Category Archives: D: Mobile Technology

Mobile

At my workplace the focus is on adult education, so there is little, if any, regulation of student mobile devices.

I have sat through lectures where adult learners were distracted by mobile devices. However, I don’t believe the instructor or institute should create policies to control their use at a university level. It is my personal belief that by the time students are adult learners they should have gained the skills to self-regulate. This would be a component of digital literacy at a grade school level, or high school level. But I digress.

At the Justice Institute, where most of the training involves public safety, many of the training programs use mobile devices. For example, in the Primary Care Paramedic program, the text uses QR codes to link to training videos. When the students are practicing on their own, they refer to these videos to see if they are doing the procedures correctly. Most students use their own devices, but i-pads are available for signing out in the library. Mobile devices are used by Instructors as well. When the Fire Fighter students are being evaluated on their practical knowledge, the Instructors grade them on i-pads. This way the students, get immediate feedback online, and via generated e-mail and know what to focus on for the retest.

Mobile devices are used during Praxis Simulations communications. These simulations involve different public safety groups in a “real world scenarios” and the communications during the sim occurs in real-time and are as realistic as possible. For example, the Instructor reveals specific information and “dispatches” it to the Fire Fighters. As the Fire Fighters gather the information from the scene, they report back to the other Instructor and other parties involved, such as Police or Paramedics.

The JIBC has embraced mobile for education, and instructors and staff are willing to test and try new ways to interact and engage students. It may be the nature of the training, which lends itself to mobile learning.

Mobile device policies in Ontario

There has been a shift in mindset toward the use of technology in K-12 classrooms in Ontario. In fact, the provincial ministry of education has led different research projects studying the link between the use of different types of technologies for learning and student engagement and achievement (Jenson, 2011; Shields, 2012; Shields, 2013). The conclusions drawn in these published study reports state that in classes where technology was used to enhance student learning, teachers noticed a renewed student engagement and better overall achievement (Shields, 2013). This has led to new initiatives by the government to support the purchase and use of mobile technologies in all Ontario English and French school boards.

My school board was not ready for this. Large sums of money were received for the purchase of mobile devices and improvement of our infrastructure (i.e. Wi-fi access in schools, improvement in bandwidth, etc.). Most of our schools now have a Wi-fi network reserved for the board’s mobile devices and another (very limited) Wi-fi network for students and teachers personal devices. The school board’s official has not yet revised its policies (it is a work in progress), therefore, it is still forbidden for students to use their cellphones in our schools. Some schools don’t enforce the policy, some schools do. It becomes very challenging for teachers that want to use technology for learning projects in their classrooms but don’t have enough devices for all their students. Since there is not yet a defined policy, our schools are very heterogenous when it comes to technology. Some school principals have put aside important parts of their school budget to purchase mobile devices for students. Some schools prefer to wait for an official policy from the board.

We have a lot of challenges, but the two greatest ones are to create a flexible policy for the use of mobile devices that will allow teachers to have a clear view of the board’s vision. Since we are further north of the province, access to proper Internet speeds (bandwidth) is also a big issue and a big investment (if we compare with boards in the south who can choose from a variety of internet providers).

References

Jenson, J., Taylor, N., & Fisher, S. (2011). Critical review and analysis of the issue of “skills, technology and learning”. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Jenson_ReportEng.pdf

Shields, C. (2012). A shifting landscape: pedagogy, technology, and the new terrain of innovation in a digital world. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Shifting_LandscapeE.pdf

Shields, C. (2013). Extending the Landscape and Enlarging the Vision: Pedagogy, Technology, and Innovative Practices in a Digital World. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Extend_LandscapeE.pdf

Mobile Devices in the Legal Context

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I work in Professional Development at a law firm. Our department runs both optional and mandatory CPD (Continuing Professional Development) programs for a wide range of audiences. Mobile devices are a staple at our firm. The firm issues devices to all lawyers, law students, and senior management (or they can opt to use their own phone with firm access). Despite the prevalence of mobile devices, they are often not incorporated into our learning programs.

The firm does not really have a position when it comes to using mobile devices in learning. It is a given that most (if not all) attendees will have their mobile devices at our programs. Lawyers especially like to be connected at all times and will often check their email during our programs. You will even see facilitators checking their phones during group activities. Sometimes I think this points to a lack of engagement, but often it is driven by workload. The downside of live sessions is that they will never be convenient for everyone. If you are in the middle of a large deal it is challenging to disconnect and focus on a CPD program.

In the past, we have used polling software like Poll Everywhere and Socrative at our programs and the feedback has been positive. Participants enjoy the real time results and like seeing how they stack up against their peers. I also think it adds a level of interest and “fun” to our programs. The main challenge when utilizing such technology is teaching facilitators how to use it. Our programs are typically delivered by SMEs and they have varying levels of comfort with technology. It is not always feasible to have a member of our team who is well versed in the technology at the program.

With that said, I think we are missing an opportunity by not utilizing mobile devices more. As the Ciampa article pointed out, mobile devices (when used properly) can lead to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In the case of our lawyers, I see the extrinsic rewards being slightly more appealing: competition, cooperation, and recognition. We have found friendly competition and bragging rights to be highly motivating in the past. However, the Ciampa article talked a lot about learning apps and games. I don’t think there are any learning apps/games that would have content reflecting our firms’ procedures, standards, and expectations. The same (to a certain extent) can be said of social media. The firm’s social media and privacy policy make utilizing applications like Twitter a bit challenging.

Any suggestions of software/programs that can be used in a professional context?

References

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

Mobile Technology in the Classroom

“Let us know what is the position of your workplace regarding the use of mobile devices in the classroom/for learning. Who is allowed to use mobile devices: teachers, students? What for? What are the obstacles? Are there any success stories? How does the use of mobile devices change the way we teach and learn?”

I can say that I am very lucky to be working in a school district that embraces technology and is not afraid of change. The Vancouver School Board has a district wide policy on the use of mobile devices, but it is up to the teacher on how it is implemented in the classroom. This allows me the flexibility and the freedom to decide when and how I want to use mobile devices; ie. cellphones, iPads or iPods. I personally am ‘all for’ using mobile devices in the classroom. Our school has 2 iPad carts containing a total of 50 iPads for student use and we just received a mobile iPad educational cart that will replace all overheads, TV’s and projectors.

One tricky obstacle that I do face is in my grade 7 classroom where I job share at the moment with another teacher. Her policy with mobile devices is different than mine. I allow my students to occasionally listen to music with their earphones in, since some students are more focused this way. If they are doing their work and not distracting anybody then why not? If the iPad’s are not available (already booked by another teacher), I will allow my students to use their cellphones to do research or look up something for an assignment. Some students also never write down in their agenda and it’s like pulling teeth to get them to write their homework down, so I will allow them to take a picture of the homework board with their cellphones. My jobshare teacher does not allow this.

Traxler (2007) mentions that, “…mobile learning delivers learning to the learner when and where they want it” (as cited in Ciampa, 2013, p. 92). I completely agree with this statement. Most of my students own a phone so allowing them the flexibility of using their own technology is very convenient. My class also has a SMART Board and I will use this if I want to show something to the entire class. I don’t completely agree when Ciampa (2013) states that the teacher named Natasha doesn’t see the same focused activity of her students when using other devices such as the SMART Board. My students love it. I use it throughout the day and I’ve had students come up to me to say that they like how I always use it and in the manner that I do. After watching the video in our week 5 Module which mentions the website Poll Everywhere, I asked my students the question, “Should cellphones be allowed in class?” We were all able to see the results instantly and it was a hit amongst them.

I’ve taught in many classrooms before where there was not one piece of technology to use. I can’t imagine now not being able to use or teach with some type of technology; let alone the students not being able to use it.

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96

Still navigating the 20th century

It is spectacular to imagine a room filled with on-task and motivated learners using their mobile devices to engage with the content and access individualized learning. Unfortunately, this does not reflect my past experience. As I am currently on sabbatical, the following account is a little out of date and I truly hope the situation will have improved when I return.

If asked to describe my school in regards to 21^st century skills, I would have to place it in the turn of the 20^th century. In spite of the presence of SmartBoards in every class, my department mirrors very closely the institutionalized mass schooling of early industrial society as described Kalantzis and Cope (2010); classroom desks are in rows, learning is teacher-centered based on facts and memorization and students are quite passive in their learning. Within the department I was known for my bizarre open-ended projects, interestingly arranged desks and lack of control on my students for although not off-task they were not perfectly silent.

As such it is not hard to conclude that we are nowhere near the situation described by Ciampa (2013), and therefore, nowhere near helping students in the development of 21^st century skills. The in-class use of cell phones or mobile devices by students is forbidden unless part of subject-specific (English, French, Dance) educational activities, such as filming in English class or selecting music for a project. We are to send any student caught using a mobile device to the administrators. We are no longer allowed to confiscate devices out of fear of loss, theft or damage. The reasons provided to the students for the ban on electronic devices include: the possibility of using the devices for bullying and/or filming others without their consent, the fear of theft and damage to devices and the possibility of peer pressure to have the most recent model of electronic device.

Interestingly enough, I believe that incorporating mobile devices in the classroom and modelling how technology should be used could alleviate many of these issues. Having the students realize that their devices are more than entertainment tools but can be used in a working environment would be a huge step towards the proper management of electronics. I believe that the true reason electronics are banned at my school is not because this technology is inherently distracting or that the students do not know how to use it, but that the teachers in general are uncertain on how to consistently and properly implement the technology in order to increase the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students described by Ciampa (2013).

References:

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222.

Phys Ed and Mobile Technology

In my own experiences at several different elementary schools across Calgary, the most significant mobile technology has been the iPad, as the overwhelming majority of our students at the K-4 grade level do not own phones nor bring them to school. We currently have a district wide mobile technology contract that students and parents need to read through and sign before permission can be granted to individual students to bring mobile devices to school. Some of our grade 4 students bring their phones to school, but they turn them off during the school day and only use them at the end of the day to communicate with parents or friends. Truthfully, the schools that I’ve taught at over the years have been very well equipped with iPads and laptops, and the students haven’t demonstrated much interest in using their phones during class time, despite the fact that they would have permission to do so while under teacher supervision. With regular access to iPads and laptops across the school, our students don’t seem to feel the need or see the benefit in using their phones to complete tasks and assignments that could just as easily be completed with our school owned mobile devices.

As far as my own pedagogy is concerned, mobile technology has been an important part of my teaching practice in Physical Education. While I don’t often make use of laptops in the gym, iPads have become a part of our shared experiences in daily physical activity. In particular, even a single iPad in the gym can be implemented in a variety of ways to support student learning and achievement while encouraging collaboration and feedback. Compared to other curriculum areas, Technology and Physical Education are not quite as readily connected with each other, despite the fact that there exists tremendous potential for the use of mobile technology, including iPads, in daily physical education classes. With the demand for focus and funding in other curriculum areas oftentimes being driven from administration or district levels, teachers are often left lacking the knowledge or support to connect technology with Phys Ed. Nevertheless, teachers can integrate mobile technology into daily physical activity to help enhance and support student learning, progress, and achievement.

A single iPad in the gym, especially when connected to a projector, becomes a powerful means of presenting or displaying information to students. This could include demonstrating skills, instruction of new games and activities, sharing of goals and objectives, and communicating information and ideas in ways that get students excited, motivated, and engaged about physical activity. The use of iPads offers opportunities to utilize a wide variety of instructional videos and game demonstrations to provide visual support for student learning. Scoreboards and timers are no longer required tools in physical education sessions, as iPads offer a wide variety of apps for use in keeping score in games or timing student performance. These scores and times can be saved and documented as part of daily formative assessment in Phys Ed.

With an iPad on hand, teachers always have a camera to photograph or video record student activity and document progress. According to Ciampa (2013), students enjoy having their efforts and achievements recognized by others, and in order to make this learning visible, an environment must be created that allows for the engagement of motivation through recognition. Mobile technology, including iPads, provide affordances for this type of collaboration and recognition, and students’ ability to learn and perform motor skills increases with the use of tools such as digital video. By recording students performing a skill or task, teachers have a means of providing meaningful formative assessment directly to students to help guide their learning and development. Through the opportunity to watch themselves performing these skills or tasks, students are able to analyze techniques and self-reflect to guide further progression in Physical Literacy. Collaboration becomes an important component of video analysis, as students are able to watch and critique the work and progress of their peers, while providing constructive feedback to help guide reflection and further skill development. Videos may also be used as a method of summative assessment to document student achievement at the end of a particular unit, or while performing a routine or planned series of skills. Numerous apps are available for use in Video Analysis, with many of these allowing for complex and detailed examinations of skills and techniques, including those utilized by athletes and coaches at high levels of competition.

With the ultimate goal of promoting student motivation and increasing overall participation and engagement, iPads can be used to infuse gamification into daily physical activity. Apps that guide or instruct students in learning skills and movements can enhance teaching and learning in Physical Education, and these can be utilized by individual students, small groups, or during whole class activities. Augmented Reality offers exciting new possibilities in delivering engaging physical activity to students. The use of iPads in physical education can help support and enhance student knowledge, motivation and skill development, while providing teachers with opportunities to engage in varied methods of documenting student progress and achievement in formative and summative assessment. When implementing technology in Physical Education, it becomes essential that lessons follow the guidelines outlined in Bates’ SECTIONS framework (2014) and continue to be based on achieving a maximum level of student activity, rather than focusing on the skill of using the technology. The use of iPads offers students and teachers significant benefits while requiring minimal time to learn and implement during Physical Education lessons.

References

Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in a digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf

Mobile Technology Use in CPD

In the context of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), I don’t see a lot of use of mobile technology for the actual delivery of programs. Most courses remain in the tradition lecture format with supplemental hands-on workshops. There has been some attempts to use audience-response apps such as ‘Poll Everywhere’ or ‘Top Hat’ and these apps are quickly replacing our dependence on iClicker devices in the lecture hall.

Many online courses exist but at this point, most of those I encounter are designed to be viewed on a larger monitor. As technologies now exist to design courses simultaneously for screen, tablet or smartphone, I believe that more courses will be available in this format. For busy professionals, on the go, it will be most beneficial for them to access CPD material anywhere.

One way I do see mobile technology used regularly, is the use of Twitter or other forms of texting during courses and conferences. Large conferences will release a Twitter address for the event. For the organizers, it is a great way to release updated information, such as “Lecture 2 has been moved to Room 7”. Many participants will use the Twitter feed to comment on interesting information they are exposed to. Sometimes their colleagues who were not able to attend the conference will check in on Twitter to see how things are going and if there is any information posted that is relevant to their own work.

Sometimes, the most interesting conversations at a conference happen on Twitter while a lecture is going on. Dozens of people listening to the same lecture will Tweet their comments and questions on the material. Instantly, a small learning community develops with rapid-fire exchanges in real time. Although it can be a distraction, it certainly keeps learners engaged in the subject at hand.

This type of exchange gives learners control within the learning environment, engages others in cooperative learning, gives individuals recognition for their contributions and even fosters friendly competition and challenge when people are trying to best each other at coming up with ideas or other sources information. In short, it hits all of Malone and Lepper’s six categories of intrinsic motivation (1987, as cited in Ciampa, 2013).

Resource:

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

Depending on Your Goals

Alright, in case you didn’t get to read my introduction I’ll just to bring everyone to the same page. I am not a classroom teacher anymore and the majority of my work deals with the development of self-directed learning for the produce industry. The work is led by industry groups that inform and guide the development of any projects or programs that I undertake. In addition, the work of the organization itself is guided by volunteer leadership.

The reason why the SECTIONS model works so well in my instance is that I have to take in account a lot of difference circumstance and points of view (Bates, 21014). Yes, the students are important, but for the most part, they aren’t the only client needs that I have to take into account. I need to ensure that member organizations that may purchase learning for employees also are comfortable with how the product is offered. So in a sense, like a classroom teacher, I have several hoops to jump through when it comes to implementing mobile learning. However, in another sense, I also need to take into account any circumstances that may exist in a workplace environment. This includes, among other things: creating accessible content, device access issues, and the possible employer/employee dynamic.

Another instance of particular note is that I have to take into account the wide variety of digital literacy skills that exist within the possible group of learners. There could be new university graduates who are very adept at anything technical, and I could have a learner who has taken no formal learning in years and may or may not know how to use a computer. I have to design for both and try to engage them with the material and with each other.

In terms of mobile, that adds and entirely new dimension. For the most part, the learning material has been developed to be delivered on a desktop, as it’s the most likely form of delivery for our current offering if purchased by an employer. Really, I need to design for the type of device that an employer would offer. However, because of the rise of tablets, and the fact that individuals can also purchase courses there still need to be responsive elements built into the courses as they could still be accessed from a mobile device. Fortunately, Moodle and quick authoring programs seem to make this easy. So, although they can be accessed, I wouldn’t really call them mobile learning friendly courses. They can be long, and there are interactions built in that are just easier to accomplish on a desktop.

However, I’ve been thinking more and more of developing smaller “snack sized” pieces aimed as a just in time learning as a way for our members to encourage their staff. I feel like these pieces would be suitable to a mobile learning environment and a library could be developed to act as small easily accessible bits of learning on product knowledge, handling of fresh fruit and vegetables, and even food safety. I would say there is even potential for industry to develop consumer education pieces on these topics including different methods of growing produce, how it’s harvested, and even how some products make it to the retail and food service operations.

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a Digital Age (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Missing out on cool stuff

When I left from working in a high school, it was back in 2011. Our school policy at the time was that students were not allowed to be on their phones during class hours. The reasoning behind this decision from the administration was because we as an institution emphasised face-to-face communication and socializing as an element of the learning experience. While I suppose that teachers could have used their phones for learning purposes, not a lot did and I would assume that more than a few would feel it as contrary to the goal of the school to build community. However, when I left, the iPad had just come out and quite a few teachers/administrators were excited about the possibilities of the new device. It took the school until 2013 but they did end up implementing an iPad program for all the students. So there obviously a change took place within the administration’s idea about mobile learning technology. Coming from the tech support side of things, I could see many management and administrative obstacles with regards to going with a campus-wide mobile environment. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to be a part of that rollout.

Personally speaking though, mobile devices have really transformed my life as a student. It is really amazing to use my iPad to load up all my reading materials, plan out my schedule, and browse the web easily and seamlessly. I am a big advocate of using mobile devices and I look forward to seeing them mature in educational environments.

Mobile Technology Limbo

Mobile technology at my school is neither banned, nor allowed, rather, it’s in a constant state of flux. Somedays we seem to make huge leaps in the use of mobile technology, while other days we seem to be more like Luddites. Here is a brief overview of the situation at my school and my analysis of the situation.

I won’t delve into censorship or political concerns as I briefly touched on these in a previous discussion post. It is not an exaggeration to say that rules are created, discarded, enforced and ignored at my school in a constant and dizzying cycle. A common phrase used to describe this cycle is: “This is China”, but I don’t think it can be explained by three empty words. The administrative structure, or chain of command, at my school is complicated and there are many cultural considerations at play that are not appropriate for me to speculate on because it’s not my culture. However, I can say that the structure allows many people to create rules and leaves others to enforce them. Communication is not always clear, so no one seems to know who created the rules or who is responsible for enforcing them. With that little bit of context, let me present you with some examples of mobile technology related “rules” from the past few years:

Cell phone signal blockers installed in the student dormitories, blocking all cell phone signals (not just 3G/4G–EVERYTHING!)
1. Removed after parents complained its adverse affect on student health.
Certain classes given 1:1 laptops and wifi. Other classes not provided with laptops, no wifi access, and BYOD wa (and still is) forbidden.
Parents’ committee suggested that students could bring cellphones to school, but they would be confiscated by their homeroom teachers during teaching hours (7:20am-10:00pm, Monday-Friday). The school accepted this suggestion and enacted it last year.

Are these rules strictly enforced? The short answer is no. This is a good thing, because it means there is room for negotation and change. Allow me to attempt to analyze the situation.

Our school is not short on mobile technology. We have a bank of 40 laptops that can be checked out for any teacher to use in class. Most students have a smartphone; a recent survey of grade 10 students revealed that only 11 students out of 379 do not have a smartphone. 3G and 4G access in Shenzhen is affordable (I pay 5 CAD a month for 300mb) and almost all students have access via their phones. Six classes have 1:1 laptops and wifi access. Sounds incredible, right? Wrong. We’re in mobile technology limbo. The following situation is typical of how the integration of technology is approached.

Our bank of laptops arrived a few months after two (Canadian) teachers attended a 21^st Century Learning conference. The teachers came back full of ideas, armed with printouts of resources and countless links to educational websites which were informative and useful (that’s how we got started with Edmodo, which I loved.) The school, encouraged by the teachers’ enthusiasm, bought in to their suggestion to purchase a class set of laptops and they arrived in the blink of an eye. However, at the Canadian staff meeting where this idea was introduced, I, along with the other IT teacher, had advised against moving forward so quickly. Our issue was that there was no implementation plan. No one had considered what software would or should be purchased, how the laptops would be monitored (our IT labs have monitoring software), if the school’s network could support the increased bandwidth demand, or, even the most basic consideration—how would the laptops be used? Our concerns were pushed aside, deemed pessimistic and anti-technology. At the time, I was frustrated by being labeled anti-technology, but now I find it funny, considering our questions are some of the considerations found in Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model.

After reading Ciampa’s (2013) study results, I believe the teachers who made the suggestion to purchase laptops were motivated by some of the same discoveries outlined in Ciampa’s study: they saw the laptops as an avenue to motivate students to challenge themselves, pursue their curiosity, and take control of their learning. However, without a plan in place for the implementation, the students never had the chance to get to this point. The laptops sit mostly unused in a locked cabinet. When they are checked out, they are used solely for word processing. Why? The only software on the laptops are the preloaded offerings, there is no monitoring software, the school’s network couldn’t support the addition of wifi access for each classroom, and no one seemed to know what they wanted to do with the laptops. I could gloat about being right, but I feel awful that the school’s investment is lying dormant. It’s sobering to know the school has the resources to get almost anything we ask for, yet we do not use our resources to their full potential. That’s part of the reason I am in the MET programme—so that the next time we discuss purchasing technology for the school I am in a position to give a recommendation that is buoyed by a degree and a belief that I have the expert knowledge to give the recommendation.

Does our school have the potential to use mobile technology to motivate student learning in some of the ways revealed by Ciampa’s (2013) study? I think so. However, I think the first step is for each teacher to look at their courses and decide how and when they could use technology. Second, we must develop an acceptable use policy for cell phones so that all invested parties (parents, administration, teachers, and students) are on the same page; then, and only then will the arbitrary rules and the arbitrary enforcement of said rules end. Finally, we must develop an implementation plan for our bank of laptops–it’s better late than never, right?

Disclaimer

I always feel hesitant when contributing discussion posts because my situation is difficult to compare to Canadian contexts. The culture here is so different (and that’s not good or bad, it’s just a statement), that I feel like many instinctively feel that my situation is strange, or incorrect, or just plain wild. While my situation can be challenging, it’s not insurmountable and there are so many positives to working at a school like mine; it just so happens that our experience with mobile technologies hasn’t been overwhelmingly positive. What this post doesn’t outline is how supportive the administration is of my pursuing my masters in this programme, or how they send me to conferences and professional development events frequently (two this year!) As a school, we’re continuously learning how to work together and respect both Canadian and Chinese culture, teaching methodologies, and communication styles. I want to be clear that I’m not bashing my school, the culture, or my situation, rather, I’m trying to give an accurate indication of my personal experience.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf