Mobile Learning Mindset

The Parent's Guide to Supporting Digital Age Learners

Carl Hooker

• Publisher: International Society for Technology in Education
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781564843968
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Standards

Mobile Learning Mindset: The Parent's Guide to Supporting Digital Age Learners offers guidance for parents facing the challenges that accompany mobile devices, including concerns about screen time, cyberbullying and digital footprints. The six-book Mobile Learning Mindset series shares practical knowledge and strategies for successful implementation of K-12 BYOD programs and 1: 1 initiatives. The collection provides district leaders, principals, teachers, IT staff, educational coaches and parents with the information they need to make any mobile learning program a success.This book provides advice, tools and scenarios that parents can use with their children to:

• Maintain digital wellness.
• Use social media safely and respectfully.
• Establish household guidelines.

This fifth book in the series focuses on educating parents on the ins and outs of having mobile devices in the home. Addressing concerns about social media and more, this book serves as an instruction manual of sorts for parents raising kids in the digital age. Audience: K-12 parents

CHAPTER 1

MAKING THE CASE FOR MOBILE LEARNING

If you are a parent reading this book, it’s likely that your child’s school district is involved in some sort of mobile device initiative. Maybe they’re using mobile devices in carts in some classrooms, or issuing devices to each student in the school. Many schools now allow students to bring in their own devices (BYOD) and use the mini-computers in their pockets to help access information and knowledge. Regardless of the reason, you might be wondering, why are schools doing this? Why invite in the distraction and expense of students having mobile devices into schools? There must be a good reason for this besides “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

Background on 1:1 Initiatives

It turns out that mobile device and 1:1 initiatives are not as new as you might expect. In the mid-1980s, Apple introduced its “Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow” program as a way to infuse and integrate technology into schools. Although much of that research has evolved as the devices have become more mobile, the premise is that technology can help level the playing field and increase the speed with which students access information.

One of the earliest researchers in the field of technology integration was Dr. Ruben Puentedura. He began researching the effects of technology and learning in classrooms starting as far back as 1987. In 2001, the state of Maine used a surplus of funds to pay for the first-ever statewide 1:1 program. Following the work of a task force and years of research by both Puentedura and the noted scholar Seymour Papert, then-Governor Angus King realized the need to better prepare students for the modern world. So began their Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) program (maine.gov/mlti/), which continues to change and evolve today.

Although he has not done specific research on mobile devices in schools, educational theorist Sir Ken Robinson has written and spoken about the need for schools to not only reform, but transform themselves into more modern institutions. In his book Out of Our Minds, he details how schools have basically descended from the industrial revolution and assembly-line mentality of learning. In this factory model of education, everyone is processed based on the “date of manufacture” (the year they were born) and then placed on the conveyor belt to learn at a pre-set rate during pre-set times covering pre-set content.

The world that existed when that model was put in place no longer exists. Students are not leaving our schools and heading to the factory. They are entering a world that is mobile and instant. The workplace is no longer desks in a row and 9 to 5. It’s now 24/7 and can be done from anywhere. Yet our schools still function in much the same way as those factories from the 1950s.

Technology doesn’t solve all of these issues, but in some ways it provides a way to bend space and time. It provides students with equal access to the world’s content. It allows for tasks that were previously not possible or conceivable. This is what Dr. Puentedura calls “Redefinition” in his SAMR Model of technology integration (mrhook.it/samr1). It also opens up possibilities for students that didn’t exist before—assuming that teachers and schools use it properly and wisely.

National and Global Findings on 1:1 Initiatives

One of the largest studies recently released included more than three decades of research on technology integration by Dr. Puentedura himself. In the concluding summary, it states:

Technology that supports instruction has a marginally but significantly higher average effect compared to technology applications that provide direct instruction. Lastly, it was found that the effect size was greater when applications of computer technology were for K–12, rather than computer applications being introduced in postsecondary classrooms (Higgins, Xiao, & Katsipataki, 2012).

This means that using technology by effectively integrating into a lesson (“supporting instruction”) versus just allowing students to play a learning game (“providing direct instruction”) is more meaningful and impactful for students. Indeed, in our district the most effective 1:1 classrooms use devices in a manner that enhances and amplifies learning outcomes. It’s important to note here that in its beginning stages, a mobile learning initiative generally starts more at the substitutive level (devices being used for ebooks or note-taking) and somewhat as direct instruction in the lower grades (playing learning games).

However, as Dr. Puentedura’s research points out, to have a larger effect on learning, the use of the devices needs to shift to more of a supportive role in learning. They can be used as tools to create solutions and outcomes in a personalized fashion. Although this isn’t the expected daily use of mobile devices in schools (how often do you use your phone to creatively solve problems?), it is one of the advantages of having access to such devices. Pedagogy still guides much of the use of the device and its integration into learning.

The LEAP Initiative and Our Own Findings

When we started our mobile device initiative, it was based on a mix of the research just discussed, but also on feedback from our students after they had left the district. Although we had prepared students well for academia, they felt underprepared for managing their digital lives and the distractions that came with having mobile devices all around them in the workplace or college classroom. They could do well at paper-and-pencil tests, but didn’t do well when it came to creative problem solving or thinking outside of the box for solutions.

So, in 2011, we launched the LEAP (Learning and Engaging through Access and Personalization) Initiative (eanesisd.net/leap) not only to help with those concerns, but also to increase student engagement and shift toward a personalized learning model that is student-centered and authentic.

The challenge for any school is meeting the differentiated needs of its students. Although the best 1:1 environment would be one where each student has their own teacher, technology can help solve some of this issue when done with fidelity.

We wanted students to go beyond being content consumers to constructing their own understanding and moving to a level of content creation to show evidence of learning. In surveying students and teachers in our district, we could see where the gaps were between what we were offering and how they were receiving it.

A review of survey data from 2011 to 2014 shows that students at Westlake High School consistently reported feeling more engaged in class when iPads were used. Those students indicated a mild to significant increase in engagement ranging from 80.9% to 87.2% over the three years of the study. A full 100% of students reported that they had noticed an increase in communication between teacher and student since the introduction of iPads. Distraction was a major concern at the outset of the program. Data from the spring 2012 survey showed that 54% of students felt that their device was a source of distraction. Survey data from the spring of 2014 showed that number decreasing by almost 20%.

Figure 1.1 Survey results from our students.

When asked to respond to the statement “Overall, having the iPad has enhanced my learning experience,” the three-year range showed that 83.5% to 87.9% of students responded with 3 (moderate) to 5 (extreme) (Figure 1.1).

I’m not sharing this data with you to brag about how we’ve done it, but to give you some insight into the data and thinking behind the process. Your school or district may have other reasons for doing a mobile device initiative. It might be to increase test scores in a difficult subject or to better personalize the learning experience for students. Regardless of the reason, when the process is done right, there is a lot of potential for learning and student engagement. In the end, it’s hard to get a student to learn if they aren’t engaged in some way.

When Mobile Learning Initiatives Fail

The number of schools embarking on some sort of mobile device initiative has increased exponentially over the years. At the same time, the myths around these initiatives have increased and, as is typical in the news, one or two bad stories can ruin it for the bunch. Take the case of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and their infamously failed iPad initiative. It was amazing how many messages we received from all over the country when the news broke about L.A. dropping their mobile learning program.

It’s easy to go in and play Monday morning quarterback with the reasons behind the failure of the program (an article here doing that: mrhook.it/lausd), but I do applaud a district of that size for trying to innovate, even if they went about it the wrong way. As the research I described earlier points out, just throwing devices with preloaded software into the hands of kids doesn’t actually create change. It still comes down to the purpose of use and the change in instructional practices from a lecture-based style to more of a student-centered model. This kind of change takes years of professional learning and administrative support to bring about.

Besides the lack of pedagogical change, another major reason why mobile learning initiatives fail is the lack of support from the community (both in and out of schools). Part of the reason why I felt so strongly about writing a parent-focused book for this series is that I have seen firsthand how powerful a supportive family can be to an initiative like ours.

When parents are informed and given resources to support the initiative from home, there is a momentous shift in perception of how the device should be used that affects learning. If the students, families, and teachers see it as a tool to leverage, the mobile device truly starts to meet its potential as a disruptive (in a good way) tool for learning.

The Digital Future of Education and the Job Market

It’s difficult to predict the future of anything, much less technology. Most predictions are based on data and long-term prognostications built on research. The New Media Consortium’s yearly K–12 Horizon Report is a robust report that has had a high level of accuracy over the years when it comes to predicting educational technology. The 2016 report made predictions such as cloud computing being on the “one year or less” horizon and items like the internet of things and wearable technology entering schools in the next four to five years. Locally, we also look at national and state trends with legislative direction to guide our thinking.

With national and state demands to increase the use of assessments online, districts will need to supply devices during those testing windows, because rotating through computer labs isn’t feasible. Although using devices solely for testing shouldn’t be the goal of an initiative, it is a value-add when you can use them instead of the paper-and-pencil or traditional computer-lab-assisted test. Like textbooks, leveraging mobile devices to help defray some costs while making learning more nimble can be a good thing.

Speaking of textbooks, the textbook market has entered a transition period of more digital text compared to hard copy. The federal government and publishers see the shift to mobile devices and tablets and are planning accordingly. In two or three years, there will be limited options in the “non-digital” market, meaning that our students will need some device to access content. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates a $3 billion dollar savings in education once that shift happens completely (and the cost of tablets continues to drop). States like Florida have adopted legislation that requires all districts to spend at least half of their instructional materials budget on digital content by 2015–16.

The future world that our students walk into will be immersed in technology and heavily influenced by social media. Besides just creating those “digital footprints” that I’ll discuss in greater detail in Chapter 4, it’s imperative that schools educate students in the area of digital responsibility and give them the essential skills they need in order to be good digital citizens.

The future job market for our children is also expanding, especially in the realm of computer science. In my home state of Texas, there is an enormous growth of jobs requiring some level of computer science education. When taking that growth into account, it’s predicted that only 31% of jobs will be fillable with current educational models by the year 2018.

Figure 1.2 Tracy Clark’s representation of what skills Fortune 500 CEOs want in future employees

So what kind of skills do employers want in future employees? One of the most powerful graphics I’ve seen communicate this information was from Tracy Clark’s (@tracyclark08) flyer she created on Smore.com called “Measuring What Matters” (smore.com/bg57). When CEOs at Fortune 500 companies were asked what they want most in future employees, the words that they repeated the most were represented in her “Soft Skills Bingo” card (Figure 1.2). What stands out to me right away isn’t so much what you see as what you don’t see. I don’t see “good at math” or “proficient in writing” or even “good with Microsoft Office.” You see skills like perseverance, resilience, teamwork, leadership, and those 4 C’s we often hear about (collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity). These “future-ready” skills, as I refer to them, are much more important to the future of our kids. So shouldn’t we focus on them?

CHAPTER 2

TOP 10 THINGS NOT TO DO

One of the hardest things in life is to criticize a parent. In many ways it’s a step above criticizing someone’s teaching style or ability, because it is extremely personal. Parenting isn’t a science—it’s an art form. Sometimes that art is messy, and other times it is a thing of beauty.

I often see the extremes of parenting posted all over social media, from the good (“Cindy just lost her first tooth!”) to the bad (“Walked into my living room and this was what I saw—flour everywhere!”) to the unreal (“Johnny just played Beethoven’s First Piano Concerto at age five!”). These posts are meant to connect us and our families, but at times they can breed anxiety about our own parenting—“My kid isn’t playing the piano, so does that make me a bad parent?” They can also bring about shaming or judgment—“My kid would never act that way in a restaurant.”

We’ll delve more deeply into social media in Chapter 6. But it does influence much of what we do as a parent raising a child in the digital age. Part of parenting is learning when to be loose and when to...