determined that 44% of K-12 school districts in the United States and the United Kingdom permitted students to bring their own devices (BYOD) to use on school networks. The increased
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM support from preservice teachers could reflect the cultural change in schools—a move toward increased inclusion of mobile devices. Additionally, their increased support could be a reflection of the upsurge in personal use of mobile phones. In this study, 87% of
RI PT
preservice teachers owned smartphones, which reflects a 17% increase from the 2013
study of preservice teachers conducted by the authors. Access provides teachers with the opportunity for personal use and training through self-directed learning. Thus, they are
SC
able to overcome these traditional barriers identified with technology integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Increased use of personal mobile phones also could be attributed to
M AN U
preservice teachers identifying potential classroom benefits.
6.2 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work
In conjunction with preservice teachers’ increasing support for classroom integration
TE D
of mobile phones is their increasing recognition of their benefits. The majority of participants agreed with previous research (Authors, 2013) on all but one of the benefits of mobile phone use in the classroom—increased productivity. This finding indicates a
EP
change in preservice teachers’ perceptions of the instructional benefits of mobile phones. In the previous study, (Authors) investigated perceptions of the same benefits of mobile
AC C
phone use and found that the preservice teachers acknowledged only half of the benefits identified in the literature (i.e., provide anywhere/anytime learning, provide differentiation opportunities, increase communication, increase motivation, and increase student engagement). Likewise, the ability of personal devices to support the differentiation (personalization) of instruction and increase communication is supported by research on 1:1 computing (Dunleavy et al., 2007).
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM In contrast to preservice teachers’ assertion that mobile phones do not increase productivity, a survey of 1,121 teachers (Authors, 2014) found that productivity tools (e.g., calendar, calculator, clock/alarm/timer) were among the top tools identified as
RI PT
beneficial for classroom use. Similarly, Dunleavy et al. (2007) found increased
productivity to be a benefit of 1:1 computing. Interestingly, with the exception of two
benefits, digital fluency and student engagement, the ranking of the benefits identified by
SC
the preservice teachers was identical to the ranking in the (Authors’) earlier study.
Regarding digital fluency and student engagement, the ability of mobile phone use in the
M AN U
classroom to develop digital fluency jumped from ninth place out of 10 benefits listed to the number one benefit identified by participants. Conversely, the capability of mobile phone use to increase student engagement dropped from second to ninth—directly above increase productivity. The proximity of student engagement and productivity in the
TE D
ranking may not be a coincidence and may shed some light on preservice teachers’ lack of acknowledgement of increased productivity as a benefit of mobile phone inclusion. Preservice teachers indicated that they used their phones primarily to send texts; use
EP
the clock, alarm, and timer; use social networking; and access the Internet. This finding supports research by McCoy (2013), who discovered that the primary ways college
AC C
students use digital devices in class for non-class purposes are to text (85.9%), check the time (79%), social network (66%), and surf the web (38%). Further, the majority (80%) of those college students believed that these activities distracted them from learning. This finding suggests that while mobile phones have a number of classroom benefits, present classroom use would indicate that increasing student engagement and productivity might not be two of them. It should also be noted that preservice teachers
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM listed sending texts and use of social networks at the bottom of the list of mobile phone features that would be useful in the classroom. 6.3 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Barriers to Mobile Phone Use in the Classroom
RI PT
Despite their support for allowing mobile phone use in the classroom, preservice
teachers have concerns about potential barriers. These concerns are not new. In 2007,
Dunleavey et al identified problems with 1:1 computing integration with middle school
SC
students using laptops, including their ability to disrupt class and distract students.
Recent research (Authors, 2013) uncovered similarities. While preservice teachers from
M AN U
the earlier research (Authors, 2013) and the current study identified disruption and cheating as their top concerns, slightly more participants in the earlier study were apprehensive about the disruptive nature of phones (67%) than students using them for cheating (65%). Results from the current study, however, indicate that preservice
TE D
teachers were more concerned about cheating (83%) than disruption (78%). Participants’ uneasiness could be connected to their own use and/or misuse of mobile phones in the classroom. For example, Common Sense (2009) reported that a third of students
EP
admitted using mobile phones to cheat—25% doing so via text messaging. Furthermore, Tindell and Bohlander (2012) found that 76% of students believe that mobile phones
AC C
have the potential to give students an unfair advantage during exams. Regarding participants’ concerns about the perceived disruptive nature of phones, 85% of students admit to texting during class, 67% send emails, 66% check social networks, 89% acknowledge that their digital devices distract them (McCoy, 2013), and one half of college students believe that any use of phones in the classroom is a disturbance (Baker et al., 2012).
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Results from this study appear to suggest that preservice teachers’ apprehension about the barriers associated with integration is increasing. Compared with the earlier research conducted by Authors (2013), a much higher percentage of the participants in this study
RI PT
were concerned about each of the seven potential barriers (i.e., cheating, disruption of class, cyberbullying, inappropriate content, sexting, negative impact on writing, and
student access) identified in the literature. In fact, twice as many preservice teachers
SC
expressed fears about student access to inappropriate content, sexting, and cyberbullying, and three times as many viewed texting as a barrier. One explanation for this increase in
M AN U
concern could be access. In the prior study, approximately 75% of participants had a mobile phone compared to almost 90% in this study. Not surprisingly, their fears about access as a barrier dropped dramatically. The increase in access provides participants with the ability to discover the classroom uses and misuses of mobile phones.
TE D
Finally, despite the increased acceptance of mobile phones in schools, the majority of secondary schools continue to ban phones in the classroom. Moreover, neither of the education programs attended by these preservice teachers provides instruction on the
EP
classroom integration of mobile phones. Therefore, participants have not had the necessary training or time to practice using mobile phones to support instruction, which
AC C
are barriers to integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Additionally, these preservice teachers have lacked models of integration in the classroom. It is difficult for preservice teachers who are mobile phone users to conceptualize instructional uses of applications that they have not seen modeled (Cook, Pachler, & Bradley, 2008).
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
6. Limitations of the Study While this study adds to our understanding of preservice teachers’ views of using
RI PT
mobile phones in the classroom, there are limitations that are characteristic of the
methods used. While the survey development was aligned with the literature on mobile phones and content validity and internal consistency was established, additional testing
SC
for reliability of the instrument could be performed. In addition, the survey relied on
self-report data; thus, participants may not have answered honestly or accurately, and
M AN U
there is no method for verifying their answers.
The population of the study involved preservice teachers from only two universities in two states, which limits the generalizability of the study. It is quite possible that the perceptions of a larger population of preservice teachers from different states or regions
TE D
of the U.S. would differ. There were considerably more female participants than male; however, this statistic is characteristic of a population of preservice teachers. These limitations verify the need for further research that involves random sampling from many
EP
states/regions to provide generalizability. 7. Implications for Practice
AC C
In the past, the ban on mobile phone use in the classroom made it impossible for educators to perceive their instructional potential or lack thereof. As an increasing number of schools move to a “BYOD” model, which includes bringing your own mobile phone, and an increasing number of individuals own mobile phones, a clearer picture of the perceived benefits and barriers associated with mobile phone use is starting to emerge. The students populating teacher education programs today increasingly have access to
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM mobile phones and are using them more and more in the classroom. The combination of these two factors has shaped preservice teachers’ evolving perceptions of the pros and cons associated with the inclusion of mobile phones in the classroom. Results from this
RI PT
study indicate that while the tool has changed, many of the pros and cons of 1:1 computing have not.
To accentuate the pros and minimize the cons associated with 1:1 computing with
SC
mobile devices like mobile phones, teacher preparation programs need to instruct
preservice teachers on how to use them effectively in the classroom. Integration is
M AN U
dependent upon preservice teachers’ experience with faculty who effectively model the use of technologies (Bitner & Bitner, 2002).
8. Recommendations for Future Research
Participants in this study expressed strong feelings about the instructional benefits
TE D
and barriers associated with classroom integration of mobile phones. Research suggests that concerns about phone misuse could be a result of personal classroom use. Due to the ban that exists in the majority of K-12 schools, most preservice teachers have not
EP
benefited from instructional models of teachers who effectively integrate mobile phones to support classroom instruction/student learning. Future research should examine the
AC C
root of participants’ concerns. One way this could be addressed would be to identify/study a population of preservice teachers who have attended K-12 schools where mobile phones were integrated into the classroom through a “BYOD” model and/or preservice teachers who are enrolled in teacher preparation programs where the instructional applications of mobile phones are presented.
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM References Authors (2013). Authors (2014).
RI PT
Babbie, E. R. (2012). The basics of social research. Cengage Learning.
Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the use of cell phones and
Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 275-289.
SC
other devices in the classroom: Evidence from a survey of faculty and students.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
M AN U
success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100. Bradford Networks. (2013). The impact of BYOD in education (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.bradfordnetworks.com/resources/whitepapers/the-impact-ofbyod-in-education/
TE D
Coe, J. E. L., & Oakhill, J. V. (2011). ‘txtN is ez f u no h2 rd’: The relation between reading ability and text-messaging behavior. Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 4-17.
EP
CommonSense Media. (2010). Hi-tech cheating: Mobile phones and cheating in schools: A national poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-
AC C
cheating
Cook, J., Pachler, N., & Bradley, C. (2008). Bridging the gap? Mobile phones at the interface between informal and formal learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 4(1), 3-18.
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 51-58.
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated. Drouin, M., & Driver, B. (2012). Texting, textese and literacy abilities: A naturalistic
RI PT
study. Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01532.x Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1
student to laptop ratio bring to technology‐supported teaching and learning?
SC
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. Retrieved from http://blog.amersol.edu.pe/g9-1to1/files/2011/10/LaptopTeacherPD.pdf
M AN U
Ertmer, P. A., & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research and Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaborations? Learning and Leading with
TE D
Technology, 29(3), 36-41.
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students’ perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395-413.
EP
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: What have we learnt? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
AC C
8(2), 1-16.
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 20. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Pew Research Center and The Berkman Center for Internet &
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Society at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx McCoy, B. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of digital
RI PT
devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5-14. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
survey. Journal of Technology Studies, 33(1).
SC
Obringer, S. J., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: A national
M AN U
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children's knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145-161.
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Learning in the 21st century: Taking it mobile! Selected
TE D
National Findings of the Speak Up 2010 Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/MobileLearningReport_2010.html Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using
EP
technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
AC C
http://archive.desertsun.com/assets/pdf/J12142481024.PDF
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson.
Rosen, L., Lim, A., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom:
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17(2), 163-177. Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional
RI PT
technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and
SC
communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488-496.
M AN U
Steel, C. (2012). Fitting learning into life: Language students’ perspectives on benefits of using mobile apps. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), ascilite 2012: Future challenges, sustainable futures. Wellington, New Zealand. Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text messaging in the secondary classroom.
TE D
American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging
EP
in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1-9. Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning:
AC C
Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 247-264). Edmonton,
Alberta Canada: Athabasca Press.
Wu, W., Wu, Y., Chen, C., Kao, H., Lin, C., & Haung, S. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-
827. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and their gadgets. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 20. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/03/generations-and-their-
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
gadgets/
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM APPENDIX .
☐ Basic phone (no data plan) ☐ Smart phone (with data plan) ☐ I do not own a cell phone. NOTE: If “I do not own a mobile phone”, skip to question 3. 2. I use my phone to _____________(Check all that apply).
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
send/receive text message send/receive email send/receive tweet access the Internet take a picture post a picture online record a video watch a video post a video online record audio post audio online play music play a podcast play a game use clock/alarm/timer use calendar use calculator use a social networking site (Facebook, Pinterest) download an app use educational apps scan QR codes create QR codes other
AC C
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
RI PT
1. The type of mobile phone that I own is a
For each statement below, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree about the use of mobile phones in the classroom. SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
3. I support the use of mobile phones in the classroom. SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D
A
N
SA
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 4. I think that mobile phones could/do support student
Learning.
SD
D
N
A
SA
N=Neutral
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
EP
TE D
M AN U
send/receive text message send/receive email send/receive tweet access the Internet take a picture post a picture online record a video watch a video post a video online record audio post audio online play music play a podcast play a game use clock/alarm/timer use calendar use calculator use a social networking site (Facebook, Pinterest) download an app use educational apps scan QR codes create QR codes
AC C
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
D=Disagree
SC
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
RI PT
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the features/functions of mobile phones listed below are useful for school related work.
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a benefit to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. SD=Strongly Disagree Agree 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
Increase access to technology in the classroom Increase student engagement Increase student motivation Facilitate student creativity Increase student/teacher productivity
SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D
A A A A A
N N N N N
SA SA SA SA SA
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 32. Decrease digital divide for students
with no computer at home
SD
D
N
A
SA
Increase collaboration Increase communication Increase digital fluency Provide anywhere/anytime learning opportunities Provide opportunities for diffentiation in instruction
SD SD SD SD SD
D D D D D
N N N N N
A A A A A
SA SA SA SA SA
RI PT
33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a barrier to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. N=Neutral
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D
N N N N
A A A A
SA SA SA SA
Access to phones/apps Cheating Cyberbullying Negative impact of texting on students’ writing Sexting (sending sexual images and/or texts
SD SD SD SD
messages)
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD SD
D D
N N
A A
SA SA
M AN U
38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
D=Disagree
SC
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
43. Students accessing inappropriate content on
the Internet
TE D
44. Access to wifi connectivity 45. Disruption of students learning
EP
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a disruption to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. NOTE: Only the preservice teachers who SA or A that mobile phones caused a disruption of student learning were routed to this section.
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.
AC C
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
Ringing Texting Playing games Listening to music Searching the Internet Tweeting
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
SD SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D D
A A A A A A
N N N N N N
SA SA SA SA SA SA
Demographics 52. Gender
•
Male 28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM •
Female
• • • • • • •
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White More than one race Early childhood Elementary Middle School (grades 6, 7, and 8) High school (grades 9, 10, 11 and 12) Other
M AN U
• • • • •
SC
55. What is your primary grade level of your teacher education program?
RI PT
53. Age 54. Race/Ethnicity
56. How do you rate your expertise with technology?
2
3
4
5
Expert
AC C
EP
TE D
Novice 1
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1 Preservice Teachers Use of Mobile Phone Features
RI PT
4 ( 1.6%) 10 ( 4.1%) 32 (13.1%) 12 ( 4.9%) 11 ( 4.5%) 59 (24.1%) 26 (10.6%) 28 (11.4%) 73 (10.6%) 51 (20.8%) 49 (20.8%) 62 (25.3%) 74 (30.2%) 68 (27.8%) 36 (14.7%) 81 (33.1%) 57 (23.3%) 53 (21.6%) 37 (15.1%) 53 (21.6%) 25 (10.2%) 11 ( 8.6%)
A moderate amt. A great deal 35 (14.3%) 31 (12.7%) 61 (24.9%) 33 (13.5%) 50 (20.4%) 60 (24.5%) 65 (26.5%) 55 (22.4%) 73 (26.5%) 67 (27.3%) 45 (18.4%) 74 (30.2%) 55 (22.4%) 42 (17.1%) 28 (11.4%) 43 (17.6%) 24 ( 9.8%) 33 (13.5%) 15 ( 6.1%) 33 (13.5%) 10 ( 4.1%) 5 ( 4.9%)
SC
1 ( .4%) 4 ( 1.6%) 10 ( 4.1%) 4 ( 1.6%) 3 ( 1.2%) 13 ( 5.3%) 16 ( 6.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 19 ( 6.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 24 ( 7.8%) 11( 4.5%) 36 (14.7%) 48 (19.6%) 20 ( 8.2%) 47 (19.2%) 63 (25.7%) 80 (32.7%) 68 (27.8%) 80 (32.7%) 48 (19.6%) 21 (27.3%)
AC C
Send/receive texts 2 ( .8%) Use clock/alarm/timer 2 ( .8%) 5 ( 2.0%) To take picture Use social networking 29 (11.8%) 28 (11.4%) Access the Internet 11 ( 4.5%) Use calendar 28 (11.4%) Send/receive email 35 (14.3%) To play music 4 (11.4%) Use calculator Download an app 31 (12.7%) 32 ( 1.6%) Post picture online 30 (12.2%) Watch a video 32 (13.1%) Record a video Play a game 50 (20.4%) 96 (39.2%) Sent/receive tweet Use educational apps 50 (20.4%) 78 (39.2%) Post a video online Record audio 66 (26.9 %) Play a podcast 119 (48.6%) 66 (26.9%) Post audio online Scan QR codes 158 (64.5%) 207 (55.5%) Create QR codes
Occasionally
M AN U
Rarely
TE D
Never
EP
Feature
203 (82.9%) 198 (80.8%) 137 (55.9%) 167 (68.3%) 153 (62.4%) 102 (41.6%) 110 (44.9%) 114 (46.5%) 76 (31.0%) 83 (33.9%) 95 (38.8%) 68 (27.8%) 48 (19.6%) 37 (15.1%) 65 26.5%) 24 ( 9.8%) 23 ( 9.4%) 13 ( 5.3%) 6 ( 2.4%) 13 ( 5.3%) 4 ( 1.6%) 1 ( 2.4%)
M
SD
4.78 4.71 4.29 4.24 4.21 3.93 3.87 3.82 3.81 3.64 3.60 3.57 3.21 2.87 2.78 2.77 2.39 2.38 1.86 1.74 1.59 1.25
.573 .697 .974 1.345 1.307 1.129 1.355 1.149 1.016 1.334 1.415 1.277 1.415 1.333 1.670 1.237 1.281 1.169 1.043 1.051 .944 .672
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Table 2 Preservice Teachers Perceived Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work SA
RI PT
17 ( 6.9%) 23 ( 9.4%) 25 (10.2%) 25 (10.2%) 27 (11.0%) 28 (11.4%) 32 (13.1%) 40 (16.3%) 38 (15.5%) 43 (17.6%) 47 (19.2%) 36 (14.7%) 39 (15.9%) 66 (26.9%) 64 (26.1%) 73 (29.8%) 69 (28.2%) 66 (26.9%) 95 (38.8%) 98 (40.0%) 59 (24.1%) 54 (22.0%) 55 (22.4%) 54 (22.0%)
102 (41.6%) 114 (46.5%) 114 (46.5%) 112 (45.7%) 123 (50.2%) 122 (49.8%) 137 (55.9%) 120 (49.0%) 118 (48.2%) 129 (52.7%) 124 (50.6%) 136 (55.5%) 125 (51.0%) 97 (39.6%) 90 (36.7%) 82 (33.5%) 80 (32.7%) 71 (29.0%) 60 (24.5%) 58 (23.7%) 76 (31.0%) 51 (20.8%) 33 (13.5%) 26 (10.6%)
M AN U
3 ( 1.2%) 2 ( .8%) 3 ( 1.2%) 9 ( 3.7%) 8 ( 3.3%) 14 ( 5.7%) 7 ( 2.9%) 11 ( 4.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 11 ( 4.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 21 ( 8.6%) 23 ( 9.4%) 38 (15.5%) 42 (17.1%) 32 (13.1%) 41 (16.7%) 71 (29.0%) 34 (13.9%) 34 (13.9%) 58 (23.7%) 79 (32.2%) 72 (29.4%) 81 (33.1%)
A
SC
N
TE D
3 (1.2.%) 3 (1.2%) 3 (1.2%) 8 (3.3%) 7 (2.9%) 3 (1.2%) 4 (1.6%) 2 ( .8%) 3 (1.2%) 9 (3.7%) 7 (2.9%) 5 (2.0%) 6 (2.4%) 12 (4.9%) 14 (5.7%) 22 (9.0%) 19 (7.8%) 29 (11.8%) 29 (11.8%) 31 (12.7%) 30 (12.2%) 40 (16.3%) 67 (27.3%) 68 (27.8%)
D
EP
Access Internet Use clicker/polling device Use educational app Read a book Send/receive email Use calculator Play a podcast Use a calendar Watch a video Clock/alarm/timer Take a picture Record audio Record a video Post audio online Post video online Download an app Post a picture online Play music Scan QR codes Create QR codes Play a game Send/receive texts Send/receive tweets Use a social network
SD
AC C
Feature
120 (49.0%) 103 (42.0%) 100 (40.8%) 91 (37.1%) 80 (32.7%) 78 (31.8%) 65 (26.5%) 72 (29.4%) 73 (29.8%) 53 (21.6%) 54 (22.0%) 47 (19.2%) 52 (21.2%) 32 (13.1%) 35 (14.3%) 36 (14.7%) 36 (14.7%) 31 (12.7%) 27 (11.0%) 24 ( 9.8%) 22 ( 9.0%) 21 ( 8.6%) 18 ( 7.3%) 16 ( 6.5%)
M
SD
4.36 4.27 4.24 4.10 4.07 4.05 4.03 4.02 4.00 3.84 3.84 3.81 3.79 3.40 3.37 3.32 3.30 3.11 3.09 3.04 3.01 2.73 2.44 2.35
.769 .765 .782 .953 .908 .879 .812 .844 .882 .938 .927 .913 .963 1.054 1.099 1.147 1.144 1.208 1.138 1.130 1.184 1.208 1.229 1.180
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
3
RI PT
Table 3 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Benefits to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom SD 1 (.4%)
D 8(3.3%)
N 35 (14.3%)
A 127 (51.8%)
SA 74 (30.2%)
M 4.08
SD .780
Provide anywhere/anytime
3 (1.2%)
10 (4.1%)
33 (13.5%)
125 (51.0%)
74 (30.2%)
4.05
.843
Provide differentiation opportunities
3 (1.2%)
11 (4.5%)
Increase access
0 (0.0%)
21 (8.6%)
Increase communication
8 (303%)
28 (11.4%)
Increase motivation
7 (2.9%)
31 (12.7%)
Decrease digital divide
6 (2.4%)
27 (11.0%)
Facilitate student creativity
5 (2.0%)
M AN U 31 (12.7%)
130 (53.1%)
70 (28.6%)
4.03
.839
27 (11.0%)
142 (58.0%)
55 (22.0%)
3.94
.823
34 (13.9%)
120 (49.0%)
55 (22.4%)
3.76
1.030
41 (16.7%
115 (46.9%)
51 (20.8%)
3.70
1.027
57 (23.3%)
105 (42.9%)
50 (20.4%)
3.68
.999
48 (19.%)
116 (47.3)
39 (15.9%)
3.60
.993
TE D
EP
37 (15.1%)
AC C
Increase collaboration
SC
Feature Develop digital fluency
4 (1.6%)
35 (14.3%)
63 (25.7%)
102 (41.6%)
41 (16.7%)
3.58
.983
Increase student engagement
13 (5.3%)
41 (16.7%)
41 (16.7%)
97 (39.6%)
53 (21.6%)
3.53
1.157
Increase productivity
14 (5.7%)
47 (19.2%)
77 (31.4%)
69 (28.2%)
38 (15.5%)
3.29
1.116
Note. N = 245
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
4
RI PT
Table 4 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Barriers to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom D
N
A
SC
SD
SA
Mean
SD
1 ( 0.4%)
10 (4.1%)
29 (11.8%)
128 (52.2%)
77 (31.4%)
4.10
.790
Disruption of class
3 (1.2%)
14 (5.7%)
37 (15.1%)
98 (40.0%)
93 (38.0%)
4.08
.931
Cyberbullying
2 (0.8%)
20 (8.2%)
36 (14.7%)
118 (48.2%)
69 (28.2%)
3.95
.9.11
Inappropriate content
2 (0.8%)
24 (9.8%)
39 (15.9%)
101 (42.2%)
79 (32.2%)
3.94
.973
Sexting
8 (3.3%)
25 (10.20%)
54 (22.0%)
100 (40.8%)
58 (23.7%)
3.71
1.040
Negative impact on writing
6 (2.4%)
32 (13.1%)
50 (20.4%)
100 (40.8%)
57 (23.3%)
3.69
1.044
Student access
6 (2.4%)
29 (11.8%)
66 (26.9%)
105 (42.9%)
39 (15.9%)
3.58
.974
Access to reliable wifi
6 (2.4%)
65 (26.5%)
95 (38.8%)
35 (14.3%)
3.44
1.021
Note. N = 245
EP
TE D
M AN U
Cheating
AC C
Barrier
44 (18.0%)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
5
Table 5
SD
D
N
A
SA
Mean
SD
Texting
191
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
13 (6.8%)
67 (35.1%)
110 (57.5%)
4.49
.672
Playing games
188
2 (1.0%)
0 (0.0%)
9 (4.7%)
85 (45.2%)
92 (48.9%)
4.41
.684
Tweeting
190
1 (0.5%)
8 (4.2%)
23 (12.1%)
81 (42.6%)
77 (40.5%)
4.18
.844
Searching the Internet
188
1 (0.5%)
10 (5.3%)
29 (15.4%)
86 (45.7%)
62 (32.9%)
4.05
.864
Ringing
191
3 (1.5%)
22 (11.5%)
22 (11.5%)
87 (45.5%)
57(29.8%)
3.91
1.006
Listening to music
191
0 (0.0)
17 (8.9%)
41 (21.4%)
80 (41.8%)
53 (27.7%)
3.88
.916
Parenting calling/texting
191
3 (1.5%)
25 (13.1%)
55 (28.8%)
72 (37.7%)
36 (18.8%)
3.59
.990
M AN U
SC
N
TE D
Disruption
RI PT
Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Disruptions of Class Caused by the Use of Mobile Phones
AC C
EP
Note. Preservice teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that mobile phones were a disruption of class were asked to report how strongly they agreed that this were disruptions.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Highlights Most useful features are accessing the Internet, using as a clicker and using an educational app. Primary benefits are developing digital fluency and providing anywhere/anytime learning opportunities. Primary barriers are cheating and disruption to class Primary disruptions are texting, playing games and tweeting.
S0360-1315(15)00062-7
DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010
Reference:
CAE 2801
To appear in:
Computers & Education
Received Date: 18 July 2014 Revised Date:
16 January 2015
Accepted Date: 16 February 2015
Please cite this article as: O’Bannon B.W. & Thomas K.M., Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Answer the Call, Computers & Education (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Answer the Call
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
Kevin M. Thomas Bellarmine University
RI PT
Blanche W. O’Bannon The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Author Note
Blanche W. O’Bannon, Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee; Kevin Thomas, Frazier School of Education, Bellarmine University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Blanche O’Bannon, 445 Claxton Complex, Knoxville, TN. Email: [email protected], phone: 865-974-0498, fax: 865-974-6302.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 1. Introduction Described as portable computers and the Swiss army knife of technologies, mobile phones have historically been banned in K-12 schools due to the perception that they are
RI PT
disruptive. A number of factors including, but not limited to, their increasing ubiquity, their ability to provide students with anywhere learning opportunities, the growing
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) movement, and mounting demands by parents, students,
SC
and school stakeholders, have resulted in a gradual lifting of the ban. A recent survey
conducted by Bradford Networks (2013) found that 89% of colleges and universities and
M AN U
44% of K-12 school districts in the United States and the United Kingdom allow students to bring their own devices to use on school networks. As more and more K-12 schools have opened their doors to mobile phone use, the benefits and barriers associated with their integration have materialized.
TE D
Preservice teachers find themselves in an interesting dichotomy with respect to mobile phone integration. Whereas previous attempts to provide 1:1 integration have been made with students who have digital devices, this generation of preservice teachers
EP
is among the first to have grown up in a 1:1 world. Ownership of digital devices among the Millennial generation (ages 18-34) was reported by Zickuhr (2011) to be 95% mobile
AC C
phone, 57% desktop, 70% laptop, 74% iPod, 63% game console, and 5% tablet—only 1% do not own one of these devices. In fact, one could argue that today’s preservice teachers are the students whose teachers believed used their mobile phones to disrupt class. On the other hand, preservice teachers are also the former students who identified the ban on mobile phones as the number one barrier to the integration of technology in the classroom (Project Tomorrow, 2010) and were increasingly using their phones to
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM complete school assignments (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Considering that teachers are the gatekeepers to technology integration in the classroom, preservice teachers will play an important role in the success or failure of mobile phone
RI PT
inclusion in the BYOD initiative. 2. Literature Review
Student learning, engagement, motivation, and productivity are positively influenced
SC
by technology (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). Mobile devices, such as mobile phones, are
no exception. They provide teachers and students with the benefits traditionally found in
M AN U
1:1 computing—and more. The increasing ubiquity and instructional features of these devices has made mobile learning “one of the key current trends of educational applications for new technologies” (Wu et al., 2012, p. 818). 2.1 Benefits to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom
TE D
The foremost instructional benefit linked with mobile devices is their ability to involve students in meaningful learning opportunities from anywhere (Traxler, 2009). For example, students use mobile phones to access the Internet. Allowing teachers and
EP
students to conduct online research is a benefit of 1:1 computing (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke, 2007). In a survey of 1,121 teachers, Authors (2014) found that student access
AC C
to the Internet was identified as the number one benefit of using mobile phones in the classroom. Currently, one fourth of teens use their mobile phones as their primary method of accessing the Internet (Madden, Lenhart, Dugan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013). A survey of 2,462 Advanced Placement (AP) and National Writing Project (NWP) teachers revealed that the most popular way they use mobile phones with students is to complete Internet research (Purcell et al., 2013). In addition to conducting research, 73% of the
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM respondents noted that their students used personal mobile phones to complete assignments, while 79% of the teachers required their students to access assignments online, and 76% required them to submit assignments online. Mobile phones can also be
RI PT
used to access online tools (e.g., Dropbox, Web 2.0, Poll Everywhere) and apps (e.g.,
PBS mobile apps and Illuminations) for classroom use. Further, the Internet can be used for communication, collaboration, and cooperative problem-solving (Harris (2002).
SC
Students also use their mobile phones to communicate through sending/receiving
text messages. Texting supports anywhere interaction; communication; and collaboration
M AN U
among teachers, students, and content (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). For example, Thomas and Orthober surveyed 46 high school students in three classes who received teacher-generated text messages on a variety of course-related topics. Results indicated that students found the use of teacher-generated text messaging to be beneficial in
TE D
increasing communication and interaction (student-to-teachers and student-to-content). Further, according to Plester, Wood, and Joshi (2009), texting can also improve students’ phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading ability.
EP
Recording audio and video is another useful feature of mobile phones for improving student literacy. Student-created podcasts can improve students’ reading, writing, and
AC C
listening skills (Smythe & Neufeld, 2010). Podcasts and/or vodcasts (video casts) also assist teachers in the differentiation of instruction by appealing to audio or visual learners (Smaldino, Russell, Heinich, & Molenda, 2005). Additional instructional benefits of mobile phones include providing teachers the ability to personalize instruction (Steel, 2012), create student-centered learning opportunities, collaborate (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007), and differentiate instruction
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007). Further, teachers and students also use traditional instructional tools on mobile phones, such as the calculator and digital camera (Authors, 2014). Regardless of the abundant benefits of mobile phone integration, the barriers to their use
RI PT
must be considered. 2.2 Barriers to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom
While mobile phones provide many of the benefits associated with 1:1 computing, they
SC
also share some of the same barriers. For example, in a study of two middle schools,
Dunleavy et al. (2007) found that 1:1 computing could be disruptive and a distraction.
M AN U
Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, and Purcell (2010) agree that the most common dispute against the use of mobile phones in the classroom is the disruption they cause. And this assertion is supported by two recent studies involving university students. Baker, Lusk, and Neuhauser (2012) conducted a study with 882 university students regarding the
TE D
classroom use of electronic devices. Generally, these students felt that any use of mobile phones was disruptive to learning. Of specific concern were making calls, checking and sending text messages, and checking email. Additionally, McCoy (2013) conducted a
EP
study with 777 college students and discovered that 80% believed that using digital devices in the classroom, such as mobile phones, distracted them from learning.
AC C
Additional studies support the findings of these researchers. Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever (2011) investigated the effect of texting during instruction. Results indicated that academic performance decreased when students texted during class. Similarly, educators worry about the influence of textese, the abbreviations and slang associated with texting, on written language skills. Yet, research on this issue is mixed. Coe and Oakhill (2011) examined the effect of student texting/textese and
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM literacy and reported a positive relationship, whereas Drouin and Driver (2012) identified that texting negatively affects students’ literacy. Additional concerns include students’ use of mobile phones for cheating, sexting,
RI PT
and cyberbullying. Studies (Commonsense Media, 2010; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012)
confirm that students use their mobile phones to cheat. Teens also use their phones for sexting, the practice of sending sexually explicit photos and/or messages via a mobile
SC
phone. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 4% of teens ages 12-17 who own mobile phones have sent these types of messages (Lenhart et al., 2010), and
M AN U
15% have received such messages. Another concern is cyberbullying, which is bullying that takes place through the use of digital technology. While cyberbullying can occur through the use of the Internet and social media, Holfeld and Grabe (2012) conducted a study with 665 middle school students and discovered that offenders used their mobile
TE D
phones to bully others in 41% of the incidents.
Traditional barriers to technology integration—fear of change, lack of training, modeling, lack of personal use, motivation, and a negative school environment (Bitner &
EP
Bitner, 2002)—also hinder the integration of mobile phones into the classroom. These barriers can also prevent teachers from developing the knowledge, pedagogy, and self-
AC C
efficacy necessary to move past “low levels” of technology integration and enable teachers to take full advantage of the instructional benefits that technologies provide (Ertmer & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The potential negative uses associated with the use of mobile phones have prompted school officials to ban them from the classroom, thus creating an environment that denies teachers the training, modeling, knowledge, and motivation to recognize the instructional benefits associated with their use.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 3. Purpose of the Study The benefits and barriers associated with the use of mobile phones in the classroom have resulted in disparity and confusion. Should mobile phones be integrated into
literature on preservice teachers’ perceptions of this topic.
RI PT
instruction? What are the views of those entering the profession? There is a gap in the
The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers’ perceptions of the use
SC
of mobile phones in the classroom. Specifically, we examined their support for mobile
phone use in the classroom, their view of the usefulness of specific mobile phone features
M AN U
for school-related work, and their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. In addition, the study examined the relationship between their use of mobile phones and their technology expertise and their views of the benefits and barriers to mobile phone use as well as the distractions associated with their use.
4.1 Research Design
TE D
4. Methods
Guided by the recommendations of Creswell (2013), we used a survey approach to
EP
investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions of the use of mobile phones in the classroom. Survey research was the preferred method of data collection because of its economy,
AC C
rapid turnaround, and the standardization of the data (Babbie, 2012). Data were collected through a cross-sectional web-based survey (see Appendix) developed specifically for this study and is discussed in the Data Source segment of the Methods section. 4.2 Participants
Preservice teachers (N = 255) from two universities in Kentucky and Tennessee were invited to participate in this study. Of these, 245 (96%) completed the study. The
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM preservice teachers who comprised this convenience sample were similarly distributed between the states, with 113 (46%) located in Kentucky and 132 (54%) located in Tennessee. One hundred thirty (53%) were aspiring to become early childhood or
RI PT
elementary teachers. Eighty-two (33.5%) were in middle or secondary teacher education programs, and 33 (13.5%) were enrolled in K-12 teacher preparation programs in areas such as special education, art, and music.
SC
One hundred ninety-seven (80%) were female, and 48 (20%) were male. Two
hundred fifteen (88%) were Caucasian, 10 (4.0 %) were Latino/Hispanic, eight (3.0%)
M AN U
were more than one race, six (2.4%) were Asian, four (1.6%) were African American, and two (.08%) were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The mean age was 22.93 (SD = 5.69). Two hundred fourteen (87.3%) owned smartphones, and 31 (12.7%) owned basic mobile phones.
TE D
4.3 Data Source
The survey (see Appendix), developed by the researchers, was based on current literature associated with mobile phone use. The survey consisted of 56 items and was
EP
used to gather demographic data as well as the type of phone owned, participants’ use of mobile phones, their support for the use of mobile phones in the classroom, and their
AC C
perceptions regarding useful mobile phone features and the benefits and barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom, as well as their perceptions of disruptions caused by their use. The survey contained a mix of question types including Yes/No, checklists, open-ended, and Likert-scaled questions using 5-point scales (SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree). We classified Likert scaled items in themes. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was administered on phone
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM use, useful features for school related work, benefits, barriers and disruptions. Benefits, barriers and disruptions each resulted in single factors. Phone use and useful features for school related work failed to result in constructs that made conceptual sense. Therefore,
RI PT
individual items were examined descriptively and overall means were used in
comparisons. For internal consistency and reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were calculated and interpreted for each theme based on the rules (.9 = high level, .8 =
SC
moderate, .7 = low level, .6 = acceptable level, and <.6 = unacceptable level) (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991). The themes include 11 items related to the benefits of using mobile
M AN U
phones in the classroom (α = .94), 8 items related to the barriers associated with using mobile phones (α = .84) and 6 items associated with disruptions to class caused by using mobile phones (α = .73).
Participants linked to the anonymous online survey from a web page with the
TE D
consent form. No login was required, and participants completed the survey in one sitting. However, given that the survey did not timeout, they could leave the computer for short periods and return later to finish. The approximate time for completion was 10-
EP
20 minutes, depending on the individual.
Content validity was established for the survey by using experts (n = 5) in the field
AC C
of educational technology who reviewed the survey individually and marked information they felt was unclear or inappropriate. Additionally, the survey was distributed to preservice teachers (n = 40) in a technology course to check for understanding. Most questions were retained (n = 52), and five were revised as suggested by the experts and students to better communicate the questions. None were eliminated. 4.4 Data Collection and Analysis
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM The researchers distributed the invitation to participate, the consent form, and the survey online. Upon receipt, preservice teachers read the consent form, and those who wished to participate proceeded by linking to the survey, which was constructed in
RI PT
Qualtrics. Completion and submission of the survey indicated consent. The resulting data were analyzed, descriptive statistics were calculated to identify frequencies and means, and appropriate statistical tests were administered as needed. Results
SC
5.
Most of the preservice teachers reported that they were experienced users of
M AN U
technology. Using a 5-point scale (1 = novice; 5 = expert), the preservice teachers were asked to rate their expertise with technology (M = 3.69, SD = .692). An additional review revealed that approximately a tenth of the preservice teachers (9.8%) reported that they were experts. Most (52%) reported their proficiency at level 4, whereas 36% rated
novice (.4%).
TE D
their proficiency at level 3. Far fewer (2.0%) reported their proficiency at level 2 or
5.1 Support for the Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom
EP
The preservice teachers were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I support the use of mobile phones in the classroom.” The results revealed M
AC C
= 3.23, SD = 1.081. Almost half of the preservice teachers (45%) indicated their support for mobile phone use in the classroom, while 25% of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (30%) were undecided. They were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I think mobile phones support student learning.” The results revealed M = 3.43, SD = 1.056. More than half of the preservice teachers (58%) indicated that mobile phones support student learning, whereas
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM far fewer (21%) of the preservice teachers disagreed. The remaining preservice teachers (21%) were undecided. 5.2 Use of Mobile Phone Features
RI PT
Using a 5-point scale (1 = Never; 5 = A great deal), the preservice teachers were
asked how frequently they use 22 features of mobile phones apart from making/receiving phone calls (see Table 1). Over half reported that they use mobile phone features the
SC
most: sending/receiving texts (M = 4.78, SD = .573); using the clock, alarm, timer (M =
4.71, SD = .697); taking a picture (M = 4.29, SD = .974); accessing social networks (M =
M AN U
4.24, SD = 1.345); and accessing the Internet (M = 4.21, SD = 1.307). The features they use the least were playing a podcast (M = 1.86, SD = 1.043), posting audio online (M = 1.74, SD = 1.051), scanning a QR code (M = 1.59, SD = .944), and creating a QR code (M = 1.25, SD = .672). Overall mean for phone use (M = 3.29, SD = .746).
TE D
5.3 Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work
Participants were asked to identify the features of mobile phones that they believed could be useful for school-related work. Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), the
EP
preservice teachers reported how strongly they agreed or disagreed that 22 mobile phone features could be useful for school-related work (see Table 2). Those identified as most
AC C
useful were accessing the Internet (M = 4.36, SD = .769), using as a clicker/polling device (M = 4.27, SD = .765), using an educational app (M = 4.24, SD = .782), reading a book (M = 4.10, SD = .953), sending and receiving email (M = 4.07, SD = .908), using the calculator (M = 4.05, SD = .879), playing a podcast (M = 4.03, SD = .8125), and using the calendar (M = 4.02, SD = .844). The features they believed to be the least useful were sending/receiving texts (M = 2.73, SD = 1.208), sending/receiving tweets (M = 2.44, SD
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM = 1.229), and accessing social networks (M = 2.35, SD = 1.180). Overall mean for useful features for school-related work (M = 3.57, SD = .651). 5.4 Benefits to Mobile Phone Usage in the Classroom
RI PT
Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), participants indicated how strongly they
agreed or disagreed that the benefits to using mobile phones in the classroom included increases in access to technology, student engagement, student motivation, student
SC
creativity, student/teacher productivity, collaboration, communication, and digital fluency, as well as providing anytime/anywhere learning opportunities, opportunities for
M AN U
differentiation of instruction, and decreasing the digital divide. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.94. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be benefits; however, they thought some were more beneficial than others (see Table 3). They indicated that mobile phones were most beneficial in developing
TE D
digital fluency (M = 4.08, SD = .780), providing anywhere/anytime learning opportunities (M = 4.05, SD = .843), providing opportunities for differentiation of instruction (M = 4.03, SD = .839), and increasing access to technology in the classroom (M = 3.94, SD = .823).
EP
Of the benefits cited in the literature, participants perceived that mobiles phones were less beneficial in facilitating student creativity (M = 3.60, SD = .993), increasing collaboration
AC C
(M = 3.58, SD = .993), increasing student engagement (M = 3.56, SD = 1.157), and increasing student/teacher productivity (M = 3.29, SD = 1.116). Overall mean for benefits (M = 3.75, SD = .754).
5.5 Barriers to Mobile Phone Usage in the Classroom Using a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), participants indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that student access, cheating, cyberbullying, disruption of class,
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM negative impact of texting on writing, sexting, and access to inappropriate content were barriers to using mobile phones in the classroom. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the questionnaire is 0.84.Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be
RI PT
barriers; however, they were more concerned about some than others (see Table 4). They identified cheating (M = 4.10, SD = .790), disruption of class (M = 4.08, SD = .931), cyberbullying (M = 3.95, SD = .911), and access to inappropriate information on the
SC
Internet (M = 3.94, SD = .973) as the primary barriers to using mobile phones in the
classroom. They also agreed that sexting (M = 3.71, SD = 1.040) and the negative impact
M AN U
of texting on writing (M = 3.69, SD = 1.044) were barriers. Of the barriers cited in the literature, they were least concerned about student access to phones (M = 3.58, SD = .974). Overall mean for barriers (M = 3.81, SD = .664).
5.6 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Disruptions to Instruction
TE D
The preservice teachers who strongly agreed or agreed that mobile phones caused disruptions in class were routed to a 5-point scale (1 = SD; 5 = SA), where they indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that ringing, texting, playing games,
EP
listening to music, searching the Internet, tweeting, and parents calling/texting students during class were disruptions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this part of the
AC C
questionnaire is 0.73. Their responses revealed that they perceived all to be disruptive; however, they were more anxious about some than others. They identified texting (M = 4.49, SD = .672), playing games (M = 4.41, SD = .684), tweeting (M = 4.18, SD = .844), and searching the Internet (M = 4.05, SD = .864) as the primary disruptions when using mobile phones in the classroom. They also agreed that ringing (M = 3.91, SD = 1.006)
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM and listening to music (M = 3.88, SD = .916) were disruptions. They were least concerned about parents calling/texting students during classes (M = 3.59, SD = .990). 5.7 Relationship Between Use and Preservice Perceptions
RI PT
To determine whether there was a relationship between phone use by the preservice
teachers and their perceptions of the useful features, benefits and barriers associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no
SC
relationship between use and barriers (r = -.046, p = .477). However, there were positive relationships between use and benefits (r = .257, p < .001) and use and useful features (r
M AN U
= .230, p < .001). As phone use increases, the preservice teachers are more positive about the usefulness of features and the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom. 5.8 Relationship Between Technology Expertise, Gender, and Preservice Perceptions To determine whether there was a relationship between the technology expertise
TE D
of the preservice teachers and their perceptions of the benefits, barriers, and disruptions associated with using mobile phones in the classroom, we ran Pearson Correlations. There was no relationship between technology expertise and barriers (r = -.014, p = .830)
EP
or disruptions (r = -.022, p = .759). However, there was a positive relationship between technology expertise and benefits (r = .278, p < .001). As technology expertise increases,
AC C
the preservice teachers are more positive about the benefits of using mobile phones in the classroom. Correlations were also administered to determine if there was a relationship between perceptions and useful features, benefits and barriers. No significant relationships were found were perceptions (features, p=.698, benefits, p= .783; barriers, p=.867). Independent t-tests was used to determine if there were differences in
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM perceptions with regard to gender. No significant differences with gender were found (features, p=.871, benefits, p= .310; barriers, p=.173). 6. Discussion
RI PT
6.1 Preservice Teachers’ Support for the Use of Mobile Phones in the Classroom
Almost half of the preservice teachers in this study supported using mobile phones in the classroom. This finding indicates an upsurge in support as compared to earlier
SC
research conducted by the Authors (2013) involving 93 preservice teachers that found only one fourth of the preservice teachers supported their use. The earlier study also
M AN U
found that over 50% of the preservice teachers were undecided, whereas only 30% of the participants in the current study were unsure about mobile phone inclusion. These outcomes could suggest that preservice teachers who were once undecided about the use of mobile phones in the classroom are changing their minds. This shift toward inclusion
school culture.
TE D
could be a result of the lessening of two barriers to mobile phone integration—access and
As preservice teachers’ phone use increased, their perceptions of the useful features
EP
for school related work and their perceptions of the benefits to using mobile phones increased. This finding suggests that future teachers who are comfortable with phones
AC C
will be willing to use them in the classroom. Increasingly, schools are allowing teachers/students to use mobile phones in the classroom. In a survey of 200 high school principals, Obringer and Coffey (2007) found that only 21% of the schools allowed students to use mobile phones. Six years later in 2013, Bradford Networks determined that 44% of K-12 school districts in the United States and the United Kingdom permitted students to bring their own devices (BYOD) to use on school networks. The increased
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM support from preservice teachers could reflect the cultural change in schools—a move toward increased inclusion of mobile devices. Additionally, their increased support could be a reflection of the upsurge in personal use of mobile phones. In this study, 87% of
RI PT
preservice teachers owned smartphones, which reflects a 17% increase from the 2013
study of preservice teachers conducted by the authors. Access provides teachers with the opportunity for personal use and training through self-directed learning. Thus, they are
SC
able to overcome these traditional barriers identified with technology integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Increased use of personal mobile phones also could be attributed to
M AN U
preservice teachers identifying potential classroom benefits.
6.2 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work
In conjunction with preservice teachers’ increasing support for classroom integration
TE D
of mobile phones is their increasing recognition of their benefits. The majority of participants agreed with previous research (Authors, 2013) on all but one of the benefits of mobile phone use in the classroom—increased productivity. This finding indicates a
EP
change in preservice teachers’ perceptions of the instructional benefits of mobile phones. In the previous study, (Authors) investigated perceptions of the same benefits of mobile
AC C
phone use and found that the preservice teachers acknowledged only half of the benefits identified in the literature (i.e., provide anywhere/anytime learning, provide differentiation opportunities, increase communication, increase motivation, and increase student engagement). Likewise, the ability of personal devices to support the differentiation (personalization) of instruction and increase communication is supported by research on 1:1 computing (Dunleavy et al., 2007).
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM In contrast to preservice teachers’ assertion that mobile phones do not increase productivity, a survey of 1,121 teachers (Authors, 2014) found that productivity tools (e.g., calendar, calculator, clock/alarm/timer) were among the top tools identified as
RI PT
beneficial for classroom use. Similarly, Dunleavy et al. (2007) found increased
productivity to be a benefit of 1:1 computing. Interestingly, with the exception of two
benefits, digital fluency and student engagement, the ranking of the benefits identified by
SC
the preservice teachers was identical to the ranking in the (Authors’) earlier study.
Regarding digital fluency and student engagement, the ability of mobile phone use in the
M AN U
classroom to develop digital fluency jumped from ninth place out of 10 benefits listed to the number one benefit identified by participants. Conversely, the capability of mobile phone use to increase student engagement dropped from second to ninth—directly above increase productivity. The proximity of student engagement and productivity in the
TE D
ranking may not be a coincidence and may shed some light on preservice teachers’ lack of acknowledgement of increased productivity as a benefit of mobile phone inclusion. Preservice teachers indicated that they used their phones primarily to send texts; use
EP
the clock, alarm, and timer; use social networking; and access the Internet. This finding supports research by McCoy (2013), who discovered that the primary ways college
AC C
students use digital devices in class for non-class purposes are to text (85.9%), check the time (79%), social network (66%), and surf the web (38%). Further, the majority (80%) of those college students believed that these activities distracted them from learning. This finding suggests that while mobile phones have a number of classroom benefits, present classroom use would indicate that increasing student engagement and productivity might not be two of them. It should also be noted that preservice teachers
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM listed sending texts and use of social networks at the bottom of the list of mobile phone features that would be useful in the classroom. 6.3 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Barriers to Mobile Phone Use in the Classroom
RI PT
Despite their support for allowing mobile phone use in the classroom, preservice
teachers have concerns about potential barriers. These concerns are not new. In 2007,
Dunleavey et al identified problems with 1:1 computing integration with middle school
SC
students using laptops, including their ability to disrupt class and distract students.
Recent research (Authors, 2013) uncovered similarities. While preservice teachers from
M AN U
the earlier research (Authors, 2013) and the current study identified disruption and cheating as their top concerns, slightly more participants in the earlier study were apprehensive about the disruptive nature of phones (67%) than students using them for cheating (65%). Results from the current study, however, indicate that preservice
TE D
teachers were more concerned about cheating (83%) than disruption (78%). Participants’ uneasiness could be connected to their own use and/or misuse of mobile phones in the classroom. For example, Common Sense (2009) reported that a third of students
EP
admitted using mobile phones to cheat—25% doing so via text messaging. Furthermore, Tindell and Bohlander (2012) found that 76% of students believe that mobile phones
AC C
have the potential to give students an unfair advantage during exams. Regarding participants’ concerns about the perceived disruptive nature of phones, 85% of students admit to texting during class, 67% send emails, 66% check social networks, 89% acknowledge that their digital devices distract them (McCoy, 2013), and one half of college students believe that any use of phones in the classroom is a disturbance (Baker et al., 2012).
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Results from this study appear to suggest that preservice teachers’ apprehension about the barriers associated with integration is increasing. Compared with the earlier research conducted by Authors (2013), a much higher percentage of the participants in this study
RI PT
were concerned about each of the seven potential barriers (i.e., cheating, disruption of class, cyberbullying, inappropriate content, sexting, negative impact on writing, and
student access) identified in the literature. In fact, twice as many preservice teachers
SC
expressed fears about student access to inappropriate content, sexting, and cyberbullying, and three times as many viewed texting as a barrier. One explanation for this increase in
M AN U
concern could be access. In the prior study, approximately 75% of participants had a mobile phone compared to almost 90% in this study. Not surprisingly, their fears about access as a barrier dropped dramatically. The increase in access provides participants with the ability to discover the classroom uses and misuses of mobile phones.
TE D
Finally, despite the increased acceptance of mobile phones in schools, the majority of secondary schools continue to ban phones in the classroom. Moreover, neither of the education programs attended by these preservice teachers provides instruction on the
EP
classroom integration of mobile phones. Therefore, participants have not had the necessary training or time to practice using mobile phones to support instruction, which
AC C
are barriers to integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Additionally, these preservice teachers have lacked models of integration in the classroom. It is difficult for preservice teachers who are mobile phone users to conceptualize instructional uses of applications that they have not seen modeled (Cook, Pachler, & Bradley, 2008).
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
6. Limitations of the Study While this study adds to our understanding of preservice teachers’ views of using
RI PT
mobile phones in the classroom, there are limitations that are characteristic of the
methods used. While the survey development was aligned with the literature on mobile phones and content validity and internal consistency was established, additional testing
SC
for reliability of the instrument could be performed. In addition, the survey relied on
self-report data; thus, participants may not have answered honestly or accurately, and
M AN U
there is no method for verifying their answers.
The population of the study involved preservice teachers from only two universities in two states, which limits the generalizability of the study. It is quite possible that the perceptions of a larger population of preservice teachers from different states or regions
TE D
of the U.S. would differ. There were considerably more female participants than male; however, this statistic is characteristic of a population of preservice teachers. These limitations verify the need for further research that involves random sampling from many
EP
states/regions to provide generalizability. 7. Implications for Practice
AC C
In the past, the ban on mobile phone use in the classroom made it impossible for educators to perceive their instructional potential or lack thereof. As an increasing number of schools move to a “BYOD” model, which includes bringing your own mobile phone, and an increasing number of individuals own mobile phones, a clearer picture of the perceived benefits and barriers associated with mobile phone use is starting to emerge. The students populating teacher education programs today increasingly have access to
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM mobile phones and are using them more and more in the classroom. The combination of these two factors has shaped preservice teachers’ evolving perceptions of the pros and cons associated with the inclusion of mobile phones in the classroom. Results from this
RI PT
study indicate that while the tool has changed, many of the pros and cons of 1:1 computing have not.
To accentuate the pros and minimize the cons associated with 1:1 computing with
SC
mobile devices like mobile phones, teacher preparation programs need to instruct
preservice teachers on how to use them effectively in the classroom. Integration is
M AN U
dependent upon preservice teachers’ experience with faculty who effectively model the use of technologies (Bitner & Bitner, 2002).
8. Recommendations for Future Research
Participants in this study expressed strong feelings about the instructional benefits
TE D
and barriers associated with classroom integration of mobile phones. Research suggests that concerns about phone misuse could be a result of personal classroom use. Due to the ban that exists in the majority of K-12 schools, most preservice teachers have not
EP
benefited from instructional models of teachers who effectively integrate mobile phones to support classroom instruction/student learning. Future research should examine the
AC C
root of participants’ concerns. One way this could be addressed would be to identify/study a population of preservice teachers who have attended K-12 schools where mobile phones were integrated into the classroom through a “BYOD” model and/or preservice teachers who are enrolled in teacher preparation programs where the instructional applications of mobile phones are presented.
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM References Authors (2013). Authors (2014).
RI PT
Babbie, E. R. (2012). The basics of social research. Cengage Learning.
Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the use of cell phones and
Journal of Education for Business, 87(5), 275-289.
SC
other devices in the classroom: Evidence from a survey of faculty and students.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
M AN U
success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100. Bradford Networks. (2013). The impact of BYOD in education (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.bradfordnetworks.com/resources/whitepapers/the-impact-ofbyod-in-education/
TE D
Coe, J. E. L., & Oakhill, J. V. (2011). ‘txtN is ez f u no h2 rd’: The relation between reading ability and text-messaging behavior. Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 4-17.
EP
CommonSense Media. (2010). Hi-tech cheating: Mobile phones and cheating in schools: A national poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-
AC C
cheating
Cook, J., Pachler, N., & Bradley, C. (2008). Bridging the gap? Mobile phones at the interface between informal and formal learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 4(1), 3-18.
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 51-58.
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated. Drouin, M., & Driver, B. (2012). Texting, textese and literacy abilities: A naturalistic
RI PT
study. Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01532.x Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1
student to laptop ratio bring to technology‐supported teaching and learning?
SC
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. Retrieved from http://blog.amersol.edu.pe/g9-1to1/files/2011/10/LaptopTeacherPD.pdf
M AN U
Ertmer, P. A., & Orrenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research and Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaborations? Learning and Leading with
TE D
Technology, 29(3), 36-41.
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students’ perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395-413.
EP
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: What have we learnt? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
AC C
8(2), 1-16.
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 20. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Pew Research Center and The Berkman Center for Internet &
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Society at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx McCoy, B. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of digital
RI PT
devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5-14. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
survey. Journal of Technology Studies, 33(1).
SC
Obringer, S. J., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: A national
M AN U
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children's knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145-161.
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Learning in the 21st century: Taking it mobile! Selected
TE D
National Findings of the Speak Up 2010 Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/MobileLearningReport_2010.html Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using
EP
technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
AC C
http://archive.desertsun.com/assets/pdf/J12142481024.PDF
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson.
Rosen, L., Lim, A., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom:
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17(2), 163-177. Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional
RI PT
technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and
SC
communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488-496.
M AN U
Steel, C. (2012). Fitting learning into life: Language students’ perspectives on benefits of using mobile apps. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), ascilite 2012: Future challenges, sustainable futures. Wellington, New Zealand. Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text messaging in the secondary classroom.
TE D
American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging
EP
in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1-9. Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning:
AC C
Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 247-264). Edmonton,
Alberta Canada: Athabasca Press.
Wu, W., Wu, Y., Chen, C., Kao, H., Lin, C., & Haung, S. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-
827. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and their gadgets. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 20. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/03/generations-and-their-
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
gadgets/
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM APPENDIX .
☐ Basic phone (no data plan) ☐ Smart phone (with data plan) ☐ I do not own a cell phone. NOTE: If “I do not own a mobile phone”, skip to question 3. 2. I use my phone to _____________(Check all that apply).
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
send/receive text message send/receive email send/receive tweet access the Internet take a picture post a picture online record a video watch a video post a video online record audio post audio online play music play a podcast play a game use clock/alarm/timer use calendar use calculator use a social networking site (Facebook, Pinterest) download an app use educational apps scan QR codes create QR codes other
AC C
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
RI PT
1. The type of mobile phone that I own is a
For each statement below, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree about the use of mobile phones in the classroom. SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
3. I support the use of mobile phones in the classroom. SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D
A
N
SA
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 4. I think that mobile phones could/do support student
Learning.
SD
D
N
A
SA
N=Neutral
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
EP
TE D
M AN U
send/receive text message send/receive email send/receive tweet access the Internet take a picture post a picture online record a video watch a video post a video online record audio post audio online play music play a podcast play a game use clock/alarm/timer use calendar use calculator use a social networking site (Facebook, Pinterest) download an app use educational apps scan QR codes create QR codes
AC C
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
D=Disagree
SC
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
RI PT
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the features/functions of mobile phones listed below are useful for school related work.
SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a benefit to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. SD=Strongly Disagree Agree 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
Increase access to technology in the classroom Increase student engagement Increase student motivation Facilitate student creativity Increase student/teacher productivity
SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D
A A A A A
N N N N N
SA SA SA SA SA
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM 32. Decrease digital divide for students
with no computer at home
SD
D
N
A
SA
Increase collaboration Increase communication Increase digital fluency Provide anywhere/anytime learning opportunities Provide opportunities for diffentiation in instruction
SD SD SD SD SD
D D D D D
N N N N N
A A A A A
SA SA SA SA SA
RI PT
33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a barrier to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. N=Neutral
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D
N N N N
A A A A
SA SA SA SA
Access to phones/apps Cheating Cyberbullying Negative impact of texting on students’ writing Sexting (sending sexual images and/or texts
SD SD SD SD
messages)
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD SD
D D
N N
A A
SA SA
M AN U
38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
D=Disagree
SC
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
43. Students accessing inappropriate content on
the Internet
TE D
44. Access to wifi connectivity 45. Disruption of students learning
EP
Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a disruption to students’ learning when using mobile phones in the classroom. NOTE: Only the preservice teachers who SA or A that mobile phones caused a disruption of student learning were routed to this section.
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.
AC C
SD=Strongly Disagree Agree
Ringing Texting Playing games Listening to music Searching the Internet Tweeting
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
SD SD SD SD SD SD
A=Agree
SA=Strongly
D D D D D D
A A A A A A
N N N N N N
SA SA SA SA SA SA
Demographics 52. Gender
•
Male 28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM •
Female
• • • • • • •
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White More than one race Early childhood Elementary Middle School (grades 6, 7, and 8) High school (grades 9, 10, 11 and 12) Other
M AN U
• • • • •
SC
55. What is your primary grade level of your teacher education program?
RI PT
53. Age 54. Race/Ethnicity
56. How do you rate your expertise with technology?
2
3
4
5
Expert
AC C
EP
TE D
Novice 1
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1 Preservice Teachers Use of Mobile Phone Features
RI PT
4 ( 1.6%) 10 ( 4.1%) 32 (13.1%) 12 ( 4.9%) 11 ( 4.5%) 59 (24.1%) 26 (10.6%) 28 (11.4%) 73 (10.6%) 51 (20.8%) 49 (20.8%) 62 (25.3%) 74 (30.2%) 68 (27.8%) 36 (14.7%) 81 (33.1%) 57 (23.3%) 53 (21.6%) 37 (15.1%) 53 (21.6%) 25 (10.2%) 11 ( 8.6%)
A moderate amt. A great deal 35 (14.3%) 31 (12.7%) 61 (24.9%) 33 (13.5%) 50 (20.4%) 60 (24.5%) 65 (26.5%) 55 (22.4%) 73 (26.5%) 67 (27.3%) 45 (18.4%) 74 (30.2%) 55 (22.4%) 42 (17.1%) 28 (11.4%) 43 (17.6%) 24 ( 9.8%) 33 (13.5%) 15 ( 6.1%) 33 (13.5%) 10 ( 4.1%) 5 ( 4.9%)
SC
1 ( .4%) 4 ( 1.6%) 10 ( 4.1%) 4 ( 1.6%) 3 ( 1.2%) 13 ( 5.3%) 16 ( 6.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 19 ( 6.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 24 ( 7.8%) 11( 4.5%) 36 (14.7%) 48 (19.6%) 20 ( 8.2%) 47 (19.2%) 63 (25.7%) 80 (32.7%) 68 (27.8%) 80 (32.7%) 48 (19.6%) 21 (27.3%)
AC C
Send/receive texts 2 ( .8%) Use clock/alarm/timer 2 ( .8%) 5 ( 2.0%) To take picture Use social networking 29 (11.8%) 28 (11.4%) Access the Internet 11 ( 4.5%) Use calendar 28 (11.4%) Send/receive email 35 (14.3%) To play music 4 (11.4%) Use calculator Download an app 31 (12.7%) 32 ( 1.6%) Post picture online 30 (12.2%) Watch a video 32 (13.1%) Record a video Play a game 50 (20.4%) 96 (39.2%) Sent/receive tweet Use educational apps 50 (20.4%) 78 (39.2%) Post a video online Record audio 66 (26.9 %) Play a podcast 119 (48.6%) 66 (26.9%) Post audio online Scan QR codes 158 (64.5%) 207 (55.5%) Create QR codes
Occasionally
M AN U
Rarely
TE D
Never
EP
Feature
203 (82.9%) 198 (80.8%) 137 (55.9%) 167 (68.3%) 153 (62.4%) 102 (41.6%) 110 (44.9%) 114 (46.5%) 76 (31.0%) 83 (33.9%) 95 (38.8%) 68 (27.8%) 48 (19.6%) 37 (15.1%) 65 26.5%) 24 ( 9.8%) 23 ( 9.4%) 13 ( 5.3%) 6 ( 2.4%) 13 ( 5.3%) 4 ( 1.6%) 1 ( 2.4%)
M
SD
4.78 4.71 4.29 4.24 4.21 3.93 3.87 3.82 3.81 3.64 3.60 3.57 3.21 2.87 2.78 2.77 2.39 2.38 1.86 1.74 1.59 1.25
.573 .697 .974 1.345 1.307 1.129 1.355 1.149 1.016 1.334 1.415 1.277 1.415 1.333 1.670 1.237 1.281 1.169 1.043 1.051 .944 .672
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM Table 2 Preservice Teachers Perceived Useful Mobile Phone Features for School-related Work SA
RI PT
17 ( 6.9%) 23 ( 9.4%) 25 (10.2%) 25 (10.2%) 27 (11.0%) 28 (11.4%) 32 (13.1%) 40 (16.3%) 38 (15.5%) 43 (17.6%) 47 (19.2%) 36 (14.7%) 39 (15.9%) 66 (26.9%) 64 (26.1%) 73 (29.8%) 69 (28.2%) 66 (26.9%) 95 (38.8%) 98 (40.0%) 59 (24.1%) 54 (22.0%) 55 (22.4%) 54 (22.0%)
102 (41.6%) 114 (46.5%) 114 (46.5%) 112 (45.7%) 123 (50.2%) 122 (49.8%) 137 (55.9%) 120 (49.0%) 118 (48.2%) 129 (52.7%) 124 (50.6%) 136 (55.5%) 125 (51.0%) 97 (39.6%) 90 (36.7%) 82 (33.5%) 80 (32.7%) 71 (29.0%) 60 (24.5%) 58 (23.7%) 76 (31.0%) 51 (20.8%) 33 (13.5%) 26 (10.6%)
M AN U
3 ( 1.2%) 2 ( .8%) 3 ( 1.2%) 9 ( 3.7%) 8 ( 3.3%) 14 ( 5.7%) 7 ( 2.9%) 11 ( 4.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 11 ( 4.5%) 13 ( 5.3%) 21 ( 8.6%) 23 ( 9.4%) 38 (15.5%) 42 (17.1%) 32 (13.1%) 41 (16.7%) 71 (29.0%) 34 (13.9%) 34 (13.9%) 58 (23.7%) 79 (32.2%) 72 (29.4%) 81 (33.1%)
A
SC
N
TE D
3 (1.2.%) 3 (1.2%) 3 (1.2%) 8 (3.3%) 7 (2.9%) 3 (1.2%) 4 (1.6%) 2 ( .8%) 3 (1.2%) 9 (3.7%) 7 (2.9%) 5 (2.0%) 6 (2.4%) 12 (4.9%) 14 (5.7%) 22 (9.0%) 19 (7.8%) 29 (11.8%) 29 (11.8%) 31 (12.7%) 30 (12.2%) 40 (16.3%) 67 (27.3%) 68 (27.8%)
D
EP
Access Internet Use clicker/polling device Use educational app Read a book Send/receive email Use calculator Play a podcast Use a calendar Watch a video Clock/alarm/timer Take a picture Record audio Record a video Post audio online Post video online Download an app Post a picture online Play music Scan QR codes Create QR codes Play a game Send/receive texts Send/receive tweets Use a social network
SD
AC C
Feature
120 (49.0%) 103 (42.0%) 100 (40.8%) 91 (37.1%) 80 (32.7%) 78 (31.8%) 65 (26.5%) 72 (29.4%) 73 (29.8%) 53 (21.6%) 54 (22.0%) 47 (19.2%) 52 (21.2%) 32 (13.1%) 35 (14.3%) 36 (14.7%) 36 (14.7%) 31 (12.7%) 27 (11.0%) 24 ( 9.8%) 22 ( 9.0%) 21 ( 8.6%) 18 ( 7.3%) 16 ( 6.5%)
M
SD
4.36 4.27 4.24 4.10 4.07 4.05 4.03 4.02 4.00 3.84 3.84 3.81 3.79 3.40 3.37 3.32 3.30 3.11 3.09 3.04 3.01 2.73 2.44 2.35
.769 .765 .782 .953 .908 .879 .812 .844 .882 .938 .927 .913 .963 1.054 1.099 1.147 1.144 1.208 1.138 1.130 1.184 1.208 1.229 1.180
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
3
RI PT
Table 3 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Benefits to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom SD 1 (.4%)
D 8(3.3%)
N 35 (14.3%)
A 127 (51.8%)
SA 74 (30.2%)
M 4.08
SD .780
Provide anywhere/anytime
3 (1.2%)
10 (4.1%)
33 (13.5%)
125 (51.0%)
74 (30.2%)
4.05
.843
Provide differentiation opportunities
3 (1.2%)
11 (4.5%)
Increase access
0 (0.0%)
21 (8.6%)
Increase communication
8 (303%)
28 (11.4%)
Increase motivation
7 (2.9%)
31 (12.7%)
Decrease digital divide
6 (2.4%)
27 (11.0%)
Facilitate student creativity
5 (2.0%)
M AN U 31 (12.7%)
130 (53.1%)
70 (28.6%)
4.03
.839
27 (11.0%)
142 (58.0%)
55 (22.0%)
3.94
.823
34 (13.9%)
120 (49.0%)
55 (22.4%)
3.76
1.030
41 (16.7%
115 (46.9%)
51 (20.8%)
3.70
1.027
57 (23.3%)
105 (42.9%)
50 (20.4%)
3.68
.999
48 (19.%)
116 (47.3)
39 (15.9%)
3.60
.993
TE D
EP
37 (15.1%)
AC C
Increase collaboration
SC
Feature Develop digital fluency
4 (1.6%)
35 (14.3%)
63 (25.7%)
102 (41.6%)
41 (16.7%)
3.58
.983
Increase student engagement
13 (5.3%)
41 (16.7%)
41 (16.7%)
97 (39.6%)
53 (21.6%)
3.53
1.157
Increase productivity
14 (5.7%)
47 (19.2%)
77 (31.4%)
69 (28.2%)
38 (15.5%)
3.29
1.116
Note. N = 245
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
4
RI PT
Table 4 Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Barriers to Using Mobile Phones in the Classroom D
N
A
SC
SD
SA
Mean
SD
1 ( 0.4%)
10 (4.1%)
29 (11.8%)
128 (52.2%)
77 (31.4%)
4.10
.790
Disruption of class
3 (1.2%)
14 (5.7%)
37 (15.1%)
98 (40.0%)
93 (38.0%)
4.08
.931
Cyberbullying
2 (0.8%)
20 (8.2%)
36 (14.7%)
118 (48.2%)
69 (28.2%)
3.95
.9.11
Inappropriate content
2 (0.8%)
24 (9.8%)
39 (15.9%)
101 (42.2%)
79 (32.2%)
3.94
.973
Sexting
8 (3.3%)
25 (10.20%)
54 (22.0%)
100 (40.8%)
58 (23.7%)
3.71
1.040
Negative impact on writing
6 (2.4%)
32 (13.1%)
50 (20.4%)
100 (40.8%)
57 (23.3%)
3.69
1.044
Student access
6 (2.4%)
29 (11.8%)
66 (26.9%)
105 (42.9%)
39 (15.9%)
3.58
.974
Access to reliable wifi
6 (2.4%)
65 (26.5%)
95 (38.8%)
35 (14.3%)
3.44
1.021
Note. N = 245
EP
TE D
M AN U
Cheating
AC C
Barrier
44 (18.0%)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MOBILE PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM
5
Table 5
SD
D
N
A
SA
Mean
SD
Texting
191
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
13 (6.8%)
67 (35.1%)
110 (57.5%)
4.49
.672
Playing games
188
2 (1.0%)
0 (0.0%)
9 (4.7%)
85 (45.2%)
92 (48.9%)
4.41
.684
Tweeting
190
1 (0.5%)
8 (4.2%)
23 (12.1%)
81 (42.6%)
77 (40.5%)
4.18
.844
Searching the Internet
188
1 (0.5%)
10 (5.3%)
29 (15.4%)
86 (45.7%)
62 (32.9%)
4.05
.864
Ringing
191
3 (1.5%)
22 (11.5%)
22 (11.5%)
87 (45.5%)
57(29.8%)
3.91
1.006
Listening to music
191
0 (0.0)
17 (8.9%)
41 (21.4%)
80 (41.8%)
53 (27.7%)
3.88
.916
Parenting calling/texting
191
3 (1.5%)
25 (13.1%)
55 (28.8%)
72 (37.7%)
36 (18.8%)
3.59
.990
M AN U
SC
N
TE D
Disruption
RI PT
Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Disruptions of Class Caused by the Use of Mobile Phones
AC C
EP
Note. Preservice teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that mobile phones were a disruption of class were asked to report how strongly they agreed that this were disruptions.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Highlights Most useful features are accessing the Internet, using as a clicker and using an educational app. Primary benefits are developing digital fluency and providing anywhere/anytime learning opportunities. Primary barriers are cheating and disruption to class Primary disruptions are texting, playing games and tweeting.