Abstract: This paper is a report on the findings of different research studies conducted in K-12 classrooms regarding the development and implementation of BYOD for technology integration in teaching and student learning. Discourse analysis and critical thinking techniques are used to examine and evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of BYOD in providing opportunities of new mobile technology and quality education for students. Likewise, BYOD demonstrates a more significant role in transforming today’s classroom culture, even when mobile technology is used or not used in an effective and collaborative manner. However, there are different factors that need to be considered when developing and implementing BYOD, including establishing appropriate policy for K-12 schools or districts.

Introduction

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is an innovative technology trend that continues to build a significant presence in K-12 education, particularly on the impact of BYOD in teaching and student learning (The Journal, 2012). The presence of different mobile devices, including tablets, laptops, clickers, smartphones, portable media players, has become common in the classrooms or workplaces among students, teachers, administrators, and staff (The Journal, 2012). However, students do not necessarily own these mobile devices that are seen in some K-12 classrooms (The Journal, 2012). Some schools or districts provide these mobile devices, depending on available funding and financial resources (The Journal, 2012). Many schools or districts are reluctant to open network accessibility to students who own or have access to mobile devices (The Journal, 2012). This includes the implementation of policy and regulations that (a) prevent students from bringing mobile devices in the campus premises due to possible harmful effects on network safety and security, (b) instruct students to hide owned mobile devices or suffer the consequences of fines from confiscation, (c) reprimand students in academic and/or behavioral standing when mobile devices are taken from their possession by school administration, and the like (The Journal, 2012). Though availability of these mobile devices in some K-12 classrooms are based on authorization from school administration, the existence of BYOD continues to be developed and implemented to support and prepare students on the current demands of global society (The Journal, 2012). 

Literature Review

The changes that technology continues to generate in today’s society create significant effects in people’s views, opinions, beliefs, and ideas (Neubert, 2010). As technology transforms and influences different aspects of modern living and thinking, it is important to recognize people’s needs and experiences in developing relevant and meaningful contributions to the social well-being of others (Neubert, 2010). According to John Dewey (1938), there is “a reciprocal and mutual relation between democracy and education” (Neubert 2010, p. 487). Likewise, “democracy cannot endure, or develop, without education” (Neubert 2010, p. 487). In doing so, Neubert (2010) explains that:

How can democracy and education be linked with the impact of technology in education? The evident presence of technology in modern education demonstrates both rewards and drawbacks (Neubert, 2010). Schools and districts that have the available technology can reap the rewards of collaboration and communication among stakeholders (Neubert, 2010). This includes the development and creation of interests (i.e. employment opportunities, economic growth and equality), and the establishment of productive and meaningful relationships (Neubert, 2010). However, schools and districts that do not have the available technology are challenged with providing equitable opportunities for stakeholders to obtain accessibility in developing relevant and rigorous learning experiences (Neubert, 2010). For instance, individuals who have limited access to available technologies can experience “minimal control over conditions of ones’ subsistence” (Neubert, 2010, p. 490).

The variety of mobile technologies that exist and continue to be developed in today’s society has considerably made an impact in the education world (Harris, 2012). Products such as iPads, iPod Touches, iPhones, Android tablets, Galaxy tablets, Kindle tablets, Surface tablets, laptops, media players, smartphones, and other mobile devices are strongly making their presence in K-12 classrooms (Harris, 2012). These different products are becoming or have become part of classroom instruction, with the desired objectives, to include and not limited to: (a) engage and motivate students in developing meaningful learning experiences; (b) support and enhance rigorous curriculum as part of promoting successful student performance; and, (c) provide professional development of teachers concerning technology integration in content delivery and instruction (Nelson, 2012). Despite the reluctance of schools and districts to open their networks to its student-owned and teacher-owned mobile devices, these stakeholders use mobile technologies to create projects and complete work-related tasks outside of the school-owned or district-owned network (Nelson, 2012). Eventually, the products developed from these mobile devices are shared in the classroom through transferring of data and information, which may not be easily established with limited or outdated school-owned or district-owned technologies (Norris & Soloway, 2011).

Many schools are moving towards embracing BYOD to enhance teaching and learning (The Journal, 2012). The availability of mobile technologies in schools or districts have enabled opportunities for students and teachers to: (a) learn any time, any place (Nelson, 2012); (b) build self-esteem in accomplishing difficult or challenging academic tasks (Nelson, 2012); (c) learn and develop world languages (Nelson, 2012); (d) share and communicate assigned tasks (Nelson, 2012); (e) provide further assistance with regard to accomplishing or completing assignments (Nelson, 2012); (f) provide immediate news and announcements on successes and achievements (Nelson, 2012), (g) improve student engagement through more opportunities of authentic collaboration, communication, and creativity (The Journal, 2012); (h) increase school staff productivity using effective and efficient tools that are common tools for everyday use (The Journal, 2012); (i) improve the operation and management of schools with the goals of establishing desirable efficiencies (The Journal, 2012); and, (j) expand existing technology infrastructures to accommodate a variety of mobile technologies (The Journal, 2012), to name a few.

Previous technology-based initiatives have advocated for a school to provide each student with a laptop (1:1 laptop programs) that have been very costly to schools and districts (Nelson, 2012). Only a few schools or districts have remained in providing funding to continue their respective 1:1 laptop programs (Norris & Soloway, 2011). Some schools or districts are fortunate when school communities approve bonds to continue technology programs, such as renewing laptops for students (Norris & Soloway, 2011). As financial resources of schools or districts become more limited or reduced, there are more reasons to move toward BYOD (Nelson, 2012). The right BYOD program can provide flexibility and efficiency in protecting and using current technology investment to adapt new services, solutions, and devices (The Journal, 2012). Prior to the development and implementation of BYOD in K-12 classrooms, there are different opportunities and challenges that schools or districts have to address to ensure that students, teachers, administration, and staff are provided with appropriate preparation (Nelson, 2012). Some of these challenges may include, but not limited to, readiness in adopting into the new era of “flash traffic” where a variety of devices have multiple applications that are used to establish connections anytime, anywhere (The Journal, 2012).

With the abundance of different technologies that are readily available to students and teachers, these stakeholders may be tempted to purchase mobile devices that may not be compatible with the school’s or district’s network structure. The technology marketplace is of no help when it comes to preventing students and teachers from acquiring the newest and latest mobile technologies, as product varieties and prices influence higher levels of consumerism (Raths, 2012). In doing so, many school districts are pondering and rethinking current policies and regulations with regard to the development and implementation of BYOD for teaching and student learning (Harris, 2012). Likewise, schools and districts have to recognize the different challenges that they may face when considering BYOD program for students and teachers. This includes (a) reviewing current network standing on safety and security from possible harmful effects of BYOD; (b) realizing the influx of heterogeneous mobile devices that students and teachers will bring in the classrooms; (c) identifying the availability of financial resources to support students and teachers who may not have immediate access to individual mobile devices; (d) identifying the application or software that will be compatible to be used and installed in the heterogeneity of devices that students and teachers may own; and (e) establishing appropriate and efficient policies and regulations to protect students’ and teachers’ safety (Norris & Soloway, 2011).

Findings and Analysis

Many colleges and universities have started the implementation of the BYOD program, way ahead of K-12 schools and districts, to support teaching and student learning, particularly in providing access to books, materials, and other resources that students may need in fulfilling requirements for different content specialization (Norris & Soloway, 2011). Notwithstanding the benefits of the BYOD program in higher education, there are challenges that result from students being mandated to bring their respective technology devices in the campus (Norris & Soloway, 2011). This includes: the level of functionality that student-owned mobile devices might be capable of having and doing; the affordability for students to acquire their own mobile devices; and, the control and management of schools on student-owned devices (Norris & Soloway, 2011). In doing so, how can higher education maintain equity in possessing adequate devices for students from low-income families (Norris & Soloway, 2011)? How can higher education ensure academic achievement to students from low-income families in the use of adequate mobile devices (Norris & Soloway, 2011)? How can the use of student-owned devices promote equal and equitable access to technology resources that are necessary in students’ courses (Norris & Soloway, 2011)?

The BYOD program is becoming prevalent in different K-12 schools or districts (The Journal, 2012). A significant reason for schools or districts to consider BYOD is the cost of keeping up to date with current technologies, specifically the costs involved in purchasing computer applications and software, in maintaining and preserving hardware, in providing professional development for teachers and campus technologists, and in managing time to develop and collaborate lessons and activities of current technologies (Nelson, 2012). However, schools or districts cannot disregard or neglect the importance of investigating (a) scalability (i.e. increasing network bandwidth) in accommodating new devices that may come into the picture; (b) security (i.e. firewall protection) in the number of users and devices that may be accessing the network; (c) manageability in ensuring compliance in meeting policies, regardless of the manner users or devices are connected to the network; (d) simplicity in handling and addressing more complex issues; (e) budget in managing possible damages; (f) accountability in supporting successful student outcomes; and, (g) effective use of new mobile technologies to provide more meaningful learning experiences and to increase proficiency among stakeholders (The Journal, 2012). Should BYOD be considered in K-12 classrooms, there are some basic questions that may be considered to evaluate the possibility of implementing BYOD (Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, 2012). As indicated in the infographic below, these basic questions include: (a) “Who buys the devices?”; (b) “What’s the right policy?”; (c) “What’s the employee’s role?”; (d) “What’s the impact on it?”; (e) “How do we tackle security?”; and, (f) “How about apps?” (Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, 2012).

Figure 1: An infographic representation of BYOD: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. This infographic illustrates the basic questions of appropriateness in implementing a BYOD program in an institution or organization. (Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, 2012)

After many years and billions of dollars in funding spent in promoting and deploying computers as part of classroom instruction and student learning in K-12 schools, the impact of computers on student achievement has been significantly disappointing (Norris & Soloway, 2011). There are some schools and districts that have implemented the 1:1 laptop initiative to support 21st century learning based on identified students’ and teachers’ needs. However, computers in K-12 classrooms are mostly used to support the same textbooks, curriculum, and teaching practices that continue to represent traditional classroom settings (Norris & Soloway, 2011). As the same ideology and curriculum is adapted into everyday teaching and student learning, this may simply lead to the creation of the new “normal” set of school and classroom structures and practices (Gottesman, p. 574). This means that the act or desire for change may merely result in the adaptation of the same methodologies despite the use of current technologies.

Traditional classroom setting may be illustrated in the form of an educational curriculum that is based on unchanged (a) learning concepts of basic facts and information, (b) theories of student developmental stages (i.e. Jean Piaget, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), and (c) practices. In doing so, the integration of mobile technologies cannot provide the changes that may be anticipated to advocate for higher levels of critical and analytical thinking, connection with real-word situations, and deeper understanding of equal and equitable access to resources (Nelson, 2012). Schools and districts struggle to identify and understand the true meaning of relevant technology integration in teaching and student learning (Norris & Soloway, 2011). Likewise, schools and districts interpreted the presence of computers as mere add-on tools to promote the same theories, methodologies, and practices, instead of exploring more critical and innovative strategies to use technology in changing curriculum (Norris & Soloway, 2011).

The common mentality of the “I teach” curriculum may be another challenge in the development and implementation of the BYOD program in K-12 classrooms (Norris & Soloway, 2011). The application of this mentality may create the same learning environments that schools and districts desire to change, even when current mobile technologies are used to deliver classroom instruction (Norris & Soloway, 2011). In doing so, the implementation of the BYOD program could act as another medium to propagate the same ideology and curriculum that have been in existent in the conventional classroom (Neubert, 2010). Teachers have been used to deliver information through lectures, whole group discussion, and teacher-led instruction, to name a few (Neubert, 2010). For this reason, students often obtain new learning experiences that have been based on the same methodologies and theoretical practices (Neubert, 2010). If schools and districts desire for students to think “outside-of-the box” using innovative applications from mobile technologies, it may be necessary for changes to begin in the curriculum, itself. This includes the (a) adaptation of constructivism in redesigning curriculum and content delivery; (b) establishment of opportunities for students and teachers to exhibit increased student achievement through open discourse and critical thinking; and, (c) development of relevant and meaningful goals and objectives in implementing BYOD program to support teaching and student learning (Neubert, 2010).

Conclusion

K-12 schools or districts who may be interested in considering and implementing a BYOD program have to plan effectively and efficiently to address the different opportunities and challenges that may result from such a decision. The evidences and information from the different research studies that have been used in this paper have identified the importance of: (a) understanding the concept and definition of BYOD with regard to its impact on teaching and student learning; (b) recognizing policy and regulations concerning network accessibility and quality of network structure; (c) defining the goals and objectives in implementing BYOD, including the beneficiaries who may be using mobile technologies; (d) the impact of cost in providing technical support and assistance to ensure quality and efficient service to users of mobile technologies; (e) the impact of cost in guaranteeing that all students and teachers have access to mobile technologies; (f) providing appropriate strategies in securing network from possible harmful effects of heterogeneous mobile devices; and, (g) considering appropriate and relevant applications that will support students’ academic achievement and classroom instruction.

References

Chadband, E. (2012). Should schools embrace “bring your own device”?. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2012/07/19/should-schools-embrace-bring-your-own-device/

DeWitt, P. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2012/08/are_schools_prepared_to_let_students_byod.html

Educational Technology and Mobile Learning. (Producer). (2012). Teachers quick guide to BYOD. [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2012/09/teachers-quick-guide-to-byod.html?cid=dlvr.it

EDTECH Staff. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2012/02/why-your-school-should-consider-byod-initiative

Faas, R. (2012). Why BYOD is a disaster waiting to happen for schools. Retrieved from http://www.cultofmac.com/176277/why-byod-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-for-schools/

Ferrare, J. J., & Apple, M. W. (2012). Schooling in disadvantaged communities: playing the game from the back of the field , by Carmen Mills and Trevor Gale, London and New York, Springer, 2010, 131 pp., £90.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-90-481-3343-7. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(2), 341-351. doi:10.1080/14681366.2012.689500

Gottesman, I. (2012). From Gouldner to Gramsci: The making of Michael Apple's ideology and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(5), 571-596. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00612.x

Harris, C. (2012). Going Mobile. School Library Journal, 58(1), 14.

ISTE connects blog. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://blog.iste.org/finding-success-with-bring-your-own-device/

Johnson, D. (2012). On Board with BYOD. Educational Leadership, 70(2), 84-85.

Koeneman, C. (2012). GOING BYOD? The case of virtualizing your wireless network. District Administration, 48(6), 4.

Lenovo Education. (2012). K12 education technology: Best practices for k12 computing. Retrieved from http://www.k12educationtechnology.com/tag/byod/

Livingston, P. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2012/06/bring-your-own-device-questions-to.html

Nelson, D. (2012). BYOD. Internet@Schools, 19(5), 12-15.

Neubert, S. (2010). Democracy and education in the twenty-first century: Deweyan pragmatism and the question of racism N. Educational Theory, 60(4), 487-502. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00372.x

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). BYOD as the Catalyst to Transform Classroom Culture. District Administration, 47(9), 114.

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). From Banning to BYOD. District Administration, 47(5), 94

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). Tips for BYOD K12 Programs. District Administration, 47(7), 77.

Poole, B. J., Sky-McIlvain, E., Evans, J., & Singer, Y. (2011). Education for an information age teaching in the computerized classroom 7th edition. (7th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.pitt.edu/~poole/InfoAge7frame.html

PROFILE. (2012). T H E Journal, 39(5), 58.

Puente, K. (2012). High School Pupils Bring Their Own Devices. District Administration, 48(2), 64.

Raths, D. (2012). Are You Ready for BYOD? (Cover story). T H E Journal, 39(4), 28-32.

Schachter, R. (2012). Creating a robust and safe BYOD program. District Administration, 48(4), 28-32.

Sicking, J. (2012). BYOD: Embracing technology in k-12 schools. Retrieved from http://www.indstate.edu/news/news.php?newsid=3344

Tay, L., Lim, C., Lye, S., Ng, K., & Lim, S. (2011). Open-source learning management system and Web 2.0 online social software applications as learning platforms for an elementary school in Singapore. Learning, Media & Technology, 36(4), 349-365. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.615322

The 21st Century Principal. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/2012/02/5-areas-of-consideration-for-developing.html

The Journal. (2012). BYOD in education. The Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/whitepapers/2012/cisco_12a/byod/byod-education.aspx?sc_lang=en

The Journal. (2012). Every child, every day: Mooresville’s “digital conversion” puts kids first. The Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/whitepapers/2012/cisco_12a/byod/every-child-every-day-mooresville-digital-conversion.aspx?sc_lang=en

The Journal. (2012). Ohio schools provide students with unlimited computer access. The Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/whitepapers/2012/cisco_12a/vxi/ohio-schools-students-unlimited-computer-access.aspx?sc_lang=en

The Journal. (2012). Schools plug into BYOD: Mobile devices transform learning at Katy ISD. The Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/whitepapers/2012/cisco_12a/byod/schools-byod-mobile-devices.aspx?sc_lang=en

Watters, A. (2012). To Have and Have Not. (Cover story). School Library Journal, 58(5), 34-37.

The Works of Dr. Seymour Papert

Dr. Seymour Papert was born on February 29, 1928 in Pretoria, South Africa (Goldberg, 1991). However, another date was also identified as Papert’s birthdate, and this was March 1st of the same year and at the same birthplace (Stager, 2007). Papert received his bachelor’s degree from the University of the Witwatersrand in 1949, and his doctoral degree in Mathematics from Cambridge University in 1959 (Stager, 2007). Papert is identified as the founder of the LOGO programming language, and has been an instrumental player in the establishment of computers in schools and learning (Goldberg, 1991). Papert’s early career accomplishments included working (a) as a researcher in different prestigious universities, and at the National Physical Laboratory; (b) as a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1963; (c) as a professor of applied math and director of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory until 1991; and, (d) as a Cecil & Ida Green professor of education at MIT until 1981 (Stager, 2007).

The contributions of Papert is well recognized and highly respected in different parts of the world (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). Papert is acknowledged for his creation of the Epistemology and Learning Research Group, later on to become the MIT Media Lab, that provide a multitude of opportunities for individuals to create innovative projects, including musical instruments, social networking software, to name a few (MIT Media Lab, 2012). Likewise, this research group desires to help children to grow up as creative thinkers, where constant inventions of new opportunities are developed to benefit not only themselves, but as well as the respective communities (MIT Media Lab, 2012). Eventually, this idea cultivated into the conception of constructionism that involved the development of an original and highly influential theory based on the work of Jean Piaget regarding Constructivism learning theories (MIT Media Lab, 2012).

The development of the Logo programming language is another acknowledgement of Papert’s constructivist and creative thinking (Stager, 2007). Logo programming is based on the dialect of the Lisp language and was originally written as a functional programming language (Stager, 2007). Likewise, this programming language is used in education, which taught learners how to develop code using design concepts, mathematical data analysis and interpretation, and syntax to create graphics (Stager, 2007). A robot called “Logo Turtle” was part of the Logo programming language that served as a guide for learners to use in solving problems (Stager, 2007). Papert’s goal in developing this programming language is to provide a program for students to strengthen their ability to learn knowledge, think analytically and critically through a mathematical language, and to develop their abilities as potential expert users (Stager, 2007).

Papert’s other well-acknowledge contributions included the concept of the Knowledge Machine that may be interpreted as a virtual reality simulation for knowledge representation and reasoning within an artificial intelligence; the One Laptop Per Child initiative that manufactured and distributed laptops with Internet access in different developing nations; and, the Lego Mindstorms where Papert was a collaborator in the development of Logo-programming robotics kits (Stager, 2007). Papert’s innovative and creative thinking has garnered different awards, including the Guggenheim fellowship (1980), Marconi International fellowship (1981), Software Publishers Association Lifetime Achievement Award (1994), and Smithsonian Award from Computerworld (1997) (Stager, 2007).  Papert’s renowned contributions in the field of education and computer science continue to influence and to be instrumental in future developments of technology integration through constructivism, innovation, and creating thinking (The Daily Papert, 2012).

The Works of Individuals Inspired by Dr. Seymour Papert

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Foundation is one of the many significant and well-recognized works of Dr. Seymour Papert (The Daily Papert, 2012). This foundation established the one-to-one computing among different students who live in developing nations (The Daily Papert, 2012). The purpose of the OLPC Foundation is to provide each child from a developing country with a rugged, low-cost, low power, and Internet connected laptop (One Laptop Per Child, 2012).  Hundreds and thousands of children from Rwanda, Nicaragua, Madagascar, Paraguay, India, Gaza and Ramallah, Nepal, Afghanistan, Kenya, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay are inspired by the benefits of Papert’s works of wisdom, constructivism, innovation, and creativity to be develop and obtain learning knowledge using technology (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). For instance, students from Rwanda utilized the XO laptops to obtain universal access to the web, which opened doors for telecom giants to roll out connectivity across the country (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). The successful deployment in Rwanda was then repeated in other developing countries, which enabled more accessibility for children to learn beyond the four walls of a classroom, think beyond what books and pencils can provide in quality teaching and student learning, and produce creative and innovative individuals as part of continuing a global world of communication and collaboration (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). 

Papert’s inspirational goals in his academic and professional backgrounds have influenced the individuals behind the foundation, itself, to take the initiative in building possibilities for children in developing countries to be connected to the world through communication and collaboration using technology (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). His influence also extended to other well-known organizations in today’s technology driven world, namely the founding members: AMD, Brightstar, eBay, Google, Marvell, Nortel, Quanta, Red Hat, and SES Astra (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). These founding members continue to be inspired by the goals and works of Papert in creating technologies that will be instrumental in furthering growth and development for a better, and brighter future for humankind (One Laptop Per Child, 2012). For instance, Google is a well-known organization that established the importance of obtaining and deploying worldwide web presence whether it is to be used for personal, educational, or organizational purposes (Google, 2012). This includes (a) the establishment of easy and immediate communication through video conferencing (i.e. Skype), social networking (i.e. Google +), online chats (i.e. Google Talk), electronic email system (i.e. Google Mail), etc.; (b) the collaboration among peers and colleagues through social networking (i.e. Google +), online creation and development of documents (i.e. Google Docs), and visualization using online interactive maps (i.e. Google Earth); and, (c) the development of innovative apps and tools that highly encourages students to think critically and creatively (i.e. Google Apps) (Google, Inc., 2012).  

As technology continue to progress in a fast pace in today’s world, it is important for education to keep pace in order to provide its students with the learning knowledge and skills to adapt and flourish in a highly demanding and global society (Stager, 2000).  Papert is adamant in advocating the deployment and use of connected laptops to children all over the world to ensure equality and equity in receiving quality and relevant learning knowledge and skills that would not only benefit themselves, but will have a greater and more immediate effect in a world that is shared by humankind (Stager, 2000).

References

Goldberg, M. F. (1991). Portrait of Seymour Papert. Educational Leadership, 48(7), 68-70.

Google, Inc. (2012). Google in education. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/edu/

MIT Media Lab. (2012). Lifelong kindergarten. Retrieved from http://llk.media.mit.edu/

One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). (2012). One laptop per child. Retrieved from http://one.laptop.org/stories

Stager, G. (Producer). (2000). Seymour Papert at Bates College. [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/9106174

Stager, G. (2007). The history of Mr. Papert by Martin Boyle. Retrieved from http://www.stager.org/omaet2004/papertbio.html

The Daily Papert. (2012). Daily Papert words and wisdom of Dr. Seymour Papert. Retrieved from http://dailypapert.com/?page_id=34

History of Writing and Its Impact on Society

Writing may be considered as one of the earliest form of transformative technology that provided many benefits to humankind. It may also be considered as a significant contributor to the intellectual and communicational abilities of humans to transmit information, demonstrate verbal and non-verbal expressions through written text, and establish status quo based on the educational abilities that are acquired by the individual writer. In doing so, it would be interesting to trace back the development of writing and how its impact on society have influenced and may continue to influence the behavioral traits, intellectual abilities, and social skills of humankind.

There are different information in today’s Internet that provides ideas, facts, and opinions regarding the early beginnings of writing. According to History World (2012), the early beginnings of writing have started in the early 20th century when the two civilizations of Egypt and Sumer (now known as Iraq) developed the Sumerian script and its Egyptian version a century or more later (History World, 2012). Likewise, there were evidences of later discoveries by a German archaeologist, who have discovered small bone and ivory tablets that have been used by earlier civilizations for writing (History World, 2012). Sumerian tablets have been discovered in 3200 B.C. that were identified as the earliest cuneiform tablets from this civilization (History World, 2012). For instance, the early forms of scriptwriting included images that were used to depict or illustrate words. The use of pictographs continued to evolve when early civilization learned to combine pictures to explain a concept, to represent a pun, to recommend a different concept through a representation of another object, and to develop a conceptual character (History World, 2012).

According to Jeremy Norman’s (2012) chronological studies on the history of information and media, the early forms of writing began during 2,500,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE, which included the early attempts to record information or may have been considered as early forms of art; oral transmission of traditions among groups of people; use of the Ishango Bone to record a six-month lunar calendar, logical or mathematical carvings, passage of time, a series of numbers, and a system of proto-writing and notation.

From 8,000 BCE to 1,000 BCE, some of the different evidences of early writings or printing included carvings on 8600 year-old tortoise shells that were discovered by archaeologists in the Henan province of Western China; Egyptian hieroglyphs that may have evolved from drawn symbols on pottery produced by the Gerzeh culture; Sumerians’ cuneiform writing that began the system of pictographs and were written with styli on clay tablets; Egyptian papyrus that was used for boats, mattresses, mats, and as a writing surface; and, Mesopotamia’s stamping of inscriptions into soft clay of brinks that were ordered by royal rulers to build temples of gods and goddesses (Norman, 2012). These discoveries demonstrated how early civilization used different instruments to communicate and document information, and to build structures adorned with symbolical illustrations to represent their cultures, beliefs, and practices (Norman, 2012).

From 1,000 BCE to 300 BCE, some of the evidences of early writings during this era included the oldest known evidence of the Phoenician alphabet was the Ahiram Sarcophagus, being that Phoenician was one of the most widely used writing systems that were spread by merchants; the Iliad as the oldest literature works of ancient Greek language, and believed to be one of the first works of ancient Greek literature; the Dipylon inscription that was a short written text on an ancient Greek pottery vessel was considered as one of the oldest known examples of the use of the Greek alphabet; and, the construction of the Tower of Babel (was then known as the Etemenanki Ziggurat) that contained bricks stamped with inscriptions in cuneiform (Norman, 2012). These evidences of early writings demonstrated how civilization used writing to create impact and to influence the development of people’s knowledge, to conduct business and trade among different cultures, and the evolution of alphabet writing as part of distinguishing different racial cultures (Norman, 2012).

From 300 BCE to 30 CE, the dead sea scrolls is one of the many discoveries and inventions of early writing that was identified during this time (Norman, 2012). These scrolls were believed to have contained historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence of being the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures when Jesus of Nazareth lived (Norman, 2012). Meanwhile, writing using a bamboo pen was created for longer messages and for books during the end of the Zhou (Chou) Dynasty (Norman, 2012). From 30 CE to 500 CE, the graffito was the earliest surviving image of the crucifixion, although the depiction behind the meaning of this early writing and illustration was done in a more sarcastic tone (Norman, 2012). It was also during this time that the Four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were approximately composed by authors who have not been identified (Norman, 2012). These books were written to depict the traditions and early Christian beliefs and writings as part of the early Christian movement (Norman, 2012). More evidences of earlier writings developed through many more centuries of human existence, which have influenced the development of simple to complicated machineries, equipment, and devices to support more sophisticated forms of publication, writing, and communication (Norman, 2012).

Literacy in Writing in the American Education System

Literacy in the American education system includes writing as one of the significant factors in the development and growth of American students (Bartholomew, 2012). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001) established higher expectations with regard to (a) student accountability in the public school education, (b) highly qualified teachers to be certified specifically in different content areas based on required specifications, and (c) rigorous standards in all content areas to meet the higher expectations to meet the demands of a more global economy (Hickok & Ladner, 2007). In doing so, many public schools in the United States (U.S.) have either met or struggled in meeting the expectations set by the federal government (Hickok & Ladner, 2007).

The desire to standardize the control and management of funding in the public school system has generated different problems, including (a) weakening the state-level exams and academic transparency in the state level; (b) changing on how tests are scored to allow more students to pass and to show more progress; and, (c) lowering of standards to mask real student performance (Hickok & Ladner, 2007). The regulations that have been developed from the NCLB Act (2001) created many changes on how American public schools address and support school funding and allotment, curriculum design, curriculum instruction, and evaluation of students’ academic performance (Hickok & Ladner, 2007). In fact, this policy influenced the development of future grants, legislative decisions, and other programs with regard to strengthening American public school education (Hickok & Ladner, 2007). For instance, in 2009, the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top grant competition was announced to provide different state governments with the opportunity to look and apply for more school funding (Bartholomew, 2012). This grant was aimed to support better changes in the U.S. education curriculum framework (including materials, assessments, and policy) that will greatly benefit American students into having a stronger and more rigorous education to support the dynamic needs of 21st century society (Bartholomew, 2012).

The events that transpired through the years in the American education system have greatly influenced the literacy of American students, including the (a) changing in the direction on meeting the technological competitiveness of 21st century demands; (b) desire to prepare students to meet and compete in a global economy; (c) drive to focus on analytic and written communication skills as important elements to be taught across the curriculum in science, social studies, and technical subjects; (d) increase in the development of critical understanding of information texts; and, (e) expectation to write compositions that demonstrate analytical thinking and mastery of inductive and deductive reasoning, to name a few (Bartholomew, 2012).

Analogy of Contemporary Technology

The evolution of writing has influenced the ongoing development of contemporary technology; specifically in the use of written text to formulate and create codes that modern machines and devices can understand to decipher desired commands by the human mind (Nordkvelle, 2004). Earlier inventions of writing eventually led to different developments in the 19th century, including the (a) computer text editors; (b) word processing and email; (c) tablet computers and the first reference to electronic ink; (d) beginning stages of electronic mail; (e) hypertext, text editing, windows, email, and the mouse; (f) general markup language; and, (g) Internet (Norma, 2012). These later developments continue to aspire for complex and dynamic technologies (i.e. mobile tablets, mobile communication devices, social networks) that contribute significantly in the establishment of control, power, freedom, efficiency, or self-realization with people in society (Nordkvelle, 2004). Individuals and groups who have greater knowledge in the manipulation and development of modern technologies have established business influences that continue to control the economic demands and needs of present society, particularly in the communication and collaboration within professional learning communities (Nordkvelle, 2004). In addition, people’s sense of freedom has been based on the extent of connections in social networks, as well as presence in different online communities (Nordkvelle, 2004). Today, contemporary technology play an essential role in producing and implementing decisions and choices that affect people’s life styles, way of thinking, new cultures and traditions, new social classes, and learning environments (Nordkvelle, 2004).

References

Barnes, S. (1996). Literacy skills in the age of graphical interfaces & new media. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/n3/barnes.txt

Bartholomew, B. (2012). Where's Literature in the Common Core?. Educational Leadership, 69(7), 82-85.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & MacArthur, C. (2006). Explicitly Teaching Struggling Writers: Strategies for Mastering the Writing Process. Intervention In School & Clinic, 41(5), 290-294.

Hawkins, L. K., & Razali, A. (2012). A Tale of 3 P's--Penmanship, Product, and Process: 100 Years of Elementary Writing Instruction. Language Arts, 89(5), 305-317.

Hickok, E., & Ladner, M. (2007, November). Reauthorization of NCLB: Federal Management or Citizen Ownership of K-12 Education?. USA Today Magazine. pp. 64-66.

History World. (2012). History of writing. Retrieved from http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab33

Nordkvelle, Y. (2004). Technology and didactics: historical mediations of a relation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(4), 427-444. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000159476

Norman, J. (2012). Writing / paleography / calligraphy timeline outline. Retrieved from http://www.historyofinformation.com/index.php?category=Writing / Paleography / Calligraphy

Warner, F. (2008). Improving Communication is Everyone's Responsibility. Change, 40(6), 26-35.

The Brookings Institution. (2012). Can academic standards boost literacy and close the achievement gap?. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/10/02-boost-literacy-haskins-sawhill

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Race to the top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE) Journal

The Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE) publication is an online, peer-reviewed journal, that was established and jointly sponsored by five professional associations, namely the (a) Technology and Mathematics Education (AMTE), (b) Technology and Science Education (AETS), (c) Technology and Social Studies Education (NCSS-CUFA), (d) Technology and English Education (CEE), and (e) Educational Technology (SITE) (CITE Journal, 2012). This journal is selected based on the publication’s unique features, which include the ability to provide (a) readers to write short responses to articles published in a commentary strand linked to the article; (b) interactive medium to develop ongoing, peer-reviewed dialog and critique; (c) a general educational technology section and three cross-disciplinary sections, such as Editorial, Current Practice, and Seminal articles; (d) an online medium that provides authors to demonstrate technologies about the written work, such as video and audio sections, animation, computer-generated reality, web links, and replications; and, (e) diverse educational issues, such as educational policies and practices, teacher education, teacher professional development, technology integration, and conceptual and theoretical pieces, to name a few (CITE Journal, 2012).

The author of this paper will be interested to submit an article to CITE Journal that will focus on the effectiveness of hybrid online learning to support the development and implementation of relevant and meaningful instructional strategies on different content areas for K-12 classrooms. The objectives of the author’s paper include: (a) providing the connection of instructional methodologies and strategies being conducted in the classroom with an online learning environment; (b) development of authentic and relevant online lessons and activities based on project-based learning to motivate and engage students to obtain mastery and understanding of different content areas; (c) discovery and exploration of innovative approaches to integrate technology effectively in teaching and student learning; (d) communication and collaboration among professional colleagues in the field of education; and, (e) critical discourse of best practices between traditional classroom teaching and technology-enriched teaching.

The online submission of an article with CITE Journal is located at http://site.aace.org/publish/?fuseaction=Authors.BeginSubmissionCITE (CITE Journal, 2012). The submission guidelines, which is also located in this link, include specifications on length; originality; pre-publication; copyright; author note(s); handling of manuscripts; presentation; tables, figures and graphics; quotations, terminology and abbreviations; citations; references, and hyperlinks (CITE Journal, 2012). Articles can be submitted to the Publications Coordinator through an email address, pubs@aace.org (CITE Journal, 2012).

Educational Leadership

The Educational Leadership journal is the flagship journal of ASCD, which is formerly known as the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD, 2012). This journal focuses primarily to pre Kindergarten to 12th Grade educational issues, such as curriculum, instruction, supervision, and leadership. The articles in this journal are mostly written by educators for educators, with the strong emphasis on sharing and inspiring fellow colleagues to improve teaching and student learning (ASCD, 2012). One of the unique features of Educational Leadership is the concept of themes as part of its monthly journal publications (ASCD, 2012). The thematic approach provides journal writers to think of innovative and creative topics that may not be covered in a purely technology-integration based journal (ASCD, 2012). In doing so, a wider audience can be reached by this journal because of the variety of topics that Educational Leadership offers to its readers (ASCD, 2012).

The author of this paper will be interested to submit an article to Educational Leadership journal that will focus on the demonstration of effective school leadership using relevant and innovative technology-based practices.  The objectives of the author’s paper include: (a) a discussion on the complex challenges and different initiatives that school administrators face in today’s education; (b) the high stakes that principals face concerning coaching and mentoring fellow educators, collaborating and building positive working relationships with teachers, establishing quality communication with parents, and accountability on students’ academic success; and, (c) the effectiveness and relevance of implementing technology-based practices to support productive functionality in school operations and people management, classroom instruction, parent communication, and student learning.

The online submission of an article with Educational Leadership is located at http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Educational-Leadership/Write-for-Educational-Leadership/Write-for-Educational-Leadership.aspx (ASCD, 2012). The submission guidelines, which is also located in this link, include specifications on (a) the kind of articles that will be published in this journal; (b) how to prepare a manuscript, such as number of pages, document margins, number of words, and information needed for submission; (c) how to submit a manuscript, including the type of file that should be used if manuscript will be submitted through email, and the number of copies a manuscript should have when submitting by mail; (d) what happens next, such as the round of reviews that manuscripts undergo before final approval; (e) how to survive the editing process, such as the process involved to complete the different stages of editing and layout; (f) artwork and photographs, including the type of photos, slides, and examples of student work for publication; and, (g) what happens when an article comes out (ASCD, 2012). Manuscripts can be submitted online through email at elsubmissions@ascd.org, or can be sent to Marge Scherer, Editor in Chief of Educational Leadership, at 1703 N. Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 (ASCD, 2012).

Educational Technology and Research Development

The Educational Technology and Research Development journal is a bi-monthly scholarly publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology (AECT) that focuses primarily on research and development in educational technology (Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 2012). Furthermore, this journal focuses on research that includes (a) planning, implementation, evaluation, and management of a variety of instructional technologies and learning environments; (b) formative evaluations and theoretical-based instructional designs to support student success in the mastery of different content areas; (c) instructional development process to support more relevant and meaningful teaching practices; (d) innovative approaches technology implementation to instructional development; and, (e) book reviews, international reviews, and abstracts (Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 2012).

The author of this paper will be interested to submit a paper to Educational Technology Research and Development that will focus on the integration of mobile applications into K-12 teaching and learning, particularly in supporting current teaching methodologies and strategies for students’ academic achievement. The objectives of this paper will include: (a) an explanation on the different teaching methodologies and strategies that K-12 public school teachers implement in everyday classroom instruction to deliver relevant and meaningful content; (b) a discussion on the different types of mobile applications that are available for teaching and student learning; (c) a discourse on the contributions of mobile applications to building knowledge and skills through project-based learning, collaboration with peers, and creating projects using different mobile applications; (d) a demonstration on how student understanding and mastery of the content can be evaluated through relevant use of mobile applications; and, (e) the relationship of innovative mobile applications to developing motivation and engagement among students and teachers to cultivate a positive and productive learning environment.

The online submission of an article with Educational Technology Research and Development is located at http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/journal/11423 (Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 2012). The submission guidelines include the following instructions: (a) manuscripts that focus primarily on research in educational technology should be submitted online to http://www.edmgr.com/ertd, inquiries should be sent to Michael J. Hannafin, Research Editor, through email at Hannafic@uga.edu; (b) manuscripts that focus primarily on design and development of learning systems and educational applications should be submitted online to http://www.edmgr.com/ertd, inquiries should be sent to J. Michael Spector, Development Editor, through email at mike.spector@unt.edu; (c) book reviews should be submitted to http://www.edmgr.com/ertd, and inquiries should be sent to Tiffany Koszalka through email at takoszal@syr.edu; (d) international reviews should be submitted to http://www.edmgr.com/ertd, inquiries should be sent to Abbas Johari through an email at abbasj@cameron.edu; (e) editorial procedure on double-blind peer review; (f) manuscript submission; (g) permissions; (h) online submission; (i) title page, abstract, keywords, and biography; (j) text formatting, headings, abbreviations, footnotes, acknowledgements, and page length; (k) tables; (l) references and citation using APA style; and, (m)  artwork and illustration guidelines (Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 2012).                

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE)

The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE) publication is the official journal of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), which focus on the exchange of knowledge and use of information technology in teacher education Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 2012). Likewise, this journal covers topics on (a) teacher pre-service and in-service; (b) graduate programs in areas such as curriculum and instruction; (c) educational administration; (d) instructional technology; and, (e) educational computing (Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 2012).

The author of this paper will be interested to submit a paper to the JTATE publication that will focus on the impact of effective and relevant professional development among K-12 public school teachers on appropriate technology integration in content areas. The objectives of this paper will include: (a) a discussion on the different professional development that K-12 public school teachers currently undergo as part of their teaching profession; (b) a discourse on qualitative and quantitative results from different instruments in gathering K-12 public school teachers views, factual data, and other pertinent information; (c) an explanation on the meaning and understanding of appropriate technology integration; (d) findings on different methodologies and strategies with regard to technology integration in different content areas; and, (e) the effects of technology integration in K-12 teaching and student learning.

The online submission of an article with the JTATE journal is located at http://site.aace.org/publish/?fuseaction=Authors.BeginSubmission (Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 2012). The submission guidelines include the following instructions: (a) journal content, including research papers, case studies, tutorials, courseware experiences, evaluations, review papers, and viewpoints; (b) originality of the manuscripts, accuracy, and editorial form; (c) organization and selection of facts to support manuscripts; (d) language to be used in writing manuscripts; (e) preview process before and after submitting manuscripts; (f) pre-publication by another journal; (g) copyright rules and regulations by the Association for the Advancement of Computer in Education (AACE); (h) author’s note; (i) handling of manuscripts by at least two members of the Editorial Review Board; (j) presentation of manuscripts in online form, preferably in Microsoft Word (.doc) format; (k) tables, figures, and graphics have to be embedded within the file with specified resolution and quality; (l) quotations, including its sources; (m) terminology and abbreviations; (n) program listings, if space permits; (o) citations in APA style; and, (p) references in APA style (Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE), 2012).

The Journal

The Journal was launched in 1972 and became the first magazine to cover education technology. The Journal is also known to dedicate topics that inform and educate K-12 district and school administrators, technologists, and tech-savvy educations within districts, schools, and classrooms, with the goal of improving and advancing the learning process of students through the use of effective and meaningful technology. Furthermore, each issues in The Journal contains different news, trends, and “how-to” topics such as networking, security, policy and advocacy, telecom, hardware/software, the smart classroom, mobile computing and wireless, eLearning, technology funding, professional development, technology support, and the like (The Journal, 2012).

The author of this paper will be interested to submit an article to The Journal that will focus on the effective of hybrid online professional development for K-12 public school teachers to provide collaboration, communication, and creativity among educators regarding relevant and meaningful teaching practices. The objectives of this paper will include: (a) the discussion on what is effective and appropriate professional development for K-12 public school teachers; (b) the importance of providing K-12 public school teachers with engaging and highly interactive, job-based professional development; (c) the implementation process that follows after K-12 public school teachers receive professional development; (d) the components that would be essential in an effective hybrid online professional development; and, (e) the structure and organization of technology integration in the design and development of hybrid online professional development for K-12 public school teachers.

The online submission of any article to The Journal is located at http://thejournal.com/pages/press-release-guidelines-for-the-journal.aspx (The Journal, 2012). The submission guidelines include the following instructions: (a) editorial decisions are based on the value of information that can be provided to The Journal’s diverse readers; (b) articles that relate to real-life case studies and one-on-one interviews with higher education school leaders and managers; (c) feature articles have a set deadline date that is usually three months ahead of the issue date; (d) opinion submissions may be submitted anytime to Michael Hart, Managing Editor, through email at michaelhart@1105media.com; and, (e) topics are listed in The Journal Editorial Calendar for 2013 at http://bit.ly/QmxORs (The Journal, 2012).

References

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2012). Educational technology research and development . Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/index.asp

ASCD. (2012). Educational leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Educational-Leadership/Guidelines-for-Writers/Guidelines-for-Educational-Leadership-Writers.aspx

CITE Journal. (2012). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol12/iss3/

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE). (2012). Guidelines for journal of technology and teacher education submission (JTATE). Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/publish/?fuseaction=Authors.BeginSubmission

The Journal. (2012). Press release guidelines for the journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/pages/press-release-guidelines-for-the-journal.aspx

Historical Background of the Battery

Decker, F. (2005). Volta and the "pile". Retrieved from http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-v01-volta.htm

This article examined the early invention of the “pile” that was the first battery in history and developed by Alessandro Volta (1745-1827). This first battery was named the “artificial electrical organ” based on the patterning after the behavior of a selachian fish that gives out strong electric shocks. The early discoveries of Volta have impacted the evolution of batteries, particularly on its usage in today’s society. This includes the influence of Volta’s early invention with the emergence of new ideas from Watts’ first steam engine, Lavoisier’s law of mass conservation, the declaration of American independence, the French revolution, to name a few. These new ideas occurred during the “age of enlightenment” and have led to more progressive developments, recognition, and further improvement in the use of batteries to support more than 200 years of essential living.

Hirsh, Ph.D., R., & Finn, Ph.D., B. (2002). Powering the past: A look back. Retrieved from http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/prehist.htm

The authors of this article discussed about the origin of electrical power that began in 1895, which was made possible through the diversion of the Niagra Falls water through a pair of high-speed turbines together with two highly powered generators. However, electrical power would not have been available, if not for the earlier discovery of batteries during the 1800s. Though Volta’s invention of the first battery has been significant in leading to further discoveries in power and energy, improvements were needed to strengthen the voltage of batteries. Nevertheless, the early invention of the batteries led to additional discoveries of power storage within confined generators or secured containers. The ability to secure power within transportable and confined generators or containers has led to greater and wider availability of electricity, as well as the steadier production of current that can be transported and used in different equipment and machineries.

History in a Jar. (2010). Connect Magazine, 24(2), 26.

This article discussed a short history on the first battery, including (a) the early contributions of Alesandro Volta who was cited as the inventor of the first battery, and (b) the contributions of other scientists. The article further examined Alessandro Volta’s creation of the first battery as a significant contributor in the development and implementation of new and current batteries that are used in today’s different technologies. In addition, this article explained the evidences on the invention of the Baghdad Battery or Parthian Battery that may be considered as the true first battery. This battery, in particular, relied on acidic liquid that is surrounded with an iron rod. There were speculations that this battery was used in electroplating process, which could have been used to combine a layer of gold or silver over other metals.

Sha, R. C. (2012). Volta's Battery, Animal Electricity, and Frankenstein. European Romantic Review, 23(1), 21-41. doi:10.1080/10509585.2012.639182

 This article examined Alessandro Volta’s invention of the battery and its contributions to the development of electricity. This includes the discourse on (a) Frankenstein’s story as a comparative analysis on the instruments of life as a symbolical representation on the use of batteries; (b) animal electricity as metallic electricity, rather than being interpreted as some internal force of the animal; (c) the boundaries of machine and life; (d) the relationship in terms of similarities and difference with the scientific practices of Victor Frankenstein; and, (e) Mary Shelley’s understanding on the “signs of life”; to name a few. In addition, the article included the (a) relationship between electrical science and figurative things, (b) monstrous electricity, and (c) relationship between natural philosophy and science.

Contribution of the Battery to Society and Education

Bard, J. (2012, May 10). Teams from 39 Southern California schools prepare for solar boat races. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/IMaHfI

Bard’s (2012) article focuses on providing students from southern California the opportunity to participate in a solar boat race. This competition provided opportunities for students to immerse their knowledge and skills in Science with interdisciplinary studies, such as technology, engineering, math curriculum, environmental science, and visual and language arts, to name a few. The concept of batteries promoted the further invention and creation of other forms of energy. The solar-powered boat race offered students the challenge, experience, and understanding on environmental science, water resource management, conservation, and alternative energy development. 

Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR). (2005). Using mobile technology to enhance students' educational experiences. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0502/cs/ecs0502.pdf

This article provided information on the initial development and implementation of mobile learning in school environments. ECAR examined the pros and cons of mobile learning based on (a) availability of technology structure, (b) concept of personalization, (c) essential role of mobile technology in student learning, (d) identification on appropriate support to achieve best results for mobile learning, (e) different uses of mobile learning, (f) logistics, resources, and costs of wireless and mobile learning (g) communication between and among users, (h) accessibility of online course(s) in mobile devices, (i) batteries usability and limitations, and (j) impact of weight and size of mobile devices in actual field work.

McCrea, B. (2010, September 2). Opening up to digital textbooks. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/PmYAgY

McCrea’s (2010) article provided information on the deployment and implementation of digital textbooks in schools to support technology integration in different content areas, increase accessibility to student attendance and progress information, and more practical use of textbooks among students. This includes the (a) ease of use in digital textbooks compared to the daily transportation of physical books in students’ backpacks; (b) flexibility and availability of other instructional and learning tools that come with eBooks; (c) infusion of more technology in teaching and student learning; (d) easier ways of sending web-based surveys to obtain feedback from students; and (e) access of online information from a district-monitored Internet structure.

Nagel, D. (2011, October 20). Activexpression2 response system gets full keyboard, equation support. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/RSoEfD

Nagel’s (2011) article discussed about the different features of Promethean’s Activexpression 2 Response System. This technology device provides students and teachers with opportunities to (a) assess understanding on what students learned from different subjects, topics, activities, or lessons; (b) expand and support the use of mobile devices for effective classroom instruction; (c) support collaboration and active participation among students; (d) integrate relevant use of technology in content delivery and implementation; and, (e) integrate the use of other technology equipment and devices in the classrooms to build an appropriate 21st century teaching and learning. Furthermore, the article provided information on the technical features and specifications that can be found in the Activexpression 2 Response System.

Prensky, M. (2005, December 2). Shaping tech for the classroom. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/hWlFji

Prensky’s (2005) article offered valuable information on the importance of supporting 21st century teaching and learning. Many schools are challenged with keeping up to date with the fast and immediate demands of modern society. In doing so, schools are experiencing difficulty in providing students and teachers with current technologies and best practices to increase participation and engagement in effective teaching and student learning. Though many schools are embracing the use of online accessibility to further teaching, collaboration, and communication among students, challenges continue to exist with regard to separating old practices with more relevant technology integration. Schools are faced with fully understanding the newer generation, often referred to as the digital natives, and how this generation can establish productive and meaningful relationships with the older generation, otherwise known as digital immigrants. There are also issues in providing one-to-one accessibility to technology, better implementation of technology integration in everyday teaching, and being more open and acceptable to changes.

Recharge. (2012). Advanced rechargeable batteries. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/PNAVGt

This article provided information on the development and improvement on performance of products to deliver higher effectiveness and improved financial value to customers with regard to their support and use of products or goods. These products or goods focused on battery collection, material recovery, and use. Furthermore, this article included information on the (a) role of advanced rechargeable batteries in society; (b) wide application of batteries in the areas, such as mobile communication, laptops, cordless power tools, individual cells, and other consumer applications; (c) role of batteries in responding to e-mobility, such as hybrid-mode, plug-in hybrid electric, full electric, and mass transport; (d) sustainability; and, (e) use of resources to support an efficient economy.

Schaffhauser, D. (2012, March 21). Saint Francis high chooses new iPad for 1:1 initiative. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/T7Ojjx

Schaffhauser’s (2012) article explained the experience of a high school in Mountain View, California that launched a school-wide one-to-one implementation of iPads. The goals behind this one-to-one iPad initiative included (a) using mobile and tablet applications that support testing, student and teacher input, research review, and obtaining feedback; (b) serving multiple purposes, such as textbooks, calculators, cameras, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.; (c) supporting multiple languages; (d) using an extensive library of educational applications; (e) iPad’s light weight and long lasting batteries; (f) migration of textbooks in digital formats; and (g) availability of iPads in other schools within the Mountain View, California community.

References

Castelvecchi, D. (2009). BATTERIES. (Cover story). Scientific American, 301(3), 73.

Decker, F. (2005). Volta and the "pile". Retrieved from http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-v01-volta.htm

Hirsh, Ph.D., R., & Finn, Ph.D., B. (2002). Powering the past: A look back. Retrieved from http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/prehist.htm

History in a Jar. (2010). Connect Magazine, 24(2), 26.

McCrea, B. (2010, September 2). Opening up to digital textbooks. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/02/opening-up-to-digital-textbooks.aspx?sc_lang=en

Nagel, D. (2011, October 20). Activexpression2 response system gets full keyboard, equation support. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/10/20/activexpression2-response-system-gets-full-keyboard-equation-support.aspx?sc_lang=en

Prensky, M. (2005, December 2). Shaping tech for the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/adopt-and-adapt-shaping-tech-for-classroom

Recharge. (2012). Advanced rechargeable batteries. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/PNAVGt

Schaffhauser, D. (2012, March 21). Saint Francis high chooses new iPad for 1:1 initiative. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/03/21/saint-francis-high-chooses-ipad-3-for-new-1-1.aspx?sc_lang=en

Sha, R. C. (2012). Volta's Battery, Animal Electricity, and Frankenstein. European Romantic Review, 23(1), 21-41. doi:10.1080/10509585.2012.639182

Historical Background of the Battery

Batteries were one of the significant inventions that were developed prior to the 1900s (Hirsh & Finn, 2002). Batteries were the main source of electricity during the time when electricity was not easily available to the common household (Hirsh & Finn, 2002). In doing so, batteries could be identified as a transformative technology during its time, based on the many contributions that this invention has provided to support society’s needs (Hirsh & Finn, 2002). The discovery and creation of batteries had involved many years of experimentation as demonstrated by the different inventors of this technology (Hirsh & Finn, 2002). The developmental stages that were involved in its creation began with Luigi Galvani (1737-1798) who discovered “animal electricity” through an accidental energy surge that came from a frog’s leg during a dissection process (Battery Facts, 2012).

However, Padova Alessandro Guiseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta (1945-1827) disagreed with Galvani’s (1737-1798) discovery based on the idea that electricity may have been triggered by a chemical reaction between two different elements (Battery Facts, 2012). Eventually, Volta (1945-1827) discovered the voltaic pile in 1800, which is better known as the battery (Hirsh & Finn, 2002). The voltaic pile is described to consist of pile of zinc and silver discs between alternative discs, and a piece of cardboard that had been saturated in saltwater (Sha, 2012). The bottom zinc disc was connected to the top silver disc using a wire, which produced repeated sparks (Sha, 2012). Volta (1945-1827) continued to build different piles using a variety of elements that led to many more trials of development and improvement (Hirsh & Finn, 2002).

Different scientists and inventors continued to explore and conduct experiments to further improve the concept behind the Voltaic pile (Battery Facts, 2012). William Sturgeon (1783-1850) discovered solutions to strengthen and sustain electrical current in the battery, which was far better than what Volta has previously invented (Battery Facts, 2012). Likewise, Sturgeon (1783-1850) developed a longer lasting battery that prevented erosion due to impurities in the zinc plates (Battery Facts, 2012).

John Daniell (170-1845) followed suit in improving the Voltaic battery by developing remarkable results, which led to solving the problem of polarization  (Batter Facts, 2012). From 1834-1889, Gaston Planté constructed a battery for electrical energy storage, including the elimination of free acid in the battery (Battery Facts, 2012). From 1839-1882, Georges Leclanché developed the Leclanché cell that was used extensively for telegraphy, signaling, and electric bell work (Battery Facts, 2012). This cell provided great use in the early stages of the telephone (Battery Facts, 2012).

Through the years, the Leclanché cell improved, which led to development of the first “dry” cell in 1887 by Carl Gassner (Battery Facts, 2012). Six well-known batters were in circulation by 1889 (Battery Facts, 2012). By the time the 1900s came, smaller and lighter batters were manufactured to perform more rigorous working conditions (Batter Facts, 2012).  Many more inventions and discoveries trailed through many years, until the creation of the modern battery came into the technological world that provided the ability to sustain long hours of use and recharge batteries through electrical input (Battery Facts, 2012).

Contribution of the Battery to Society and Education

Technology plays a significant role in today’s society (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). Technology continues to provide comfort and accessibility to information and use of portable or mobile devices (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). Batteries are one of the important innovations that continue to impact people’s daily lives (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). One of the modern developments in the discovery of batteries is the rechargeable battery, which provided opportunity to convert chemical energy directly into electrical energy (Recharge, 2012). There are different types of rechargeable batteries (Recharge, 2012). However, lithium-ion technology is one of the rechargeable batteries that contains the highest energy density, and provides electrical power to different mechanical equipment and technological devices (Recharge, 2012). This includes the use of rechargeable batters to support mobile communication, laptop and tablets, cordless power tools, health and hospital machines, electric vehicles for individual mobility, mass transportation, solar and wind power, and many more (Recharge, 2012).

Batteries provided different significant contributions to society, including the use of batteries to support a variety of technologies to enhance students’ educational experiences (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). One of the most significant contributions of the concept of batteries is mobile technology for student learning and teaching (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). The contemporary progress of batteries provides access to mobile technologies that many schools use to communicate ideas, collaborate best practices, and create new ideas for more relevant and meaningful learning experiences (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). With the existence of smaller mobile technologies, students are able to access online information at the tips of their fingers; share and collaborate with fellow students anytime, anywhere; conduct virtual conferencing through the use of web 2.0 technologies; enable online or virtual chatting; send text messages or email messages, and be part of social networks for both personal and educational purposes (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2005). These activities may not have been possible without the initial development and creation of batteries to support and sustain the electrical power that is constantly required to operate mobile technologies (Recharge, 2012). Batteries opened the doors to enormous and endless possibilities that continue to occur as humankind embark to discover and explore future inventions for progressive civilization (Recharge, 2012).

References

Batteries. (2006). World Watch, 19(2), 1.

Battery Facts. (2012). All you need to know about batteries. Retrieved from http://www.batteryfacts.co.uk/BatteryHistory/Galvani.html

BBC News. (2003). Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804257.stm

Carboni, G. (2008). Experiments in electrochemistry. Retrieved from http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/electro/electro.htm

Castelvecchi, D. (2009). BATTERIES. (Cover story). Scientific American, 301(3), 73.

Decker, F. (2005). Volta and the "pile". Retrieved from http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-v01-volta.htm

Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR). (2005).Using mobile technology to enhance students' educational experiences. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0502/cs/ecs0502.pdf

Franklinpapers.org. (2012). "Benjamin Franklin et al.; Leonard W. Labaree, Ed., ''The papers of Benjamin Franklin'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1961) vol. 3, page 352. Retrieved from http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=3&page=352a

Hirsh, Ph.D., R., & Finn, Ph.D., B. (2002). Powering the past: A look back. Retrieved from http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/prehist.htm

Molecular Expressions. (2003). Zinc-carbon batteries. Retrieved from http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/electricity/batteries/zinccarbon.html

Museo Galileo. (2010). In-depth battery. Retrieved from http://catalogue.museogalileo.it/indepth/Battery.html

Recharge. (2012). Advanced rechargeable batteries. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0gDwtOhf8wYJ:www.rechargebatteries.org/Rechargeable_Batteries__Sustainability_REPORT_SEPT_26_2011_NEW_FM.pdf contribution of batteries in modern society&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQkBLNMosItWxV_aPvcUXIYmBtMh0wdQX-ZYLvUVTP3X8fwBGkgH-kL3WpoPfecIXvAHIerZiyTN_0uvWo7K6M_m9Ap4Q9LP9OqeWXMeADzTNKqYaxG3A17lUgipBJJmtlQ349&sig=AHIEtbQJCbypcIsIevU6KZ0B5czNdDaihw

Sha, R. C. (2012). Volta's Battery, Animal Electricity, and Frankenstein. European Romantic Review, 23(1), 21-41. doi:10.1080/10509585.2012.639182

Debate Question

“Should XYZ Independent School District implement a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy to support the growing need of utilizing mobile devices for online and Web 2.0 technology access to provide effective and relevant teaching and student learning?”

Background Description

The students of XYZ Independent School District are prohibited to bring and use mobile devices, (i.e. smartphones, tablets, laptops) in the classroom to access online information for educational purposes and to access Web 2.0 technology (i.e. Glogster EDU, Google Earth, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Video) applications. The District provides students with Internet access through the availability of computer labs and computer on wheels (laptops in mobile carts) in their schools where Internet access is limited only to District-approved educational resources and applications that do not have any network connections or linkages with social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Pinterest. There are a few schools in XYZ Independent School District who have obtained tablets and iPods to increase technology use and availability among students and teachers. However, the available technology tools and resources that schools of XYZ Independent School District provide are not consistently updated due to funding restrictions.

A group of students, teachers, and parents of XYZ Independent School District has decided to open a discussion with the Superintendent and the XYZ School Board with regard to considering the development and implementation of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy to support students and teachers to obtain more online access and Internet mobility using student-owned mobile devices. This includes the provision in using more relevant and meaningful Web 2.0 technology applications that both students and teachers can use to support effective teaching and learning experiences, particularly in addressing the high demands of a tech-savvy and global society. However, there is also a group of students, teachers, and parents who are opposed to the idea of implementing a BYOD policy due to strong hesitancy in opening Internet access among students and teachers. Some of the issues raised included situations that will lead to more opportunities for cyber bullying, unlimited access to unfavorable sites (i.e. pornography), violation of individual’s privacy for greater possibilities of sexting, more opportunities for distractions (i.e. playing games online), and the like. In doing so, a dialogue has been set among students, teachers, and parents who oppose the possibility of implementing a BYOD policy and those who support such a policy for more relevant teaching and student learning. Each group is represented with a selected individual, specifically with Mr. Freedom Advocate who supports the pro-BYOD policy and with Mrs. Privacy Believer who supports the anti-BYOD policy.

Debate Dialogue

Mrs. Privacy Believer: “With the ongoing changes happening in modern civilization, it is recognized that today’s schools have to be updated with the technology tools and resources in order to support the ongoing educational needs of students, particularly to meet the demands of a tech-savvy and global society (Education Week, 2011). The schools in XYZ Independent School District provide such opportunities through the availability of computer labs and computer-on-wheels that students and teachers use for collaboration, communication, and creativity (Owen, 2010). Likewise, there are schools in XYZ Independent School District, if not most, that have obtained tablets or iPods to support students and teachers with higher-end technology access (Lytle, 2012). Furthermore, the District provides Internet access, which is also monitored to ensure that students and teachers are safely accessing information for purposes of teaching and student learning (Rodden, 2003). It is highly necessary to ensure that all students and teachers are provided with a safe and nurturing environment, devoid of any form of harm that will impede students’ growth and teachers’ professional development (Ysleta Independent School District, 2011). At this point, it would be interesting to know what Mr. Freedom Advocate would like to address regarding my statement, which encompasses the positive and productive ways that XYZ Independent School District’s schools have been implementing to support technology use in classroom instruction.”

Mr. Freedom Advocate: “Thank you, Mrs. Privacy Believer. I believe that it is important to recognize the ongoing changes happening in modern civilization, particularly in matters that involve efficiency, productivity, innovation, and creativity (Education Week, 2011). For this reason, it is critical for today’s schools to be competent with current technology tools and resources to support the growing educational needs of students and teachers (Education Week, 2011). This includes being open to allowing students to use their own mobile technologies to utilize less restrictive Internet access, particularly in the use of Web 2.0 applications, and to encourage one-to-one computing (Wong, 2012). In addition, you have mentioned that we live in a tech-savvy and global society (Education Week, 2011). In doing so, it would be highly beneficial and significant to adopt a BYOD policy to support the modern changes happening in this society (Wong, 2012). This includes the introduction and cultivation of new learning, the use of various web-based tools that can accelerate and advance learning, the collaboration and communication with peers using different types of technology tools and resources, and the improvement of students’ educational experiences through effective use of different technologies (Hilt, 2011). Do you not find value in providing students with these relevant opportunities of academic achievement?”

Mrs. Privacy Believer: “Yes, Mr. Freedom Advocate, there is value for students to obtain different benefits when they are provided with many opportunities to engage in teaching and learning experiences using different types of technologies (Wong, 2012). However, students of XYZ Independent School District should be provided first with a safe and nurturing environment, including the protection from abusive use of language in web-based applications; physical and emotional harm from Internet predators; cyber bullying from peers and other individuals; exposure to inappropriate Internet content; verbal and mental harm from electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of online communication; and the like (Federal Communications Commission, 2012). Quality student learning cannot be achieved if students’ learning environments are negotiated in favor of wide-open access to Internet information (Federal Communications Commission, 2012). Now, Mr. Freedom Advocate, can you further explain as to how BYOD policy can guarantee student safety and quality student learning?”

Mr. Freedom Advocate: “Mrs. Privacy Believer, the safety of the students in XYZ Independent School District is not being negotiated to favor wide-open access to Internet information. It is well recognized and understood that students need to have a well-balanced learning environment where safety and security is one of the essential factors to ensure quality student learning. However, it is highly essential that students be provided with opportunities to develop and implement less restrictive access to Internet information, particularly in the use of web 2.0 applications (Wong, 2012). The BYOD policy can also provide students and teachers with appropriate guidance in establishing learning environments that are positive and proactive when it comes to student safety and security. Yes, there are computer labs and computer-on-wheels in different schools of XYZ Independent School District, including some schools that have deployed iPods and tablets. However, the implementation of these devices have been mostly used to conduct student assessments, basic methods of research, and use of proprietary applications such as Microsoft Office products and Apple-based applications (Owen, 2010). Don’t you agree, Mrs. Privacy Believer?”

Mrs. Privacy Believer: “I do not agree that the use of these different technologies in XYZ Independent School District have been focused only on student assessments. Students and teachers have used these technology tools and resources to create wonderful projects, including research, and arts and crafts. What is wrong with using Microsoft Office products and Apple-based applications (Hickins, 2009)? Students and teachers have used these and other similar computer-based applications for many years (Hickins, 2009). These software applications have worked in the classrooms to support student learning and teaching (Hickins, 2009). Furthermore, aren’t schools supposed to be accountable with student performance (Education Commission of the States, 2012)? What is wrong with using these technologies to assess and evaluate students’ academic standing (Education Commission of the States, 2012)?”

Mr. Freedom Advocate: “I am not claiming that it is wrong for schools of XYZ Independent School District to use proprietary software. However, it would be more beneficial if schools would focus more on relevant technology-based practices, where students and teachers are provided with wider flexibility to use different technologies that students have to establish more meaningful teaching and student learning experiences (Wong, 2012). Moreover, the Internet access that students and teachers currently use through campus technology tools and resources has been very restrictive, to the point where teachers give up in using relevant web-based applications because of the consistent blockings of even education-based applications online (Wong, 2012). How can we expect our students and teachers to cultivate learning environments that are based on real-world situations when we do not provide them with opportunities to develop decision-making abilities, critical and analytical skills, collaborative learning, and trust and dependability (Wong, 2012)? The development and implementation of the BYOD policy can support student-computing initiatives where students and teachers can make use of student mobile devices to engage students and boosts academic achievement (Wong, 2012). This results to lesser absenteeism and higher student academic success (Wong, 2012).”

References

Education Commission of the States. (2012). Computer-based assessment. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OV5zh6

Education Week. (2011). Technology in education. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/

Federal Communications Commission. (2012). Children's Internet protection act. Retrieved from http://fcc.us/m2tk2E

Hayes, J. (2012). The device divide. Engineering & Technology (17509637), 7(9), 76-78.

Hickins, M. (2009). NYC schools overpaying for proprietary software. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/SSTQu5

Hilt, L. (2011). Successful school leaders today need to harness technology & social media. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/uBhDJa

Johnson, D. (2012). Head for the Edge. Library Media Connection, 31(1), 98.

Kellett, A. (2012). The threat within. SC Magazine: For IT Security Professionals, 26-28.

Lytle, R. (2012). Tablets trump laptops in high school classrooms. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OFylgq

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). Tips for BYOD K12 Programs. District Administration, 47(7), 77.

Owen, W. (2010). Oregon school computer labs overwhelmed by demands on students. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/dqaOpW

Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E's of education: Enabled, engaged, empowered. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/QThl8I

Rodden, K. (2003). The children's internet protection act in public schools: The government stepping on parents' toes?. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/SSLMcW

Schachter, R. (2012). Creating a robust and safe BYOD program. District Administration, 48(4), 28-32.

Twentyman, J. (2012). BYOD: OMG! or A-OK? (cover story). SC Magazine: For IT Security Professionals, 18-23.

Wong, W. (2012). One-to-one or BYOD? Districts explain thinking behind student computing initiatives. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/H8zF6T

Ysleta Independent School District (2011). CQ-R, Electronic Communications Data Mgt, 2004 Sep 8. Ysleta Independent School District Regulations. Online. Accessed January 30, 2011 from http://bit.ly/Rd3s7a

Ysleta Independent School District (2012). CSI: Ysleta – Internet safety and awareness. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/internetsafetyandawareness/

Abstract: The electronic mail (E-mail) system was first introduced as early as 1965 when email was simply used to duplicate a file to another user’s file directory. As years have passed, the email system has developed and continued to evolve, including the introduction of more advanced programming codes, use of web-based services through the world wide web (www), use of the familiar “at symbol” to signify every individual’s email address, and the changing role of email with different users particularly among students, teachers, corporate employees, and government personnel. This paper will conduct a discourse analysis on the path of obsolescence of email in today’s widely used social networks to communicate, collaborate, and produce innovative ideas and information, especially in the environment of teaching and learning.

The Electronic Mail (E-mail)

Effective communication is key between and among individuals in order to establish favorable influences, particularly in instilling meaningful and purposeful learning, enthusiasm, active participation, collaboration, and fulfillment (Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012). The development and implementation of the email system has created different avenues and opportunities for individuals to communicate within a more desired time frame, including, but not limited to: establishing positive and nurturing working relationships (i.e. teacher-student working relationship built on trust, transparency, and dependability), providing flexibility in supporting individual needs (i.e. online learning environment, after-school or out-of-class inquiries), supporting alternative ways for individuals to communicate important matters and information with confidentiality, and avoiding awkward or uncomfortable face-to-face interactions, to name a few (Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012).

The electronic mail (email) system began in 1965 when the main objective was to send email messages to duplicate files to another individual’s file directory (Fleishman, 2012). The email system continued to develop and evolve when more advanced programming codes were introduced in 1981, which provided the possibility for computers to understand the English alphabet (Fleishman, 2012). This may have provided more opportunities for specific users to send more complex and multiple messages (Fleishman, 2012). Another important development in the age of the email system was the introduction of Hotmail in 1996 that included the availability of web-based email services (Fleishman, 2012). The existence of the World Wide Web (www) has initiated an era of possibilities, where these have resulted to further expansion and improvement in the partnership between the email system and the Internet (Fleishman, 2012). This was followed with the creation of the “at symbol” (@) that signified every user’s email address, which continues to be used even in today’s email account standards (Fleishman, 2012).

Changes in the role of the email system continued to occur as years passed, particularly among different groups of users such as students, teachers, corporate employees, government workers, businessmen, to name a few (Fleishman, 2012). Presently, email is still being used to facilitate communication among groups of users (Ramsay, 2012). Likewise, current email systems are built with more robust and complex features that provide users with the abilities to attach and send files, translate email text into different languages, incorporate email reminders in web-based calendar systems, communicate time-sensitive information with a quick click of a button, forward email messages in one account with another email account, and categorize or label email messages according to specified folder classifications, to name a few (Ramsay, 2012).

The continuous changes in the development and implementation of email (i.e. Google Mail, Yahoo Mail, Lotus Notes Mail, Outlook Mail) have influenced many school districts to utilize the different functionalities of an email system to supplement and support teaching and student learning (Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008). This includes the introduction of more secured email systems (i.e. Gaggle) for teacher and student use in order to communicate and share important information or reminders, submit assignments online and provide feedback, offer clarifications or questions, and provide more opportunities to collaborate among fellow students (Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008). Unfortunately, the current users of the email system seem to rest mostly with the older generation (i.e. Generation X, Younger Boomers).

Despite the constant changes that have been developed to maintain the use of the email system in today’s modernization of technology, many technology savvy users (i.e. Generation Y) have either migrated or adopted the use of more complex communication and networking systems, such as social networks in the form of Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, Edmodo, Wikispaces, MySpace, Friendster, and the like (Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008). This includes the incorporation of email within these social networking sites, which provided users to go beyond the use of merely sending messages (Click, 2012). Users are able to participate actively using just-in-time communication methods, such as online chats, instant messaging, and web-based hangouts (Click, 2012). Many of these social networking sites have also developed built-in email systems in order to facilitate asynchronous communication among its users, which has become an important element in online learning environments (Click, 2012). Furthermore, the popularity of different social networking sites influenced many schools to include social networking as part of student engagement and teaching strategies, including its recognition as a form of supporting the different needs of individual learners (Click, 2012). Likewise, the vast features of the Internet has opened many doors for social networking sites to develop multiple ways for individuals to communicate, collaborate, and grow their connections globally (Flat Classroom Project, 2012).

The email system may seem to present its continuous significance in the digital communication world. However, many can anticipate that the longevity of email may be nearing its final destiny as more current users, particularly Generation Y, gravitate towards favorable use of social networks. Could email messages be considered an obsolete technology tool? Possibly, depending on who may be presented with this question. As long as email continues to be part of everyday work routines, many of its current users, no matter what generation they may belong to, may continue to use email systems to fulfill and complete their respective tasks. With regard to classroom instruction, many teachers and students may continue to experience challenges in being allowed to have full access in using different types of technology tools, including email. Policies may be changed in education, when it comes to technology implementation. However, its relevance in providing more freedom to choose what technology will be implemented in the classroom may depend on the decision among stakeholders of the educational community.

References

Baron, N. S. (2002). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it's heading. Routledge.

Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. (2012). “You are such a great teacher and I hate to bother you but…”: Instructors' perceptions of students and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication education, 61(3), 253-270. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.66

Click, C. (2012, September 24). Social media take a seat in schools. Retrieved from http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/9/24/social_media_take_a_seat_in.htm

Flat Classroom Project. (2012). Flat classroom project. Retrieved from http://www.flatclassroomproject.org/

Haigh, T. (2012). Seven lessons from bad history. Communications of the ACM, 55(9), 26-29. doi:10.1145/2330667.2330676

Fleishman, G. (2012). A short history of email. Macworld, 29(8), 52.

Hooff, B. (2005). A learning process in email use - a longitudinal case study of the interaction between organization and technology. Behaviour & information technology, 24(2), 131-145.

Judd, T. (2010). Facebook versus email. British journal of educational technology, 41(5), E101-E103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01041.x

Miyata, K., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Causal relationship between Internet use and social capital in Japan. Asian journal of social psychology, 11(1), 42-52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00242.x

Ramsay, J. (2012). Using insights from email users to inform organizational email management policy. Behaviour & information technology, 31(6), 587-603.

Sundqvist, A., & Rönnberg, J. (2010). A qualitative analysis of email Interactions of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: augmentative & alternative communication, 26(4), 255-266. doi:10.3109/07434618.2010.528796

Ynalvez, M. (2006). International training and the digital divide: Computer and email use in the Philippines. Perspectives on global development & technology, 5(4), 277-302.

SurveyMonkey Assessment

The questions developed in the survey for this study have been based on the Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology instrument (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). This instrument is selected to identify quantitative and qualitative data for this research (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). The questions are created using an online SurveyMonkey form, which is located at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RN3D3XV and these questions are also available in Appendix A of this paper.

Importance of Additional Data in Research Proposal

Today’s standards in teaching and student learning continue to change based on the different demands and challenges that have been created from emerging policies (Shulman, 1986). Teacher preparation, in particular, has been a target of improvement with regard to the testing standards and evaluation of teachers’ knowledge and skills to develop and implement effective classroom instruction (Shulman, 1986). For instance, many teachers have portrayed effectiveness in the classroom based on careful attention to management of students and management of ideas within classroom discourse (Shulman, 1987). In doing so, it has been considered a good practice for many teachers to build classroom management skills to provide students with an environment that is highly conducive to teaching and learning (Shulman, 1987).

In this study, additional data will be gathered to inform its readers with information on the impact of technology integration with elementary classroom teachers, particularly the 5 fifth grade teachers who will participate in this research. The purpose of gathering the additional data for this study includes: (a) identifying opportunities in technologies to deliver content and implement effective instruction; (b) use various ways and strategies to develop understanding and knowledge of different content areas; (c) use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting, including cooperative learning, collaborative teaching and learning, constructivist approach, direct instruction, whole/small groups, differentiation/modification strategies, and the like; (d) select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning; (e) use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches to use in the classroom to enhance teaching and student learning; (f) develop critical and analytical thinking on how to use technology in the classroom; and (g) demonstrate evidence of an effective model of combining content, technologies, and teaching approaches in teaching.

Appendix A

Tech Survey Research Questions

The following are the questions of the technology survey for this research:

• a. I have sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies, such as iPad applications, computer software, and mobile technologies. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• b. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Mathematics. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• c. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Science. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• d. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of English Language Arts and Reading. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
• e. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Social Studies (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• f. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting (i.e. cooperative learning, collaborative teaching and learning, direct instruction, whole/small group, inquiry learning, problem/project based learning, critical thinking, higher levels of questioning, hands-on approach, use of manipulative, etc.) (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• g. I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• h. I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches to use in my classroom to enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• i. I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• j.In general, approximately what percentage of the PreK-6 cooperative teachers have provided an effective model of combining content, technologies, and teaching approaches in their teaching? (Answers selection: 25% or less, 26% - 50%, 51% - 75%, 76% - 100%)

Appendix B TPACK Research: Research Project Design

Description of the Population and Sample Under Study

The participants in this study will include 5 Fifth Grade classes in an elementary school where the classroom instructors implement a departmentalized approach in teaching their specialization in the areas of Math, Science, English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR), and Social Studies. The students from these classes are mostly (a) Hispanics, (b) English Language Learners (ELLs), (c) identified as economically disadvantaged, (d) belonging to a free/reduced lunch program; and/or (e) identified as Language English Proficient (LEP). The physical layouts of these classrooms consist of diverse sections, such as a balanced literacy area, classroom library area, Math and Science word walls, ELAR and Social Studies word walls, literacy station/centers, Math/Science centers, to name a few. Each fifth grade class follows a 7:30 am to 2:45 pm schedule, where students spend 90 minutes of instruction for Math and ELAR.

Description of Research Design

This study will use mixed method in gathering data and information, where quantitative instruments will include questionnaires, surveys, and structure observation, and where qualitative instruments will include in-depth interviews and focus groups.

Explanation in the Selection of the Instrument

Teacher knowledge plays a highly significant role in providing rigorous and relevant teaching and student learning (Schulman, 1986). Teacher knowledge is not only composed of understanding content and curriculum, but as well as the pedagogical methodologies and practices that embody the characteristics and philosophical beliefs of an individual (Schulman, 1986). In doing so, teacher content knowledge is composed of different categories, namely: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge (Schulman, 1986, p. 9). Teachers need to embody these three different categories and immerse a lifelong learning commitment to expanding their knowledge and skills, which eventually contribute to the continuous formation and development of growth and desirable teaching and learning behaviors (Schulman, 1986). It has been previously mentioned that this study will be utilizing a mixed method research design to gather data and information. For this reason, this study will implement the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology instrument to identify quantitative and qualitative data for this research (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). This instrument is selected based on the following reasons: (a) the organization and distribution of questions to gather quantitative and qualitative information, (b) the inclusion of demographic information within the survey that can provide valuable information to further support the validity of this study, (c) the inclusion of appropriate and relevant question stems in relation to targeting specific concepts of technology integration, (d) the inclusion of open-ended questions that can provide prospective respondents with opportunities to cite more detailed examples to support their self-assessment in the use of technology, and, (e) the establishment of awareness and understanding in distinguishing the different aspects of assessing teacher knowledge and use of technology integration (Schmidt, et al, 2009).

References

Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Herreid, C., Schiller, N. A., Herreid, K. F., & Wright, C. (2011). In Case You Are Interested: Results of a Survey of Case Study Teachers. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 76-80

Loticonnection.com (2012). LOTI Level of Technology Integration Sniff Test, Retrieved from http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Framework_Sniff_Test.pdf.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, E. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 42(2), 123-149.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Abstract: Educational technology provides public and private school educators with the study and practice of effective technological practices to support student learning and teacher professional development. This includes the facilitation of theory and practice in building connectivism and professional learning networks to supplement and improve current knowledge and skills. This paper is a report on networked learning as one of the significant strands in technology that supports the development of professional learning communities. Discourse analysis will be used to identify the different stages of development and implementation of networked learning, including the (a) 1970s when the Advanced Research Projects Network (ARPANET) became the first operational packet switching network; (b) 1980s when the HyperCard was developed as an application program and programming tool for Apple computers, (c) birth of the World Wide Web (WWW) that further established the interlinks of hypertext documents through the Internet; and, (d) development of the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) as an online digital library of education research and information.

Introduction

Educational technology provides public and private school educators with the study and use of effective technological practices to support student learning and teacher professional development (Fonseca, 2011). This includes the facilitation of theory and practice in building connectivism and professional learning networks to supplement and improve current knowledge and skills, effective communication, and constant learning (Fonseca, 2011, p. 60). Networked learning influenced the beginning and ongoing expansion of professional and personal learning networks among individuals, groups of people, countries, and nations to establish (a) interdependent connections; (b) unstructured collective learning experiences, (c) life long learning and interaction; and, (d) reflection of social networked learning ideas (Fonseca, 2011, p. 60). The desire to stay connected and establish relevant and productive learning networks began with the earlier use of customized or personalized learning (Drexler, 2010).  Customized or personalized learning has become the trend among individual learners, which continues to be a significant element in the expansion of emerging web applications (Drexler, 2010, p. 369). Personal webs have materialized to support the necessity of individual learners to organize, write, edit, publish, and manage online digital content as part of networking and collaborating with fellow learners (Drexler, 2010, p. 369). Prior to the advancement of networked learning in building professional learning networks and communities, its historical development provided significant and interesting stages to illustrate the validity of its chronological experiences. The historical perspectives in networked learning stems from the influences of the early developmental stages of electronic computers and the launch of Sputnik by the Russian government in the 1950s (Kleinrock, 2009). This includes the creation of data networks and the establishment of the ARPANET in the 1960s and 1970s (Kleinrock, 2009). Apple’s development of the HyperCard in the 1980s also contributed to the development of the Internet, which eventually led to the development of networked learning as it is presently utilized (Kahney, 2002). Meanwhile, the birth of the WWW marked the establishment of interlinks in hypertext documents through the Internet, which significantly contributed to the one of the essential foundations of networked learning (Connolly, 2000). The development of the ERIC database also serves as an example of networked learning based on the functionality of ERIC as an online digital library for education research and information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012).

The Study

This paper will use the Four-Quad Analysis methodology to gather the necessary data in this report. This type of methodology provides the research with significant opportunities in gathering data, interpreting findings, segregating relevant from irrelevant information, and understanding the elements that contribute meaningfully to this report. The Four Quad Analysis methodology is composed of four parts. These parts include (a) Quad 1, which defines the theory, research, and best practices of the study; (b) Quad 2, which identifies the federal and state laws, rules and data of this report; (c) Quad 3, which describes the district or campus perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and experiences in relation to this report; and (d) Quad 4, which provides the district or campus policies, regulations, records, and data of this report. Furthermore, this paper also explores the use of qualitative methodological instruments, such as informal interviews, online surveys, observations, and face-to-face consultation with different stakeholders of the school community.

Findings

Drexler’s (2010) study, The Networked Student Model for Construction of Personal Learning Environments: Balancing Teacher Control and Student Autonomy, provided a conceptual framework on The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008) as show below. This framework illustrated the different elements that comprise the necessary tools, resources, and ideas of networked learning (Drexler, 2010). It is a model that illustrates what teachers use to build professional learning networks among fellow educators to develop collaboration and communication and actively participate in networked learning for professional development (Drexler, 2010, p. 371).

Figure 1. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008).

Furthermore, Drexler (2010) included in his study another illustration of a conceptual framework on The Networked Student as shown below (Drexler, 2010). In this figure, the idea of networked learning follows the concept of constructivism to support student learning (Drexler, 2010).

Figure 2. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of The Networked Student (Drexler, 2010).

From these illustrations, the concept of networked learning stems from the interdependent connection of different technology-based and education-based theories and practices, such as synchronous communication, social networks, contacts, information management, colleagues, blogs, wikis, tool/content development communities, and digital/online learning communities (Drexler, 2010).  These current theories and practices were made possible through the early developments of the Internet, particularly during the historical stages of ARPANET, HyperCard, WWW, and the ERIC database.

The ARPANET came into existence in the 1970s and it was recognized as the first operational packing switching network and recognized as the origin of the Internet (Markoff, 1999). The Department of Defense of the United States (US) initialized the development of the ARPANET to support military-based projects, particularly during the US-Russian Cold War (Markoff, 1999). J.C.R. Licklider (1962) developed the earliest ideas of creating a computer network to allow general communications among computer users (Markoff, 1999). Ivan Sutherland and Bob Taylor (1963) were convinced by Licklider (1962) to participate in creating computer communications networks, which led to the invention of online communication through the use of computers (Markoff, 1999). Likewise, Taylor’s (1963) complete computer network plan provided the avenue for ARPANET to host computers and be connected to the network (Markoff, 1999).

Apple Computer’s HyperCard was developed during the 1980s, which served as a small self-contained hypertext system and was a successful hypermedia system before the WWW (Needle, 1987). The HyperCard was composed of virtual stacked cards that hold data (InfoWorld, 1989). Users of the virtual stacked cards were able to browse through the available information by navigating from card to card, including the use of existing features (i.e. search mechanism, user-created scripts) (InfoWorld, 1989). This concept can be tied with the present browsing and searching capabilities, navigation of data within different Internet browsers, and customized add-ons in Internet browsers.

The WWW came into being during the 1980s and the early 1990s, as more people recognized the increasing need to find, organize, and manage files and information online (Deken, 2006). Tim Berners-Lee created the network-based version of the hypertext concept that provided wider opportunities for technology to be available to individual users (Deken, 2006). The most significant evidence of Internet expansion was the creation of the Mosaic web browser (1993) by Marc Andreessen (Deken, 2006). As history continued to unfold, the Mosaic web browser eventually evolved into the Netscape Navigator, which was developed by Andreessen in 1994 (Deken, 2006). This popularity of the Netscape Navigator was ultimately overshadowed and taken over by Bill Gates’ Internet Explorer, which was created in 1995 (Deken, 2006). However, Andreessen was not deterred in moving forward when he was able to use a special code that was supposedly intended in revamping Netscape Navigator (Payment, 2006). This code was used to develop Mozilla Firefox, which is one of the most used Internet browser today (Payment, 2006).

The ERIC database resides in a complex system that provides individual users with a wide range of information that are searchable, user-friendly, and retrieved from bibliography-based websites, online academic journals, and research-based information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012). The development of the ERIC database serves as an example of networked learning based on the functionality of ERIC as an online digital library for education research and information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012). Likewise, this database is a significant evidence of an improved and a well-designed web-based system that incorporates the evolvement of the Internet and the network’s capabilities (Education Resources Information Center, 2012).

Conclusion

Networked learning has developed through the years of progress and expansion in the realm of web-based applications, Internet browsers’ capabilities and features, and individual users’ conceptualization of effective collaboration and communication online (Drexler, 2010). The desire for diversity in knowledge, expertise, and application; establishment of individualized values and decisions; building of more meaningful and relevant interactivity among fellow learners; and, fostering of openness in perspectives, have influenced the continuous growth in professional and personal learning networks (Fonseca, 2011). The historical evidences in the different developmental stages of networked learning provided the beginning of an era of technology-based interdependence, where distance is no longer a question. More so, these historical accounts serve as recollections to commemorate how the past have been significant in establishing present and future innovations.