CELL PHONES IN THE CLASSROOM?

  

How should smartphones be used in the classroom?

Internet-based technology has reached a point where students are constantly connected to the answers.  While the answer that they find may not be an accurate answer, chances are that students can find some information to help them.  A recent Harris poll (2014) revealed that while over 53% of elementary students, 66% of middle school students, and 82% of high school students owned a smartphone; yet, only 42% report using their smartphone for school work. 

When addressing the use of cell phones in the classroom educators and students can have vastly different opinions.  Teachers over 50 tend to view cell phones as a distraction more than an educational tool in the classroom, whereas younger, presumably more “tech-savvy” teachers tend to be more open to the use of smartphones (O'bannon & Thomas, 2014).  Smartphone ownership is associated with age, income, and education level in a predictable pattern (See Table 1; Anderson, 2015).  There is still a digital divide associated with SES and living in rural communities (Anderson, 2015).

            Obviously, non-academic cellphone use can distract from student learning.  Students k-12 who participated in the Harris Poll (2015), reported that the majority of students prefer using tablets and laptops for collaborating with other students (Harris Poll 2015).  Hispanic students are much more likely to use mobile technologies in school than African Americans or Caucasians (Harris Poll, 2015).  Despite the potential to use smartphones for more than an endless pool of knowledge to find answers, it seems that web 2.0 and 3.0 applications are not used in the classroom. 

Table 1:Smartphone Ownership 2015
	Smartphone Ownership	Computer Ownership
Age
18-29	86%	78%
30 -49	83%	81%
50-64	58%	70%
65 +	30%	50%
Income Level
<$30,000	52%	50%
$30,001-49,999	69%	80%
$50,000- 74,999	76%	90%
$75,000	87%	91%
Education Level
Less than HS	41%	29%
High School	56%	63%
Some College	75%	81%
College +	81%	90%
Adopted from Anderson, M. (2015). Technology Ownership 2015.  Pew Research Center. Retrieved from  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/the-demographics-of-device-ownership/

In preparing students for their future, they will need to not only find answers but also evaluate sources.  Students will use technology for collaboration and complex problem-solving.  Yet, this is not what they are learning in the classroom.  This raises some questions that need to be addressed by educators:

1. Does the curriculum taught in schools support Web 2.0 (collaboration) and Web 3.0 (intersection) technologies?  A Web 3.0 application might be using Google Maps and Earth to learn about how city capital buildings are positioned in different parts of the country, or following the movement of a character in a novel.

2.  What encourages teachers to use Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 applications in instruction?

3.  When does using technology for collaboration and problem solving become a necessary skill set?

4. Why are students turning away from smartphones and tablets in favor of a laptop for schoolwork? 

References

Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership 2015 Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/the-demographics-of-device-ownership/

O'bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 74, 15-25.

Harris Poll (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/us/en/pearson-ed/downloads/2015-Pearson-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-Grades-4-12.pdf

Thinking in a blended world

When many teachers discuss teaching in a blended classroom, a flipped classroom, or just plain analog they are missing the point. Our world is already blended, but do students have the knowledge a skills to interact with it?   The internet is no longer a thing that people go to a computer to access.  Through wearable technology it has become become an intimate companion that walks with us throughout our life.  Students have access to the internet and the information that it provides 24-7, as long as their data plan is funded. (Which raises issues of equity for low income students).  Information has no longer become a thing that need to be memorized.  Information has become a thing that needs to be evaluated and manipulated into a meaningful context.  To prepare students for their future, they must receive instruction in different methods of thinking and solving problems.

While not the exact words of Einstein, the paraphrased version
of an New York Times Article: Atomic Education Urged
 by Einstein 1946.

Linear Thinking

Simple cause-effect thinking that ignores the relationships between systems provides an incomplete view of the world.  This type of thinking often results in negative unintended consequences.  The movement to promote bio-fuels is a prime example of this.  The linear thought behind this is that the US is capable of growing crops that can be easily transformed into fuel, reducing our dependency on foreign oil and pollution. Farmers will also benefit from increased demand on their crops as well.  I wonder if anywhere in this process anyone asked about the wisdom of burning food in our gas tanks?  Increase use of bio-fuels has resulted in more land being utilized for crops which has reduced the amount of land that is available for forests and grasslands that help to process carbon emissions.  A study determined that it will take over 167 years for corn ethanol to make a difference in the carbon content of our atmosphere (Sexton, Rajagopal, Hochman, Zilberman, & Roland-Holst, 2009).  Additionally, it will result in reduced biodiversity (Sexton et al., 2009).  The impact of bio-fuels production on the water supply also needs to be considered, not only is the damand for water increased, the chemicals that are used in farming can contaminate the water supply (Sexton et al., 2009). Anyone that purchases their own groceries has noticed the increased prices of food that has resulted from the competition between the table and the gas tank.  On a global scale food production per capita is decreasing (Sexton et al. 2009).

Systems Thinking

A systems thinking approach to bio-fuel might have resulted in a different decision.  A systems approach examine the internal functioning of a system as well as its relationship with other systems.  Systems thinking, developed in the 1940's has not gained popularity until recently.  Instead design thinking has dominated much of the decision making processes until recently.  The primary difference between the two problem solving methods is that design thinking does not include the external systems in the reasoning process.  Additionally, systems thinking recognizes the complexity of global relationships and recognizes the futility in trying to control all of the variables, whereas design thinking assumes that the variables can be controlled.  I would argue that either form of thinking is far superior to narrow cause-effect reasoning.

Importance of Learning Styles

Perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of emphasis on non-linear thinking is that it lends itself to a global learning style much more than a sequential learning style.  Studies have found that learning styles are influenced by cultures (Sywelem, Al-Harbi, & Fathema, 2012).  Global learners are in the minority and typically do not not perform as well in school,  this may be because most teachers are also sequential learners themselves.  Consequently, the information that is presented in classes is sequential without any accommodations for global learning styles.  Even the new Common Core standards which is meant to instill 21st Century Skills, does not address non-linear thinking.    Yet it is this type of thinking that is so important for developing sustainable development.
By Rob Koch

More information:

Systems Thinking in Schools: The Waters Foundation
  The Cloud Institute
The Creative Learning Exchange


Kurilovas, E., Kubilinskiene, S., & Dagiene, V. (2014). Web 3.0 – Based personalisation of learning objects in virtual learning environments. Computers In Human Behavior, 30654-662. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.039

Sexton, S., Rajagopal, D., Hochman, G., Zilberman, D., & Roland-Holst, D. (2009). Biofuel policy must evaluate environmental, food security and energy goals to maximize net benefits. California agriculture, 63(4).

Sywelem, M., Al-Harbi, Q., Fathema, N., & Witte, J. E. (2012). Learning Style Preferences of Student Teachers: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Online Submission, 1, 10-24.


Google

Implications of Web 3.0

Technology has changed the way people learn and communicate; however, the influence of technology in schools continues to be limited.  The internet has gone through many transformations from Web 1.0 creating the information age, to Web 2.0 creating an age of social networking and collaboration, to Web 3.0 creating an age where the internet has entered the real world.  Students are operating in a technology rich environment at home, yet they are not having the same experience in the classroom.

There is no question that Web 1.0 changed education through providing a global library, where everyone could find anything or even author anything.  In the classroom, teacher preparation programs considered Web Quests as cutting-edge examples of the effective use of technology. However, information literacy (IL) is lacking in most teacher education programs teacher education programs (Smith, 2013).  Information literacy is an essential component education.  Not only do consumers of information need find information, but they also need to evaluate the information that they find.  The idea that western academic scholars control knowledge is no longer relevant to our world.  Yet, college professors have noted the lack of information literacy in freshman entering their institution (Backe, 2009).  

 Web 2.0 further changed the way that learning occurs.  Collaboration has started to be implement in classrooms.  Asynchronous learning through forums, wikis, Google applications, calendars, citation tools, and social bookmarking are among the tools implemented on a limited basis (Chen & Bryer, 2012).  Some programs capitalize on the social learning aspect of online learning to enhance the depth and quality of student learning.  Epals provides a collaborative learning network that facilitates collaborative learning between students and teachers in different countries.  Additionally, Moodle, an open-source learning environment, provides several applications including wikis, forums, and workshops to increase student learning.  However, the use of social media applications for learning remains largely untapped despite its popularity with students (Chen & Bryer, 2012). 

Bandwidth has increased allowing for streaming videos and online synchronous learning.  The use of streaming videos in the classroom to enrich learning is popular.  Flipped-classrooms, where the student view lectures at home and participates in project-based learning in the classroom is another way in which learning can be enhanced.  Khan academy and other online schools provide free lessons to enhance instruction. 

Web 3.0 is already upon us and the potential for enhancing learning and teaching has expanded.  Wearable technology, semantics, 3D visualizations, virtual reality, augmented reality, distributed computing, big data, linked data, cloud computing, and global repositories are all tools available to enhance learning (Dominic, Francis, & Pilomenraj, 2014).  Wearable technology has enabled learning to occur anywhere, students can easily access the internet from their phones, through distributive computing applications create their assignments, and save them to their cloud where they turn them into their teacher to be graded.  Imagine a student in New Delhi, India, and another student in Denver, Colorado, conducting a study on the environmental impact of air pollution while another student wearing Google Glasses, in a rainforest in Brazil, collects data.  Of course, they would be working with a scientist to gather and analyze information for the United Nations Environmental program.  This is not something of the future; it is only an example of what can be happening today.

By Rob Koch

  References

Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(1), 87-104.

Badke, W. (2009). How we failed the net generation. Online, 33(4), 47-49.

Dominic, M., Francis, S., & Pilomenraj, A. (2014). E-learning in web 3.0. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science, 6(2), 8.

Smith, J. K. (2013). Secondary teachers and information literacy (IL): Teacher understanding and perceptions of IL in the classroom. Library & Information Science Research (07408188), 35(3), 216-222. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2013.03.003

Google