brief summary

054450751.pdf

Home >Computer Science homework help >brief summary

C O N N E C T E D Y O U T H

M obile tech nolog ies and social applications are nearly ubiquitous in the lives of many of America’s youth. Mobile device own-

ership and social media use have been increas- ing over the past few years: 93 percent of US teens go online, 73 percent use social network- ing sites,1 75 percent own a cell phone, and 66 percent use text messaging2 (see Figure 1). Children under 12 are one of the fastest- growing segments of mobile technology users, and 93 percent of six-to-nine-year-olds live in homes with a cell phone.3 However, despite

students’ strong connection with the digital world and media environments and these systems’ potential to improve learning,4,5 they’re rarely used in US schools, where students

spend a significant percentage of their time— more than 1,200 hours annually.

In formal school settings, teachers, admin- istrators, and other stakeholders must nego- tiate a complex set of issues when addressing the use of mobile phones and other portable networked devices. Efforts to integrate technol- ogy in schools include investment in curriculum development and difficult purchase and instal- lation decisions. In addition, numerous legal and policy issues contribute to the risk/ben- efit assessment. These challenges have meant

that, to date, few educational applications us- ing mobile phones have been developed for the classroom.6–8

To explore mobile technology’s potential to facilitate learning, the community at large must consider this technology’s use in schools as a complement to an understanding of its impact outside schools. Specifically, schools’ acceptable-use policies represent the current legal basis and historical precedents that de- fine the climate of mobile phone and social media use in classrooms. Understanding these policies is an important first step toward cre- ating a workable solution as a joint commu- nity of teachers, researchers, and designers. Rather than holding teachers responsible for adapting teaching practices to technologies, or holding designers responsible for adapting technologies to teaching practices, we explore how to address these issues together.

This article speaks to a broad audience, including

• developers, who have designed products for the classroom but aren’t seeing rapid adoption;

• educators, who are both mobile-technology practitioners and purveyors of knowledge about their use; and

• researchers, whose future work in this area will determine the nature of ubiquitous com- puting in school environments.

Barriers to greater ubiquity of pervasive computing systems in formal educational contexts come in the form of legal policies, moral standards, and institutional responsibilities.

Meg Cramer and Gillian R. Hayes University of California, Irvine

Acceptable Use of Technology in Schools: Risks, Policies, and Promises

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

38 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

CONNECTED YOUTH

Our data and analysis are drawn pri- marily from literature and legal re- views. Where appropriate and neces- sary, we describe our own experiences working in US public schools as both practitioners and researchers during the past several years. Our corpus of data includes thousands of hours of participant observation, direct ob- servation, and interviews. These in- terviews focused on the design and evaluation of netbooks and their ap- plications in K–12 (elementary and secondary) classrooms as well as the design and evaluation of classroom- specific tools for special education.

Potential Benefits of Mobile Technology in Schools Many pundits and researchers argue that mobile devices and social media applications promise “anytime, any- where learning” and support new pedagogical approaches for an age of connected learners.3,9 Schools must continually adapt to the influx of tech- nology and new societal demands, in- cluding the push for 21st-century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, as well as student-centered and project-based learning models.

Much like adults, students use their mobile phones and social media for both socializing and work-related ac- tivities. Students’ work usage patterns are “closely related to the daily tasks and activities in their young lives,”10 including managing schoolwork and scheduling activities. Outside school hours, students have reported tex-

ting to coordinate school projects, re- searching on the Internet to prepare for tests, sharing tips and shortcuts in social networks, and participating in online study groups.

Mobile technology can open up new possibilities for on-the-go and just-in- time learning.3 Research has shown that mobile phones can address under- served, hard-to-reach children, espe- cially those who can’t attend school regularly or don’t have alternative means of accessing digital resources.11 Mobile devices extend peer-based learning to outside the classroom set- ting: social media has encouraged peers to learn from each other instead of drawing from adults’ authorita- tive knowledge. Peer-based feedback scaffolds learning by surrounding individuals with others who are in- vested in similar outcomes. Computer- mediated communication could also limit the dominance of certain peers, as has been repeatedly shown with adults.12

Furthermore, as the Digital Youth Project shows, students create knowl- edge, establish identities, build rela- tionships, and participate in other activities that have important impli- cations for social and cognitive devel- opment.13 According to the project’s researchers, “youth are picking up basic social and technological skills they need to fully participate in con- temporary society.” In fact, online ac- tivities are complex and often require skills and confidence with technology and communication strategies. Using

networked technologies in classroom activities lets students interact with devices and applications they use in everyday life.14 The project’s research- ers assert that “youth can benefit from educators being more open to forms of experimentation and social explora- tion that are generally not characteris- tic of educational institutions.”13

Of course, such experiments don’t guarantee success, and educators should undertake interventions with some caution. Mobile devices might not find a place in the classroom. Once-novel technologies such as the television also held similar promises to change the nature of schooling but aren’t particularly widespread means of formal teaching and learning. Mo- bile phone use in education requires pedagogical compatibility, includ- ing designing learning environments with a focus on cultural responsive- ness and situated learning. Even if schools adopt mobile phones and as- sociated pedagogies, developing con- tent and effectively integrating it in the curriculum might be a slow pro- cess. As previous technologies have shown, the device can often be much less important than the development of content and practices to enable learners to reach educational objec- tives in new ways.

The Tension between Present and Future Goals When considering the use, misuse, and control of mobile phones and social media in schools, we must also consider education’s role in socializing young people. Students’ engagement with educational materials, including

100

0 Go online Use social network sites Use text messagingOwn a cell phone

Pe rc

en ta

Mobile social patterns of teens aged 12–17

Figure 1. Teens’ mobile phone and social media use has risen in the past few years. Teens are using these devices and applications at school, though not necessarily for school-related purposes. Given the widespread nature of these practices, it’s important to understand the impact in school settings.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

JULY–SEPTEMBER 2010 PERVASIVE computing 39

social media and pervasive computing systems, is an individually constructed experience that helps them learn about the world around them. The education system has an enduring social struc- ture comprising roles, responsibilities, processes, and traditions that carry social meaning. What’s more, educa- tion is a moral institution that serves society as a whole, focusing on what it should do for its members and adding a moral dimension to the activities that happen in it. Specifically, schools have a moral character in their rules, dress codes, student governments, and so on. Consequently, their policies on technol- ogy use both implicitly and explicitly define what’s normal and what’s right and wrong. So, schools are both places for individual and collaborative sense- making and places where students learn about morality and society’s expecta- tions of them.

Education is more than learning a prescribed curriculum. Children and teens learn constantly, and formal edu- cation might simply be an attempt to adjust what they would learn naturally into what the adults of a society want them to learn. Thus, educational sys- tems can be seen both as descriptions of what’s currently important in society, including social roles, and as prescrip- tions for what society wants for the fu- ture.15 The tension between represent- ing today’s standards and preparing students for the future requires schools to continually negotiate what is and isn’t suitable for the classroom.

These negotiations have left students without access to many of the technolo- gies that are familiar in other aspects of their lives but not yet considered ap- propriate in the context of schooling. A 2002 Pew Internet Research report re- vealed that students find a “substantial disconnect between how they use the Internet for school and how they use the Internet during the school day.”10

Restrictions and bans don’t keep mobile devices off school premises or eliminate their use. Students often hide their use from teachers and adminis-

trators, whether or not it’s for school purposes, and teachers and other staff often hide mobile device use from ad- ministrators and students. During our fieldwork, teachers regularly noted that they would like to employ novel uses of networked devices in their curricu- lum but were restricted by policies that prevented technology use for various reasons, including lack of technical in- frastructure, network security regula- tions, possible disruptions, and lack of parent and staff support. In the schools in which we conducted our work, re- sponses from administrators about whether they’d actually punish any teachers caught violating these poli- cies varied dramatically from school to school and even—in the same school— from teacher to teacher. Almost uni- versally, when teachers used phones in class for learning and other work- related tasks, such as communicating with parents, they hid these practices from administrators.

US schools are at a delicate tension point. There’s the inherent desire to maintain social propriety as defined over the past several decades of for- mal education. However, many educa- tors favor the development of a more individual student-centered learning model, often through the use of novel technological solutions. As moral and political institutions, schools will likely play a significant role in developing and transmitting societal rules about these

technologies, based on their potential risks and benefits. For example, e-mail and mobile phone etiquette, under- standing of security and privacy risks, and preparation for the workplace in terms of online reputations and contri- butions are all issues schools will face because of their inherent position as so-

cial learning environments.

Acceptable Use In response to these myriad complex is- sues, most US schools have acceptable- use policies to regulate mobile phone and social media use. Mobile phone and pager bans were established in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to fears that students would use these devices to traffic drugs16 and that usage would disrupt classrooms and control structures.

Beyond the Ban For many reasons, mobile phone and social media bans in US schools have become unrealistic and even undesir- able.3 Parents and educators no longer fear that student cell phones are pri- marily tools for drug deals and other criminal activities. In addition, parents and other stakeholders have pushed for increased acceptance of these devices for “emergency use” so that students can coordinate relatively benign events, such as rescheduling a carpool, and are prepared in the case of true crises, such as a school shooting.

Although complete bans are un- realistic, evidence exists to support the formulation of appropriate rules and regulations. Increased use of cell phones and mobile devices for phone calls and other purposes—for exam- ple, social networking, instant messag- ing, SMS (Short Message Service), and

blogging—has brought about new con- cerns for schools, parents, and regula- tory bodies.

For example, mobile phones specifi- cally have come under much scrutiny regarding “sexting,” the practice of sending or receiving sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photos or videos.

Formal education might simply be an attempt

to adjust what teens would learn naturally into

what the adults of a society want them to learn.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

40 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

CONNECTED YOUTH

Sexting isn’t just a moral concern for educators and parents; it’s also punish- able under child pornography laws. As legislators and lawyers in some states are attempting to change the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor specifi- cally for minors, laws are emerging to deal with possession of such images on mobile phones, “increasingly the locus of teens’ personal, and seemingly pri- vate communication.”2

As a result of such challenges, most states now place the authority to de- termine electronic communication’s

role in the classroom in the hands of local school boards. These boards con- sist of elected or appointed officials, educators, and community members who represent the school districts’ interest, determine policy, and lobby for and allocate resources. State stat- utes now allow—and, in some cases, require—local stakeholders to estab- lish policies concerning the posses- sion and use of mobile phones, social media, and computational devices on school property, including disciplin- ary measures.16 These policies reflect the legal obligations and rights of schools and the governments that sup- port them, as well as address concern for student and teacher well-being and school reputation.

A safe school environment protects students from physical harm and cre- ates a space where they can focus on learning. Students concerned for their well-being or safety will unlikely make substantial academic gains. Mobile phones and social media can be av- enues for “hate speech” or other ille- gal speech that’s threatening and hurt- ful to students or faculty, undermines

institutional control, and puts schools at risk for lawsuits. Consequently, administrators generally develop acceptable-use policies to protect schools from these threats.

Defining What’s Free Speech Whereas safety is an overt goal of acceptable-use policies, protection of free speech is the dominant issue in rel- evant case law. Acceptable-use policies are binding contracts that students and parents enter into at the beginning of each academic year. However, these

policies must adhere to the legal rights that the federal government has guar- anteed students, including the right to free speech at school, secured in the First Amendment of the US Constitu- tion and confirmed in the 1969 semi- nal court case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District.

Most legal cases we discuss here center on the schools’ rights to protect students and faculty and the students’ rights to free speech. Not every form of speech is protected. School administra- tors and teachers are obligated to disci- pline students for lewd, profane, or in- decent speech; threats of violence; drug trafficking; or other speech acts that in- terfere with others’ rights at school or during school-related activities (Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986; Lovell v. Poway Unified School District, 1996; Morse v. Frederick, 2007; Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969). If a communication device is involved, it needn’t be school property for a student to commit an offense; indeed, in many court cases, the devices belonged to the students or their parents.

In establishing whether a speech act

is protected or subject to disciplinary action, schools struggle to define what’s on campus as opposed to off campus in light of new technologies that blur these lines. A school entity can be dis- rupted or threatened by speech acts that originated away from school grounds, and mobile phones and social media can make certain speech acts more vis- ible and persistent. Recent case law has exposed incidents in which websites, social networking profiles, and instant messages created off campus were thought to have compromised school safety.

In some off-campus cases, courts have ruled that disciplinary action against students wasn’t warranted. This includes cases involving a parody profile of a school principal (Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 2007) and an e-mail of a top-10 list regard- ing a school’s athletic director (Kil- lion v. Franklin Regional School Dis- trict, 2001). In other off-campus cases, courts have upheld schools’ disciplin- ary actions—for example, the cases of a YouTube video depicting the killing of a teacher (O.Z. v. Board of Trustees of Long Beach Unified, 2008) and a hate website directed at an algebra teacher (J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School Dis- trict, 2002). Given that technological devices and networks are increasingly used in a variety of physical locations, a wide array of behaviors involving mobile social technologies obscures the boundaries between places such as home and school.

Acceptable-use policies are already changing in response to speech acts occurring outside school property, a trend we expect will continue. One such change is the inclusion of “rea- sonable foreseeability,” a test put forth in Wisnieski v. Board of Education of Weedsport Central School District (2007). A report to the leadership of schools in Southern California rec- ommended policy changes that would further delineate the nexus of accept- able off-campus use and the schools’ interest.17 If the speech act doesn’t

Recent case law has exposed incidents in which

websites, social networking profiles, and instant

messages created off campus were thought to

have compromised school safety.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

JULY–SEPTEMBER 2010 PERVASIVE computing 41

directly reach the school campus, such as a website that wasn’t accessed or created at school, it’s put to a test in which an adult determines whether the information would have eventu- ally reached the school and caused disruption. Reasonable foreseeability gives schools the right to discipline students for speech acts committed off campus when a material disrup- tion of and substantial interference with others’ rights exist. Designed to alleviate the confusion surrounding the school’s authority to manage off- campus speech acts, this test should result in more elaborate policies ad- dressing both on- and off-campus use.

Risks for Schools and Students Schools’ usage patterns and policies are shaped not only by the desire to mini- mize liability but also by the risks of social media and networked devices for students as users.

Perceived Risks A glance at any news website or parent- ing magazine exposes the vast array of perceived risks of engaging with social media and pervasive computing tech- nologies. However, stories in the pop- ular press can misrepresent research and generate panic about issues such as dangerous online solicitations. In reality, online solicitation is incredibly nuanced.

Findings from the Youth Internet Safety Surveys, commissioned by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, revealed that one in seven youth has been sexually solicited on- line.18 These and similar reports have prompted most schools to deploy In- ternet filters and blocks on websites, instant messaging, and other social media. But blocks meant to protect students are much harder—if not impossible—to enforce when mobile devices are involved and students no longer need the school network for ac- cess. Furthermore, it’s unclear whether the blocks prevent solicitation. A recent

literature review from the Berkman Center for Internet and Society reiter- ates that Internet sex crimes haven’t contributed to a rise in sex crimes against minors.18 This report estab- lishes that the most frequent threats online are from bullying by known peers. However, sexual predation re- mains a concern, and more research is necessary.

Most teens use social media and mo- bile phones to strengthen relationships that they’ve established offline, not with strangers. It’s not uncommon for adolescents to congregate in unmod- erated spaces (physical or online).13 When students can access virtual spaces anywhere, anytime, parents and schools must consider a much broader definition of unsupervised or unmedi- ated peer interaction. Beyond students’ ability to interact with strangers, school policies must consider time spent with friends in unsupervised locations where much of their activity is supposed to be monitored.

Another recent study receiving atten- tion from the popular press states that one-third of teens with mobile phones admitted to using them to cheat at least once in school.19 Although these numbers are alarming at first glance, prompting reactions to “cybercheat- ing,” the report doesn’t discuss the fre- quency or conditions under which the

cheating occurred. Furthermore, stu- dents reported ambiguity as to what they considered cheating (for instance, telling a student in a different class about a surprise quiz).

Our fieldwork, although not quan- titative and thus difficult to compare directly to these results, indicates that teachers are also unclear on the defi- nition of cheating in modern learning

paradigms. New technologically medi- ated learning environments and cur- ricula often sanction the use of other materials (for example, online research and building off other students’ work in online environments) that might not have been allowed just a few years ago. Researchers must examine how students use mobile phones and social media in situations of academic dis- honesty. In particular, we must seek to understand whether these devices do in fact make cheating easier and, if so, whether this ease makes cheating more prevalent.

Observed Hazards Many longtime school problems, such as bullying, “at-risk” youth, and class- room disturbances, are facing new com- plications regarding mobile devices and social media. In addition, one possible new problem is student multitasking.

Bullying. Online bullying (also called cyberbullying or online harassment) is a substantial concern for educators. According to the Internet Safety Tech- nical Task Force, online bullying can involve “direct (such as chat or text messaging), semipublic (such as post- ing a harassing message on an e-mail list), or public communications (such as creating a website devoted to making fun of the victim).”18 This can seriously

harm victims, who can experience de- pression, loneliness, lower grades, and absenteeism. Online bullying becomes a school concern when it’s connected to the student’s well-being and a liabil- ity if it involves the school location or school peers.

In some ways, cyberbullying differs from in-person bullying. Cyberbullies aren’t restricted by distance, and their

Most teens use social media and mobile phones

to strengthen relationships that

they’ve established offline, not with strangers.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

42 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

CONNECTED YOUTH

reach can be extended within the online environment. They might not be bullies in the “real” world; rather, they might consider the Internet a place to exer- cise more dominance and aggression than they would in person. (Interest- ingly, this effect mirrors the workplace, wherein computer-mediated commu- nication tends to flatten hierarchical power interactions.12) Current school policies consider bullying a serious of- fense, and schools must respond to the new trends in student harassment.

At-risk students. Mobile technology’s possible effect on at-risk students— those who are potential dropouts, fail- ing academically, or performing below grade level—is another area of concern for schools. Studies show solicitation, victimization, and online harassment aren’t correlated to a particular type of social media (for example, Facebook) or practice (for example, SMS-based texting). Instead, risk online is statisti- cally correlated with risk offline.18 Stu- dents struggling with a poor home en-

vironment, physical abuse, depression, and substance abuse tend to make poor choices and might find themselves in undesirable situations online.

Educators have long known that these offline issues are tied to academic performance; they must now address online risks as well. We predict that schools would fare better if they didn’t target any particular device or media but rather focused on interventions for at-risk youth that include education and resources addressing risky online practices.

Classroom disruption. A significant

concern for teachers—and likely the one that comes to mind most readily when considering mobile phone use in schools—is the potential disruption to the classroom environment. Teaching is a challenge; teachers must manage students’ diverse needs and behavior to meet an entire school year’s worth of established goals in a timely man- ner. Mobile phones can undermine the classroom’s paramount learning objec- tives, in which decorum, order, and control are valued.

Teachers and administrators have posted to blogs (for instance, www. com monsensemedia.org /cheating- goes-hi-tech) with complaints about in-class student behavior involving mo- bile phone and social media use. These statements often describe mobile device use in classrooms no differently than passing notes or whispering between students. Like other disruptive activi- ties, then, mobile phone use can be managed by teachers who engage their students and provide proper guidance. Teachers have always diverted student

attention away from potential distrac- tions and toward the task and material at hand—which is difficult but doable.

Multitasking. In 2006 and 2010, the Kaiser Family Foundation produced two reports on concerns about multi- tasking. The 2010 report stated that “development of mobile media has allowed—indeed encouraged—young people to find even more opportunities throughout the day for using media,” with minority youth being the heaviest consumers of media content via mo- bile phones.20 The 2006 report noted that the brain structure and function

of people who engaged in substantial multitasking as youth differed measur- ably from that of those who hadn’t.21 It’s unclear what these changes mean in terms of long-term human cognitive and emotional capabilities; researchers are continuing work in this area.

Parents and teachers, both in these reports and in our fieldwork, have been less concerned about multitasking than about productivity, etiquette, and rude- ness or distraction. New rules and cop- ing strategies should ensure that cross- generational expectations regarding these issues are met.

Discussion As educators must begin to understand pervasive computing technologies, re- searchers need a solid understanding of classroom dynamics and management strategies to develop technologies that support the realities of formal K–12 learning environments. Experts in per- vasive computing, educational technol- ogy, and teaching must work together to establish best practices for integrat- ing technology into classrooms, using mobile devices and applications to aug- ment school tasks rather than distract from them.

We must continually ask ourselves where pervasive and mobile technolo- gies fit in formal schooling and where educational technology’s boundaries lie. Examining mobile devices’ and applications’ roles in teenagers’ lives lets us think differently about educa- tional technology and education itself. Many researchers argue that pervasive computing systems, including mobile and networked devices and the mobile social applications running on them, could support sociality and learning in schoolwork and overcome some known barriers to learning by influenc- ing pedagogical change. Schools can be sites for building interest in and under- standing of social media. However, as we discussed earlier, substantial barriers to adoption and use still ex- ist, with only preliminary evidence of educational outcomes from the use of

Experts in pervasive computing, educational

technology, and teaching must work together

to establish best practices for integrating

technology into classrooms.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

JULY–SEPTEMBER 2010 PERVASIVE computing 43

these technologies, often in university settings. We should seek scalable posi- tive educational outcomes for K–12 education.

For mobile devices to become truly pervasive in learning environments, designers and researchers must also acknowledge current and transition- ing acceptable-use policies as keys to understanding the school environment and administrators’ and parents’ legal duties. The design implications drawn from this analysis wouldn’t force perva- sive technologies to fit perfectly in the tight contextual box that these policies create. Instead, acceptable-use poli- cies regulate speech and expose how speech and technology can be con- flated. So, the challenge of developing mobile technologies for learning is de- termining how to enable free speech in a way that makes sense in the schooling environment.

On the basis of our initial survey of the landscape, we offer the follow- ing thought experiments about perva- sive technology design for classrooms. These aren’t prototypical recommenda- tions or even suggested designs for fu- ture systems. Rather, they’re meant to provoke critical thought.

First, rather than ban text-based chatting in classrooms, educators could capture and share these conver- sations. This solution is analogous to encouraging students who are having side conversations in pairs or small groups to share their discussion with the class. What would be the result of such an intervention? Almost certainly, some students would “game” the sys- tem, intentionally using it as a stage on which to perform. Others might avoid using the technologies altogether, and still others might use the system to ask public questions on the lecture anony- mously. Regardless of the specific re- sult, it’s interesting to think about how educators can use communication technologies to foster discussion—and yes, perhaps a little mayhem—in the classroom.

Second, rather than block participa-

tion on social networking sites during school hours, schools might build les- sons into the curriculum about appro- priate behavior in online environments and encourage students to use wikis, social networking sites, and mobile communication technologies. To ad- dress concerns about online solicita- tion, bullying, and excessive burden to

at-risk youth, these environments could be limited to only those affiliated with a particular school or school district— in much the same way Facebook was initially limited to Harvard students— and moderated by educators.

Again, this design concept prompts us to wonder what might happen as a result of such a system’s implementa- tion. Would the new environments be virtual “ghost towns” like so many cor- porate intranet communities, or would students engage in this new sandbox? Does critical mass take on different meaning when most of your social net- work is in one organization? Would students reject systems limited to only their schools? These online environ- ments could transition from risk-laden enterprises to safe places for experi- mentation and learning. These systems might even destroy data when students graduate to protect their reputations.

These concepts can be a starting point for thinking about appropriate mobile-technology design in school environments.

M obile phone bans have been in schools for more than two decades, and local control and

acceptable-use policies are becoming

commonplace in US public schools. However, these policies are often more like “unacceptable-use” policies, fo- cusing on how students shouldn’t use mobile phones and the consequences for breaking the rules. These stringent guidelines leave little room or desire for innovation in teaching or learning. The technological landscape has changed

dramatically, and researchers have be- gun to demonstrate benefits to learning through these novel technological solu- tions.4,5 The next step toward a truly connected youth is bridging the gap be- tween in-school and out-of-school tech- nology use, both in policy and practice.

Relevant stakeholders must ensure that school guidelines are flexible enough to protect students and faculty while supporting innovative practices. Whereas the contracts must retain their legal base, schools can benefit from ex- ploring possible additions that outline practices that aren’t just acceptable but encouraged in the school environment. For example, policies could let students engage with mobile phone services and social media to manage the school day and organize homework, tests, and activities. In addition, policies could let teachers exercise discretion when experimenting with mobile devices in lesson plans. Mobile phones’ potential in schools lies in their features and ser- vices that can be leveraged for not only socializing and play but also learning objectives. Policies should remind stu- dents and parents of the ongoing nego- tiation between the desire to use tech- nologies and school objectives, as well as perceived versus actual risks.

The future depends on educators, designers, and researchers working

The next step toward a truly

connected youth is bridging the gap

between in-school and out-of-school technology

use, both in policy and practice.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

44 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

CONNECTED YOUTH

together to build adaptable systems and construct usage policies that make sense in formal learning environments. Technologists, policymakers, and re- searchers must all understand formal schooling’s unique environment and how pervasive technology practices are being carried out there—not just in students’ afterschool and home life, on which most research currently fo- cuses. To predict how students will be workers in the future, we must learn how they’re using technology for their work today.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the researchers at the University of San Diego Center for Education Policy and Law and Frank Kemerer for the valuable insights that helped shape this article. We also thank Julie Kientz, Khai Troung, Jed Brubaker, Monica Ten- tori, David Nguyen, and Alex Markov for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

REFERENCES 1. A. Lenhart et al., Social Media and

Yo u ng A dult s , Pew I nter net a nd American Life Project, 3 Feb. 2010; www.pewinternet.org / Reports/2010/ Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx.

2. A. Lenhart, Teens and Sexting, Pew Internet and American Life Project, 15 Dec. 2009; www.pewinternet.org/ Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx.

3. C. Shuler, Pockets of Potential—Using Mobile Technologies to Promote Chil- dren’s Learning, Joan Ganz Cooney Cen- ter, 2009; www.joanganzcooneycenter. org/pdf/pockets_of_potential.pdf.

4. S.W. Draper and M.I. Brown, “Increas- ing Interactivity in Lectures Using an Electronic Voting System,” J. Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 20, no. 2, 2004, pp. 81–94.

5. C. Markett et al., “Using Short Message Service to Encourage Interactivity in the Classroom,” Computers & Education, vol. 46, no. 3, 2006, pp. 280–293.

6. M. Kam et al., “Designing E-Learning Games for Rural Children in India: A For- mat for Balancing Learning with Fun,” Proc. 7th ACM Conf. Designing Interac- tive Systems (DIS 08), ACM Press, 2008, pp. 58–67.

7. J.C. Reis, R. Bonacin, and M.C. Martins, “Mobile Phone Interfaces for Informal Education,” Online Communities and Social Computing, LNCS 5621, Springer, 2009, pp. 515–524.

8. S. Akkerman, W. Admiraal, and J. Huiz- enga, “Storification in History Education: A Mobile Game in and about Medieval Amsterdam,” Computers & Education, vol. 52, no. 2, 2009, pp. 449–459.

9. M. Hooft and K. Swan, Ubiquitous Com- puting in Education: Invisible Technol- ogy, Visible Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

10. D. Levin, The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap between Internet-Savvy Students and Their Schools, Pew Inter- net and American Life Project, 2002; www.pewinternet.org / Reports/2002/ The-Digital-Disconnect-The-widening-

gap-between-Internetsavvy-students- and-their-schools.aspx.

11. S.C. Watkins, The Young and the Digital: What the Migration to Social Network Sites, Games, and Anytime, Anywhere Media Means for Our Future, Beacon Press, 2009.

12. L. Sproull and S. Kiesler, Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization, MIT Press, 1991.

13. M. Ito et al., Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Report, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foun- dation, 20 08; w w w.macfound.org / a t f /c f / %7 B B 03 8 6 C E 3 - 8 B 2 9 - 4162 - 8 0 9 8 - E 4 6 6 F B 8 5 6 7 9 4%7 D / D M L _ ETHNOG_WHITEPAPER.PDF.

14. L. Kolb, Toys to Tools: Connecting Stu- dent Cell Phones to Education, Int’l Soc. for Technology in Education, 2008.

15. D.H. Kamens, “Education and Democ- racy: A Comparative Institutional Analy- sis,” Sociology of Education, vol. 61, no. 2, 1988, pp. 114–127.

16. “Pagers and Cellular Phones on School Property,” ECS StateNotes: Safety, Crime, Violence, Commission of the States, 2004; www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/44/5444. pdf.

17. F. Kemerer, “First Amendment and Pri- vacy Dimensions of Student Misuse of Electronic Communication Devices in California,” to be published in Center for Education Policy and Law, 2011; www. sandiego.edu/cepal.

18. J. Palfrey et al., Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-state Working Group on Social Networking of United States Attorneys General, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, 2008.

19. “H igh-Tech Cheating: Cell Phones a nd Cheat i ng i n S chools ,” C om- mon Sense Media, June 2009; www. commonsensemedia.org /sites/default / files/ Hi-Tech%20Cheating%20 -%20 Summary%20NO%20EMBARGO%20 TAGS.pdf.

20. V.J. Rideout, U.G. Foehr, and D.F. Rob- erts, Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010; www.kff.org/ entmedia/upload/8010.pdf.

21. U.G. Foehr, Media Multitasking among American Youth: Prevalence, Predic- tors, and Pairings, Henry J. Kaiser Fam- ily Foundation, 2006; www.kff.org / entmedia/upload/7593.pdf.

the AUTHORS Meg Cramer is a PhD student in the School of Information and Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine. Her research focuses on user ex- perience in schools and informal learning environments. Specifically, she has looked at 1:1 computing models and the design of personal devices in educa- tion. Cramer has a BS in sociology and communication from Northwestern University. She’s a National Science Foundation graduate research fellow. Con- tact her at mdcramer@ics.uci.edu.

Gillian R. Hayes is an assistant professor in the Department of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences. Her research interests are human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing, specifically related to recording-keeping and sur- veillance technologies. Hayes has a PhD in computer science from the Georgia Institute of Technology. She’s a member of IEEE, the ACM, and SIGCHI. Con- tact her at gillianrh@ics.uci.edu.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of the Cumberlands. Downloaded on May 15,2021 at 21:00:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.