cell phones in education 1 running head: cell phones in ...reeser/c reeser plan b final.pdf ·...

Cell Phones in Education 1

Running Head: CELL PHONES IN EDUCATION

The Dog Ate My Cell Phone! Educator Attitudes Toward the Use of

Cellular Phones in Education

Cheryl Reeser

Department of Educational Technology

University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

Plan B Paper

April 15, 2008

[email protected]

Faculty Advisor: ______________________________________________

Ariana Eichelberger Department Chair: ____________________________________________

Catherine P. Fulford


Abstract

Literature reveals that, not only do nearly all students today either own or have

access to cell phones worldwide, but cell phones have become mini-computers giving

more students access to personal computer technology. Outside the U.S., studies show

positive results and attitudes towards cell phone use in education. However, within the

U.S., cell phones are viewed negatively by educators with cell phone bans becoming

more and more common. As a result of negative perceptions, U.S. educators may be

missing out on an opportunity to use a new learning tool that has the capability to

revolutionize learning.

The purpose of this instructional design study was to determine the impact of a

web-based instructional module on attitudes of instructional and administrative staff of a

non-profit alternative learning center on Maui, Hawai'i, relating to cell phones use for

educational purposes. By demonstrating various uses for cellular phones in a learning

environment, this study determined that educator attitudes towards the use of cellular

phones as a learning tool could be changed, and educators became more willing to

consider this option for their own locus of control.


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my family for their patience over the last two years while I

completed my Master’s degree. I am especially thankful to my young son for putting his

needs aside while I, too, went to school. I also want to thank my dad for his help in

solving my DSL crisis and for entertaining my son while I attended classes and worked

on school projects. I would like to thank my co-workers who generously gave time out

of their busy schedules to participate in this study and to my boss who allowed me the

flexibility needed to complete this project and to attend my classes.

Finally, I would like to thank and acknowledge the University of Hawai'i at

Manoa Educational Technology instructors. They have all been incredibly supportive,

accommodating and motivating through this whole process, and I have learned so much

from each and every one of them. In particular, I would like to thank my advisor, Ari

Eichelberger. Despite her heavy teaching load as well as her own coursework, Ari

provided consistent access and support to me. She assisted me in solidifying my vision

for this project and offered her knowledge and expertise whenever it was needed. In

addition, I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Hoffman and Dr. Michael Menchaca who have

been extremely supporting and encouraging through-out this two year process, no matter

what the circumstance. Lastly, I cannot complete this paper without thanking Dr. Curtis

Ho for assigning the topic of cell phones as learning tools to me. Prior to his class, I had

never heard of cell phones as learning tools, and this assignment taught me that learning

tools do exist that may help to close the digital divide.

This project could not have happened without the hard work and support from

everyone acknowledged. Mahalo to all!


Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 14

Cell Phones as Learning Tools ............................................................................. 14

Cell Phone Perceptions ......................................................................................... 21

Motivational Variables.......................................................................................... 24

Multimedia in Education ....................................................................................... 26

Need for Research ................................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 28

Instructional Goal.................................................................................................. 28

Learning Objectives .............................................................................................. 28

Role of the Investigator ......................................................................................... 29

System Analysis .................................................................................................... 29

Participant Description .......................................................................................... 32

Sample Population ................................................................................................ 35

Procedures ............................................................................................................. 36

Instructional Analysis ........................................................................................... 38

Module Design ...................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................... 45


Sample Population Data ........................................................................................ 45

Learning Objective Results ................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 70

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 70

Keller’s ARCS Model ........................................................................................... 72

Implications........................................................................................................... 75

Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 77

Modifications ........................................................................................................ 79

Future Research .................................................................................................... 81

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 83

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix A. Project Website Screenshots .......................................................... 88

Appendix B. Participant Consent ......................................................................... 91

Appendix C. Pre-Survey Perceptions .................................................................. 92

Appendix D. Pre-Survey Skill Level ................................................................... 93

Appendix E. Post-Survey Perceptions ................................................................. 94

Appendix F. Post-Survey Skill Level .................................................................. 95

Appendix G. Demographics Survey .................................................................... 96

Appendix H. IRB Approval ................................................................................. 97


List of Tables

Table 1. Cell Phone Applications in Education ............................................................... 18

Table 2. ARCS Motivational Model ................................................................................ 25

Table 3. Project Timeline ................................................................................................. 38

Table 4. Module Design ................................................................................................... 43


List of Figures

Figure 1. Systems Analysis Chart ................................................................................... 30

Figure 2. Screen shot of project website ......................................................................... 37

Figure 3. Instructional module hierarchy ........................................................................ 39

Figure 4. Demographic Chart: Gender ............................................................................ 47

Figure 5. Demgraphic Chart: Age ................................................................................... 47

Figure 6. Demographic Chart: Positions ......................................................................... 48

Figure 7. Demographic Chart: Cell phone owners .......................................................... 48

Figure 8. Demographic Chart: Cell phone use frequency ............................................... 49

Figure 9. Demographic Chart: Years of cell phone ownership ....................................... 49

Figure 10. Perceptions Chart: School policies against cell phones ................................. 52

Figure 11. Perceptions Chart: Instructor policies against cell phone use ........................ 52

Figure 12. Perceptions Chart: School policies against cell phone ringing ...................... 53

Figure 13. Perceptions Chart: School policies against cell phone use during class ........ 53

Figure 14. Perceptions Chart: Cell phones as disrespectful ............................................ 54

Figure 15. Percptions Chart: Cell phones as a distraction ............................................... 54

Figure 16. Perceptions Chart: Cell phones as bothersome .............................................. 55

Figure 17. Perceptions Chart: Cell phones as a serious problem in the classroom ......... 55

Figure 18. Perceptions Chart: Observations of cell phones in the classroom ................. 56

Figure 19. Perceptions Chart: Complaints to others about cell phones ........................... 56

Figure 20. Perceptions Chart: Others complaining about cell phones in classroom ....... 57

Figure 21. Perceptions Chart: Cell phones used for cheating in school .......................... 57

Figure 22. Perceptions Chart: Cell phone potential for cheating in school ..................... 58


Figure 23. Perceptions Chart: Students using cell phones, just not to talk ..................... 58

Figure 24. Perceptions Chart: Cell phones potential to be a learning tool ...................... 59

Figure 25. Skill Level Chart: Skills needed to implement technology in class ............... 60

Figure 26. Skill Level Chart: Skills to evaluate instructional software ........................... 61

Figure 27. Skill Level Chart: Skills to use internet as instructional tool ......................... 61

Figure 28. Skill Level Chart: Email usage to communicate with co-workers ................. 62

Figure 29. Skill Level Chart: Email usage to communicate with students ..................... 62

Figure 30. Skill Level Chart: Personal use of new technologies ..................................... 63

Figure 31. Skill Level Chart: Evaluating new technologies for classroom ..................... 63

Figure 32. Skill Level Chart: Use of advanced cell phone features ................................ 64

Figure 33. Skill Level Chart: Use of cell phone in classroom ......................................... 64

Figure 34. Skill Level Chart: Willingness to try new things in classroom ...................... 65

Figure 35. Skill Level Chart: Technology as class projects ............................................ 65

Figure 36. Skill Level Chart: Adapting to a new generation of learners ......................... 66

Figure 37. Demonstrations Chart: Which had the most impact? ..................................... 67

Figure 38. Demonstrations Chart: Will participants use any? ........................................ 68

Figure 39. Chart: Variance between pre and post survey ................................................ 69

Figure 40. Chart: Variance between pre and post survey ................................................ 69


Chapter I: Introduction

“When you lose your mobile, you lose part of your brain,” exclaimed a student in

Japan, published in Marc Prensky’s commentary on the significance of cellular phone use

for today’s students. Prensky (2005) believes that it is time to consider cell phones as

computers that have the potential to be even more powerful and versatile because the

amount of cell phone users far outnumbers laptop computer owners.

As a result of their popularity and accessibility, cell phones have the potential to

be significant to education. Literature reveals the number of cell phone owners is

growing at an expeditious rate and nearly all students today either own or have access to

cell phones worldwide, far more than have access to computers (Prensky, 2005). Bill

Gates, founder of Microsoft, stated that cell phones, not laptop computers, will best meet

the needs of poor students (“Gates: Cell Phones,” 2006). Gates believes this because,

although the cost of technology has decreased, new technology has not and cell phones

offer an affordable alternative to traditional cutting-edge computers and gadgets. For

young learners, cell phones are more than a convenient tool used to talk on; cell phones

have become a popular cultural necessity, connecting users to their social existence. In

addition, even more promising is the capabilities of cell phones. With every new cell

phone model introduced on the market, new features make cell phones comparable to

computers, yet cell phones are entirely mobile, are always on, and can be used any place

and at any time. Therefore, the growing number of students who own cell phones, more

than own computers, along with the phones’ functionality, capabilities and mobility make

their possibilities significant to education.


With those points in mind, it makes sense for cell phones to be used as educational

tools, in many of the same ways laptop computers are. Nearly all students and even

instructors already own a cell phone or have access to one, so the cost to integrate cells as

a learning tool is nominal. In addition, students are already using cell phones on a daily

basis and there is no evidence that suggests that they will stop anytime soon. If anything,

cell phones are becoming more and more integrated into students’ lives on all levels.

Utilizing student-owned cell phones to enhance learning would connect a vital tool

students are already using in their daily lives to their educational experience. Today, the

major features of cell phones are voice communications, text messaging, graphics, user-

controlled operator systems, downloads, web-browser, still and video camera, geo-

positioning and voice recognition just to name a few. All of these elements have become

standard cell phone features and can be used as learning tools immediately, for

communication purposes, research, collaboration, organization, data collection,

podcasting, testing, learning modules, media collection, blogging, publishing purposes

and more (Kim, S. H., Holmes, K., & Mims, C., 2005). In addition, educational

applications are available specifically for cell phones such as personalized reminders,

customized quizzes, learning games, educational application downloads.

Outside the U.S., the trend of cell phones as a learning tool has advanced and

studies show positive results and attitudes about mobile phone use in education.

Yerushalmy and Ben-Zacken's (2004) research revealed that learners of all ages have

been successful in integrating cell phones into education. A survey conducted among

high-school students in the U.K. found that most students felt positive about using cell

phones for school communication purposes. Another survey conducted among


elementary students in Japan revealed that students tended to use cell phones as a tool for

learning and especially for communication purposes. A survey in Japan asked young

adults if they would use their cell phones for literacy and numeric learning. Over half of

the respondents showed an interest in using phone based games to improve learning

(Yerushalmy & Ben-Zacken, 2004).

In the United States, cell phones are not commonly used as learning tools like they

are in other countries. Over the last several years in the U.S., the concept of “cell phones

in schools” has received unfavorable publicity, mostly focusing on the distractions cell

phones cause and their potential for cheating. As a result, polls show that the majority of

educators support cell phone bans in schools. Campbell (2006) surveyed 176 instructors

and students in the U.S. and discovered that most of the respondents had a negative

attitude toward cell phone use in classrooms, particularly older respondents who were

concerned about ringing phones and using phones to cheat. In fact, the study revealed

that the classroom was thought to be the least appropriate place of all for cell phone use.

The irony in the survey results is that the distractions cell phones may cause, such as

talking and ringing, are the least useful features cell phones offer as a learning tool.

Features such as text messaging, researching, web-browsing and utilizing multimedia are

much more relevant to learning, and if used this way in the classroom, would deter

talking on the phone. In addition, much of the learning cell phones provide will take

place outside of the classroom and outside of normal school hours. Using cell phones to

cheat was found to be a concern in Campbell’s study. However, in order for students to

use their cell phones to cheat in class, they must retrieve information with their phones,

on demand. It is conceivable that those same skills can be useful for learning purposes.


When cell phone use for educational purposes is encouraged in the classroom, instructors

will no longer need to act as police enforcing cell phone bans. Rather, they will create a

climate for student innovation, creativity and ingenuity using a personal tool that supports

learning.

If educators choose to do so, the opportunity to integrate cell phones as learning

tools exists right now. The challenge is in motivating educators to give a new learning

tool, with a bad reputation, a chance. Today's educators are already pressed for time and

challenged to meet federally mandated standards. However, the use of laptop computers

in education have shown educators that learning no longer needs to be classroom-bound.

Most educators will agree that computers have had a major impact on education and cell

phones, as an addition to the portable computer family, have the capability to

revolutionize learning (Prensky, 2005).

The purpose of this instructional design study was to determine the impact of a

web-based instructional module on attitudes of instructional and administrative staff of a

non-profit alternative learning center on Maui, Hawai'i, relating to cell phones use for

educational purposes. The non-profit educational agency offers supplemental and

alternative learning services to Maui residents and its staff was considered to be a sample

of educators across the U.S. as a whole. As is the case with most educational

organizations, adequate funding was a challenge at this learning center. Innovative and

affordable learning tools were rare yet prized discoveries. This study sought to

demonstrate various uses of cellular phones in a learning environment in order to

determine whether educator attitudes towards the use of cellular phones as a learning tool

could be changed, and to determine if educators would become more willing to consider


this option for their own locus of control. In such case, participants may be motivated to

implement, or at the very least, learn more about cell phones as learning tools, and to use

a tool which is accessible to nearly all of their students, is entirely mobile, has no

financial impact, is innovative, powerful and creates an undeniable learning connection

with students. The number of people who have cell phones is growing at an expeditious

rate. Those who have had no access to educational technology tools, due to the cost, now

have access using their cell phones. The possibilities are exciting and meaningful, and

something that all educators should become familiar with.


Chapter II: Literature Review

The purpose of the literature review is to: a) identify background information and

current research related to cellular phone use in education; b) discuss perceptions relating

to cellular phone use in education; c) identify research related to motivational variables in

education; and d) discuss the need for this project as well as the research questions this

project explored. The literature review is divided into four sections: 1) cell phones as

learning tools; 2) cell phone perceptions; 3) motivational variables; and 4) the need for

research.

Cell Phones as Learning Tools

Access. The use of cell phones as personal communication tools has grown at

rates that are difficult to conceive yet important to understand. According to the

Washington Post (Sullivan, 2006), there are more than 2.4 billion cell phone users

worldwide and there are 1,000 new cell phone accounts added to that total each minute of

each day. According to the International Telecommunication Union (2004), the number

of cell phone users out-number non-cell phone users, worldwide. A study conducted by

the Pew Research Center revealed that, in the U.S., 76% of 30 to 49 year-olds own cell

phones, 66% of 18 to 29 year olds own cell phones, 60% of 60 to 79 year olds own cell

phones and 32% of those 80 and older own cell phones (International

Telecommunications Union, 2004). Another U.S. survey found that almost two thirds of

young adults are using their cell phones as personal computers, cameras, and digital

music players, twice as much as any other group (“Youths Use Cell Phones,” 2006).

Unfortunately, studies regarding ownership rates of people under 18 are not available as a

result of the legalities involved in surveying children (Samuelson, 2004). The impact of


the proliferation of cell phones, coupled with their advanced features, is being compared

to technological events in history such as the invention of the television as well as the

introduction to the Internet; both events that changed daily life for most of the population

(Katz & Aakhus, 2002; Rice & Katz, 2003). Surprisingly, the United States and Canada

are the only countries in the world where the number of cell phones do not outnumber

personal computers (Samuelson, 2004). However, not all students in the United States

can afford personal computers. In an interview featured in BusinessWeek magazine

(2003), a New York City high school teacher says he can count on one hand the number

of kids who have computers at home in consequence of their cost. According to a 2005

EDUCAUSE study, an average of only 38.5% of community college students owned

personal computers (Hawkins & Oblinger, 2007). This may be why cell phones

outnumber personal computers 5 to 10 times in the rest of the world, as the cost of

personal computers makes them unaffordable to a significant number of learners. In

European countries as well as Japan, Korea and the Philippines, cell phone ownership

infiltrates 100% of the population, with many users owning more than one cell phone.

Prensky (2005) has written that, in Tokyo, over 90% of high school students carry their

cell phones on them during the school day and in the U.S., between 75% and 100% of

high school students have their own cell phones.

The highest percentage of cell phone users is in economically developing areas

which makes the cell phone the only technological form of communication to have a

stronger presence in developing countries than the developed world. This is a noteworthy

event in education because the range of technologies developed with the intent to narrow

the digital divide by educating citizens globally, are found in developing countries (Yang,


2006). The reason cell phones have been able to penetrate developing areas are because

they are inexpensive, especially in comparison to the cost of personal computers and

PDA's (Yerushalmy & Ben-Zacken, 2004). In addition, cell phones are not only used for

voice communications, they are used for text messaging, web-browsing, digital

photographs and videos, and computing (Scherer, 2006). Overall, cell phones have the

potential to do the same tasks of a personal computer, yet can be carried around in the

owner's pocket.

Mobility. When understanding the cell phone phenomena, mobility is a crucial

feature. According to Kim, Holmes and Mims (2003), mobile technology is defined as

“technology that provides continuous accessibility to users anytime, anywhere without

using wire or cable to connect to networks (like Internet), transmit data or communicate

with others” (p. 54). What this means for cell phones users is that boundaries such as

time and place no longer exist, including the boundaries of the traditional classroom. The

popularity of laptop computers has stemmed from the concept of mobile technology

however, the cost of laptop computers keeps them out of the hands of many (“Gates: Cell

Phones,” 2006). Kim et al. also believe that mobility has three rudiments which are

convenience, expediency and immediacy; all characteristics of cell phones and all

beneficial to learning environments. In support of this concept, the University of South

Dakota President James W. Abbot stated in a 2001 press release that, “schools must

provide a learning environment using the latest technology so students can take

advantage of the benefits of anytime, anywhere learning to better prepare for the future”

(Kim et al.). Cell phones are able to meet the demands of mobile technology for the


classroom because they meet the three rudiments of convenience, expediency and

immediacy.

Applications. Technology is not only the development and introduction of new

products to the marketplace, it is also the way technology is conceptualized and applied.

In education, technology alone will not improve learning. However, when used to

redefine learning tools already available to learners, technology reinvents the potential

and constructs new perspectives in learning (Surry & Land, 2000). The potential for cell

phones to assist in learning is noteworthy. Today, the major features of cell phones are

voice communications, text messaging, graphics, user-controlled operator systems,

downloads, web-browser, still and video camera, geo-positioning and voice recognition

just to name a few. These features can be used in an educational setting in a large variety

of ways (Kingsley, 2007; Prensky, 2005; Yerushalmy & Ben-Zaken, 2004).

Voice features can be used to develop language and public speaking skills. They

are also beneficial in listening and reading aloud to poetry, literature, story-telling and

history. Language games such as crosswords and word puzzles are also being used.

Students can dial a number for short English lessons, or can take guided history tours

using their phones, both live and virtual. Lectures are now delivered to cell phones with

call-in features to enable discussions. Short text messages (SMS) can provide learning

reminders generated from instructors or students, as well as encouragement messages,

correspondence between the faculty, with students and with parents. Text messages also

enable writing practice, learning games, pop quizzes, surveys regarding current events,

and tests. Text messages can play a major role in campus security to keep students aware


and alert of possibly dangerous situations on campus. Graphic displays are increasing in

size, allowing for more information to be displayed at higher resolutions. These displays

Table 1 Cell Phone Applications in Education Cell Phone Features Examples of Applications in Education

Voice o Verbal communication o Language development o Learning games o Lectures w/conferencing o Guided history tours

Text Messaging (SMS) o Written communication with faculty, students or parents o Reminders o Encouragement messages o Reading practice o Writing practice o Learning games o Pop quizzes o Surveys o Campus safety

Graphics o Reading exercises o Pictures and animation o Calculator

Downloads o Downloadable files o Downloadable applications

Web-browser o High speed internet access o Research o Personalized assessment o Distance learning o Podcasting o Blogging

Camera o Data collection o Project documentation o Creative projects o Visual journals o Live feeds

Geo Positioning System (GPS)

o Geography exercises o Safety

Video Clips o Journalism o Movie-making o Video-conferencing o Role playing/Modeling behaviors o Podcasting


can also be adjusted to the users reading speed, making reading exercises possible.

Pictures and animation are commonly viewed with cell phones which can be used

the same way a textbook or the Internet is. The memory size of cell phones has increased

to the point where programs can be downloaded the same way the Internet opens up the

world of learning to a student. Cell phones also come equipped with high speed Internet

browsers leading to an increase in the creation of websites that are specifically designed

for cell phones. As a result, cell phones have become research, instructional and

personalized assessment tools. Cameras are a common feature on cell phones and can be

used to collect data, document projects, serve as visual journals, and also provide live

feeds to and from anywhere in the world. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are now a

common feature to cell phones supplying students with precise location information.

This is not only useful as a learning tool but also serves as a safety tool assisting in the

location of students in the event of danger, such as the Virginia Tech shootings. Video

clips available through cell phones can assist in conferencing, podcasting, journalism,

movie-making and role-playing, among other activities. The technology found in cell

phones offer many new tools to educators however it may be the way technology is

conceptualized and applied that creates the strongest impact.

According to Kingsley (2007), the link between popular culture and interactive

multimedia to the lives of school-aged children has never been stronger. The technology

features of cell phones can serve as a powerful instrument in connecting the student's

school-world with their personal-world in order to not only capture and hold the students'

attention, but to make learning applicable to their lives and to vest students to their


learning experiences. The more instructors can relate to students on this level, the more

interested students will become (Hsi, 2007; Kingsley, 2007).

Research. According to Rice and Katz (2003), research relating to the social

implications of the growing number of cell phone users has only just begun, yet remains

small, especially in comparison to research of major technological advances such as the

wide-spread use of the Internet. Yet, research does exist regarding wireless mobile

technology used as learning tools. Kim et al. (2005) report that K-12 age groups have

begun to use handheld PDA devices, provided to students with grant funds, to effectively

create concept maps. The study concluded that the handheld devices were able to

successfully assist in collaboration by supporting the sharing of documents in addition to

the assignments. Yerushalmy and Ben-Zacken (2004) report that the “M-Learning

Project” based out of Europe found portable technologies in the hands of young adults

positively encouraged them to engage in their learning activities. As a result, learning

attitudes were positively changed which contributed to improved skills and opportunities.

A cell phone project based in the Philippines successfully delivered distance educational

programs to teachers and instructors who previously had no access to education

(Yerushalmy & Ben-Zacken, 2004). The “eVIVA Project” piloted a program that

assessed students in the U.K. using cell phones (McGuire, 2005; Yerushalmy & Ben-

Zacken, 2004). Finally, a European project launched a program that developed course

materials, tests and evaluation materials, all through cell phones (Yerushalmy & Ben-

Zacken, 2004). According to Prensky (2005), a study in Japan found that personal

computers and cell phones with the same content formatted specifically for each device,

show 90% of cell phone users continued to use the content after 15 days in comparison to


less than 50% of computer users. There is no explanation for why this may be besides

the personal connection that cell phone users make with their devices. This is

conceivably another positive factor when applying cell phones to educational

applications. In the U.S., a study involving pre-schoolers in Oakland, California, found

that daily literacy tips and video clips of letters, delivered to the child’s cell phone,

effectively increased knowledge of the alphabet, with the biggest increase in knowledge

from children who were living at or below the poverty level (“Can Elmo Help,” 2006).

Overall, the research available has shown that cell phones are effective learning tools.

Cell Phone Perceptions

According to literature, only a handful of K-12 schools in the U.S. use cell phones

for educational purposes (Kim et al. 2005). Therefore, information available to the

general public regarding cell phones and their place in education is largely based upon

what the mainstream media reports. In the Unites States, headlines such as, “Cam

Phones, Go Home” published in Time Magazine in 2005, and “ psssst…WHAT'S THE

ANSWER?” published in People Magazine in 2005, were examples of the type of

perceptions the mainstream population reads about with regards to cell phones in schools.

In publications aimed towards educators, articles focused on the problems with cell

phones in schools such as, “Turn OFF That Phone” published in the American School

Board Journal in 2006 and “Cheat Sheet” published by Teacher Magazine in 2007.

Attitudinal research conducted in the United States revealed that most of the respondents

viewed educational settings as an inappropriate place for cell phones (Campbell, 2006).

While technologies such as word processing, email, and data management are commonly

used for administrative purposes in schools, technology has been slow to find its way into


the classroom for use as teaching tools (Surry & Land, 2000). However, only limited

amounts of research exist today that reveals perceptions regarding cell phones in

education.

Negatively. According to a survey conducted by ACE*COMM Corp. in 2006

involving 1,000 U.S. parents, 66% were concerned that their children were overusing

their cell phones during the school day either by text messaging or talking, rather than

focusing on their school work. Thirty nine percent of parents were concerned that their

child's cell phone could be used to cheat on tests by text messaging (Sullivan, 2006). In

general, polls have found that people feel movie theaters and classrooms are the most

inappropriate locations for cell phone use in public places with cell phone use in college

classrooms specifically inexcusable on account of the distraction that ringing causes

(Campbell and Russo, 2003). Moreover, most of study participants felt that college

professors should place a total ban on cell phones in university classrooms (Katz, 2005).

In 2002, a study was conducted by Scott W. Campbell who surveyed 176 college students

and faculty in order to assess their perceptions regarding cell phone use on campus.

Campbell found an overall negative perception about cell phones in classrooms with

ringing being the most serious concern. Cheating did not appear to be a serious concern

and younger participants appeared more tolerant of cell phones in classrooms than older

participants of the study. Female participants were slightly less tolerant than male

participants but not by significant numbers (Campbell, 2006).

Positively. The same study can be viewed as a positive perception towards the

use of cell phones in classrooms in that the younger participants of the study did not view

cell phones as a major problem or distraction in the classroom and did not feel policies to


ban them were necessary (Campbell, 2006). This may be as a result of the connection

that younger students have to popular culture and interactive multimedia. Campbell

(2006) felt that his research supported the notion that adolescents and young adults in

their early 20's view their cell phones as a device which is essential in order to connect to

their friends and family. Older adults view their cell phones as useful for safety and

logistic purposes. Moreover, the connection that young people have with their cell

phones may very well impact their tolerance of cell phone use in classrooms and even

young teachers are more accepting of cell phone use in education (Katz, 2005).

Ironically, the same 1,000 parents surveyed who were concerned that their children were

spending too much time on their cell phones at school, overwhelmingly opposed cell

phone bans because they wanted communications with their children to remain available

in the event of emergencies and logistical changes (Sullivan, 2006).

Significance. Overall, research regarding cell phones in education revealed that

mobile phone ownership and the degree of use and experience, influenced perceptions

about their use and the appropriateness of it. Younger users tended to use and experience

their mobile devices in a more personal way than did older users. These findings not

only revealed that perceptions regarding cell phones in education differ among age

groups but that a widening generation gap may exist between the faculty and students and

educational delivery methods need to be updated in order to address this gap.

Educational trends across the nation revealed that today's students are taking more

control of their learning and, in effect, that changes the role of faculty to facilitator

(Wood, 2006). Today's students expect instantaneous results when they seek information

and research has even suggested that the brains of Generation Y students (those born


from 1980 to 2002) are physiologically different than the brains of previous generations

(Hsi, 2007; Wood, 2006). According to Scherer (2006), today's students have learned to

pay attention to multiple information sources simultaneously and have looked to

technology for new information used to connect them and to enhance their lives.

Therefore, utilizing technology in the classroom not only creates a link to younger

students but when integrated with cell phone technology, it connects the students to a

vital tool they are already using in their daily lives. By instructors becoming aware of the

choices and benefits that cell phones can offer to enhance instruction, they are also

playing a key role in demonstrating to their students how to handle the power that

technology offers in smart ways. Instructors play a vital role in showcasing to their

students how to integrate technology into the curriculum, how to use it ethically, and to

show what it truly means to be a life-long learner.

Motivational Variables

Research has revealed that cell phones can be successfully used as a learning tool

and can play an important role in connecting lessons to students. Perhaps the biggest

challenge lies in integrating cell phone technology into educational settings effectively.

According to Perkins (1985), technology can be utilized in education effectively on three

conditions: 1) when the opportunity is available; 2) when users recognize the opportunity;

and 3) when users are motivated to take the opportunity. In the case of cell phones as a

learning tool, the opportunity is available as the number of cell phone users continue to

increase. Educational applications made for cell phones already exist, many at low to no

cost. The challenge lies in educators recognizing the opportunity to learn about cell

phones to enhance education and becoming motivated to take the opportunity. In 1979,


John Keller published an instructional motivational model entitled “ARCS” based upon

the idea that “motivation and behavior are the result of interactions between a person and

the environment,” and that “learning takes place in a social context” (Keller, 1987). This

motivational concept is important in an instructional design module because it involves

the necessary step in curriculum planning and that motivates the learners to learn.

ARCS. Keller’s motivation design model followed the traditional instructional

design model in that it analyzed the problem, designed strategies to correct the problem,

implemented the strategies and evaluated the results. Motivational design also

considered cultural factors such as family, friends, one’s setting and the impact these

factors have on one’s motivation. The purpose of the ARCS model was to “improve the

motivational appeal of instructional materials” using four concepts: 1) Attention; 2)

Relevance; 3) Confidence; and 4) Satisfaction (Keller, 1987). Table 2 represents the

ARCS categories and each resulting condition in accordance with Keller’s ARCS model

(Surry & Land, 2000).

Table 2 ARCS Motivational Model

ARCS Category Resulting Condition Attention Curiosity and arousal Relevance Fulfillment of needs Confidence Increased expectancy for success Satisfaction Attainment of incentives and rewards

According to Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004), a study of educators responding to

professional development needs found that a majority of teachers felt “personal ambition

and interest in technology was one of the most important factors in influencing their

changing practices regarding technology use in their classrooms” (p. 22). The authors

concluded that professional development aimed at getting teachers to use technology will


not occur until it can be demonstrated that using technology is instrumental in meeting

their classroom goals. Therefore, the ARCS motivational model can be very effective in

motivating educators not only to learn more about the use of cell phones as learning tools

but also to engage instructors on this topic and to possibly change negative perceptions

that already exist.

Multimedia in Education

Keller (1987) believed that an instructional designer should conduct their own

learner analysis in order to determine the “most effective strategies to get and sustain

interest, provide relevance, produce confidence and enhance satisfaction” (p. 2). For the

purposes of this project, multimedia was selected as the delivery method in the form of a

website which is designed to inform educators of the possibilities and benefits cell

phones offer as a learning tool. The website was designed with the ARCS motivational

model in mind by gaining attention, providing relevance, producing confidence and

enhancing satisfaction. According to Jereb and Smitek (2006), websites are a popular

method of course delivery due their key attributes including the learners' choice to access

subject matter content at a time, place, and pace that is suitable and convenient for the

learner. Multimedia involves the integration of hypertext with articles, images, video,

sounds, animation and simulations. Websites can deliver content in a variety of

multimedia formats that are impossible with paper-based modules, such as integrating

animation, sounds, and interactivity. In addition, learning online requires more

initiative and participation by the learners resulting in higher level learning (Jereb &

Smitek, 2006). It is for these reasons that this Instructional Design project was delivered

on a website. The participants were educators who benefit from the web-based delivery


due to the visual and digital content intended to appeal to the ARCS motivational

characteristics. Above all, web-based delivery was selected because it allows the

participants to have access to a wide variety of educational resources in an appealing

format and is accessible at any time, place and pace convenient to the participant.

Need for Research

The literature has shown that cell phones are used by a major portion of the

population, that they share many of the characteristics of a portable computer yet are

more affordable and accessible to students than portable computers are. Cell phones are

truly mobile and have been successful when used as learning tools in education.

However, there is not a lot of literature available on their use in education in the United

States specifically because cell phones have only become prevalent recently and cell

phones are not commonly used for educational purposes there. Research is lacking when

it comes to implementing cell phones as learning tools. It is possible that the lack of cell

phone use as a learning tool lies in the negative perceptions that exist among educators.

In such case, can these perceptions be changed? With information and training, will

educators be more willing to consider using cell phones to enhance learning in their own

classrooms? This Instructional Design study hoped to determine if educator attitudes

could be changed by using a web-based module designed to appeal to the motivational

variables of the participants.


Chapter III: Methodology

The methodology chapter serves to describe: 1) the goal of this Instructional

Design research project; 2) the learning objectives of the project; 3) the role of the

investigator; 4) the systems analysis; 5) the participants; 6) the sample population; 7) the

instructional analysis; and 8) the module design.

Instructional Goal

The goal of this project was to determine whether educator attitudes toward the

use of cellular phones as a learning tool could be changed when participating in a web-

based instructional module that showcases its use. The investigator designed modules to

help participants understand potentials of cell phones as a learning tool then examined the

impacts on the resulting perceptions. By demonstrating various uses for cellular phones

in a learning environment, this study determined whether educator attitudes towards the

use of cellular phones as a learning tool could be changed, and whether educators became

more willing to consider this option for their own locus of control.

Learning Objectives

In order to obtain the goal of the project, the researcher examined the difference

between pre and post attitudes and knowledge, based upon an instructional module. The

learning objectives of the module were as follows:

1. To inform and demonstrate to educators, various ways in which cellular phones

can serve as learning tools.

2. To determine preliminary and post-demonstration educator perceptions toward the

use of cellular phones as a learning tool.


3. To analyze motivational factors aligning with attitudinal changes toward the use

of cellular phones in an educational setting.

Role of the Investigator

The investigator was a Master's Degree candidate at the University of Hawai'i at

Manoa located in Honolulu, Hawai'i, U.S.A., studying Educational Technology through

the university's on-line OTEC program. In addition, the investigator was the Technology

Coordinator at a non- profit educational facility located on Maui, Hawai'i. As a result of

the investigator's position and experience in the non-profit educational setting, she was

keenly aware of the challenges that both educators and students face in accessing and

integrating technology into their learning experience. It is for this reason that the

investigator sought-out technology-based learning tools which were affordable and

accessible to as many learners as possible. After researching numerous options, the

investigator chose to focus on the integration of cellular phones as learning tools on

account of their affordability and therefore, accessibility, to a large percentage of the

population, their capabilities in comparison to personal computers, their mobile design

and their proven effectiveness as learning tools in other regions of the world. It was the

hope of the investigator that if educators at the non- profit educational agency were

informed of the possibilities cellular phones provided as learning tools and viewed them

positively, educators would be more willing to use them in their own locus of control,

thereby benefiting greater numbers of learners overall.

System Analysis

A system analysis was completed in order to identify the system that this project

hoped to impact. The system was made up of three levels: the Suprasystem, System and


Subsystem, and their influence on one another. The system relationships were hierarchal

with the learners as the ultimate benefactor of the system. Figure 1 represents a chart of

the system levels with their internal interactions.

Figure 1. Systems Analysis Chart.

S U P R A S Y S T E M S Y S T E M S U B S Y S T E M

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Accreditation

Learning Agency Staff Degree Requirements Professional Development

Learning Agency Instructional Staff

Instructor knowledge Technology in

classroom

Internal Factors:

• Preconceived notions/opinions

• Technology Skills • Desire to further skills • Knowledge

External Factors:

• Online discussion forums • Co-workers • Friends & Family • Community • Time constraints

Community of Learners

Suprasystem. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Suprasystem began with the

community who provides learners to institutions such as the non-profit learning agency

used in this study. Learners who attended classes at the non-profit learning agency were

either supplementing their public school education with educational services offered by

the agency or substituting a public or private school education by attending the agency.


In order to attract learners, the agency instructors must have up-to-date resources and

must possess teacher accreditation. Therefore, the Suprasystem also entails the

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) accreditation

standards dealing with standards for instructional technology programs. These standards

were chosen because they are the standards used by the University of Hawai'i at Manoa

College of Education and define the field of educational technology for colleges and

university’s across the United States. The non-profit learning center requires degrees in

education from a four-year accredited college or university of each member of its

teaching staff. In order for instructors in the United States to be effective when it comes

to integrating technology, the AECT accreditation standards provide a solid framework.

Finally, in order for the non-profit learning center teaching staff to stay up-to-date in

technology standards, professional development is necessary, which is also included in

the Suprasystem.

System. As illustrated in Figure 1, the System was made up of the non-profit

learning center teaching staff and administrators who provide an effective, up-to-date,

and relevant learning experience to its learners. This was a group of people who were

directly influenced by the Suprasystem made up of the community who provides learners

to the center. The Suprasystem also includes the AECT who provides accreditation

standards for the education degrees required of the staff, and by the professional

development needs of the agency’s teaching staff and administrators to stay current on

trends in education and to provide the most relevant and effective learning experience for

its clients, the learners. Professional development is provided in the form of continuing

education classes, reading educational journals and research, on-line tutorials, and


participation in on-line discussion groups relevant to the services provided by the

learning center.

Subsystem. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Subsystem was made up of more

intimate and personal influences that directly impact the non- profit learning center

teaching staff and administrators. The System had a direct relationship with the

Subsystem in their individual locus of control. Such relationships were divided into

external and internal factors and include: preconceived notions and opinions which

teaching staff had with regards to the use of cellular phones in an educational

environment; technological skills and experiences possessed by the teaching staff; and

the influence of friends, family, co-workers and community members which play a big

role in the staff's willingness to change attitudes towards cellular phone use in education.

Finally, the online discussion groups that teaching staff and administrators subscribe to

directly impact their teaching methods and locus of control by reason of their positions

and their experiences and challenges. Participants in online discussion forums provide

the opportunity to share ideas, vent frustrations, and bonded with one another.

Participant Description

Target Audience. The target audience was current teaching staff and

administrators of the non-profit learning agency. The agency employed approximately

23 teaching and administrative staff who were invited to participate in this study. Both

educators and administrator were selected because both partake in decision-making roles

when designing and implementing curriculum at the center. Participation in this study

was completely voluntary and participants were required to digitally consent prior to their

participation. The goal of this project was to determine whether educator attitudes


toward the use of cellular phones as a learning tool could be changed when participating

in a web-based module that showcases its use. The non- profit educational center

teaching staff and administrators were chosen because it was the goal of this project to

change educator attitudes so they would be more willing to apply new technologies that

would benefit the greatest number of learners. If this learning center on Maui was

successful in utilizing new technologies with all of their students, they would set new

educational standards on Maui that could possibly permeate across the state of Hawai'i as

several of the learning center's award-winning academic programs have been recognized,

statewide.

Prior knowledge. Access to technology at the non- profit educational center was

limited to out-dated personal computers as a result of funding constraints. It was very

unlikely that current teaching staff and administrators had any hands-on knowledge of

cellular phones used as educational learning tools however it was very likely that most

had hands-on experience using cellular phones as personal communication tools. The

agency's students were allowed to have cellular phones in classrooms and during

instruction time as long as they were turned off. This was very consistent with national

trends in the U.S. that revealed overall negative perception about cell phones in

classrooms with ringing being the most serious concern resulting in increased school bans

of cell phones (Campbell, 2005).

Cognitive characteristics. All teaching staff at the non- profit educational agency

required a teaching degree from an accredited 4-year college or university as well as a

current State of Hawai'i teacher certification. Administrative staff required a 4-year

degree from an accredited college or university however the degree did not have to be in


the field of education. Therefore all of the participants were qualified to assess for

themselves this Instructional Design module which attempted to change existing

perceptions of the participants by using visual and written demonstrations.

Affective characteristics. The nature of non-profit work tends to provide affective

rewards to its staff in forms other than monetary compensation. In other words, salaries

for non-profit employees tend to be lower than the government and private sectors

however employees find satisfaction and rewards in other ways, such as their impact on

their students, their contributions to their communities, and their contributions to society

as a whole. With this in mind, the approach for this module was to appeal to the need for

technology to be widely accessible to all learners by showcasing that the use of cellular

phones in education has the potential to play a significant role in narrowing the digital

divide. The investigator felt this approach would appeal to the participant’s desire to

serve as agents of change in their communities.

Social characteristics. The socioeconomic position and ethnic makeup of the

participants were irrelevant to the design of this study simply due to the work

environment where the non-profit educational staff see a very diverse range of

socioeconomic and ethnic community members in their classes. The academic and

administrative staff who participated in the study were responsible for students who

ranged from those who were only entering the school system to those who have been out

for a lifetime. Some students came from very wealthy environments while others resided

in homeless shelters. As with many communities in Hawai'i, the ethnic makeup of the

students was diverse but not segregated. It was the hope of the investigator that the

participants of this study had their students in mind when participating in the module,


rather than themselves. There was one social characteristic that may have impacted

results and that was the age of the participants. Research has suggested that age impacted

perceptions regarding technology and the comfort level with technology. As a result,

demographic data regarding age, gender, and cell phone use was collected for the

purposes of this project.

Audience analysis and implications for design. Participants of this project needed

to have access to the Internet and needed to know how to navigate through websites, in

order to participate. Participants were asked to set aside one hour to complete the

module. In the event that this was not possible, the module was divided into three

sections that could be taken at different times, but in consecutive order.

Sample Population

On account of the limited number of teaching and administrative staff at the non-

profit learning center, the sample population encompassed the entire target population

which was 100% of the teaching and administrative staff (23 people). One hundred

percent participation was anticipated in consequence of the role of the investigator as the

agency's Technology Coordinator. It was the hope of the investigator that the close

working relationships with co-workers and their mutual quest to find affordable solutions

to the agency's technology needs would induce the agency's teaching and administrative

staff to participate in the project. In addition, the Executive Director of the agency

offered compensatory time off to the teaching and administrative staff for participating in

the study. The non-profit learning center staff was selected for this study due to their

technology needs, financial limitations and diverse demographics that was considered a

small sample of educators as a whole.


Procedures

Advice from University of Hawai'i at Manoa, College of Education, Department

of Educational Technology faculty was sought for input on the design of the survey and

web-based module. Consequently, Human Subject Approval was granted from the

University of Hawai'i Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. Once the web-

based module was completed, the Executive Director of non-profit learning center

participated in a pilot study before the survey was distributed to its instructors and

administrators. Upon launch of the project, participants were directed to a website that

began with a brief introduction then an online consent procedure. Once the participants

gave consent to participate, they were prompted to respond to an anonymous preliminary

survey using a 5-point Likert-type scale with response options ranging from strongly

agree to strongly disagree as well as comments. The purpose of the preliminary survey

was to give the investigator information about the participants’ pre-module perceptions

and knowledge regarding cell phones as learning tools. Following the preliminary

survey, participants viewed a list of online demonstrations, videos and articles that

illustrated the capabilities of cell phones for educational purposes. The web-based

module included cell phone-based communication tools, java applications, research tools,

classroom integration tips and more.

At the conclusion of the web-based module participants took the same

anonymous, online survey to determine if the demonstrations, highlighting the potential

of cell phones as educational tools, had an influence on the participants’ attitudes towards

their use in the classroom. The post-survey also included demographic questions as well

as questions regarding personal cell phone use. Survey results were tabulated using the


built-in analyzing tool offered by Survey Monkey, then tables were created using

Microsoft Excel in which results are presented in the form of tables and graphs.

Figure 2. Screen shot of project website.


Timeline. Table 3 represents the project timeline.

Table 3 Project Timeline Completion Date Task

10/15/2007 UH Advisor Approval 11/1/2007 UH IRB (Human Subjects) Approval 11/25/2007 Completion of project website 12/1/2007 Completion of Pilot Study 12/15/2007 Launch of project to participants 1/15/2008 Deadline for participants to complete module 1/31/2008 Tabulation of results 2/15/2008 Draft analysis complete 4/15/2008 Completion of Project B Paper 5/1/2008 PowerPoint presentation completed

Instructional Analysis

Instructional hierarchy. The instructional design process was taken from Dick

and Carey’s Systematic Design of Instruction (Dick & Carey, 1996). The goals and

objectives of the model were initially identified followed by a hierarchy of objectives and

terminal objectives. Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchy as modeled after Dick and Carey’s

systematic structure.

There was a total of 17 subskills with one terminal objective which was to

determine educator attitudes toward the use of cellular phones a learning tool.


Figure 3. Instructional module hierarchy.

Determine preliminary

educator attitudes (4)

Inform & demonstrate how cell phones can

serve as learning tools (8)

Determine post demonstration

educator attitudes (13)

Analyze factors aligning with

attitudinal changes

(17)

Identify biases & opinions

(2)

Identify desire to

learn (3)

Define cell

phone (6)

Identify uses for

cell phone (7)

Identify changes

in attitude

(10)

Define potential implementation

(11)

Define demogra

phics (15)

Identify patterns

(16)

Define attitudinal measures

(1)

Define learning

tools (5)

Define attitudinal measures

(9)

Define changes in attitudes

(14)

To determine educator attitudes toward the use of cellular phones as a learning

tool (18)


Module Design

Participation in the study was anonymous. The web-based instructional module

itself was divided into three sections which took the participants approximately one hour

to complete. The demonstrations included:

• A brief inspirational video that showcased the possibilities technology brings to

education (http://www.thinkfinity.org/about/video/thinkfinityvideo.aspx). This

video was considered to be objective.

• Marc Prensky’s “Engage Me or Enrage Me” PowerPoint that featured the

differences between today's learners and yesterday's

(http://joelypop.googlepages.com/PrenskyPowerPoint.ppt). This presentation was

consistent with Prensky’s belief that technology such as educational gaming and

cell phones do have a place in classrooms.

• A video from the U.K. that captured teacher experiences with mobile phones in

the classroom

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1043898959196049305&hl=en). This

piece was objective and featured a balanced view of issues, controversies and

results surrounding cell phone use in schools.

• An article that summarized the advantages mobile devices offer in learning

environments

(http://www.zimbio.com/mLearning/articles/91/10+Reasons+Mobile+Learning+

Matters). This was a somewhat objective article written by someone who had

recently learned the benefits cell phones offer to education.

http://www.thinkfinity.org/about/video/thinkfinityvideo.aspx

http://joelypop.googlepages.com/PrenskyPowerPoint.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1043898959196049305&hl=en

http://www.zimbio.com/mLearning/articles/91/10+Reasons+Mobile+Learning+Matters

http://www.zimbio.com/mLearning/articles/91/10+Reasons+Mobile+Learning+Matters


• A video that featured a collection of podcasts viewed on and created with a cell

phone, allowing classrooms from across the world to share their lessons and

projects (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8oD8IlzZD8). This video was

created by a strong proponent of cell phone use in education and is therefore,

partial.

• An article that discussed the concept of digital technology and participation in the

democratic process by young people

(http://joelypop.googlepages.com/DigitalTechnologyandDemocracy.pdf). This

article featured various points of view supporting the concept that digital

technology, including cell phones, increase participation in democracy.

• A Marc Prensky blog that discussed ideas to start using cell phones in the

classroom tomorrow – literally

(http://www.marcprensky.com/blog/archives/000043.html). This article plainly

listed suggestions and ideas for integrating cell phones into curriculum.

• Examples to use Flicker, a free photo storage website, for student projects

(http://www.flickr.com/groups/visualstory/discuss/72157600608751745/). This

website featured an objective classroom assignment using a cell phone.

• Examples of class video blogs for parents, in place of a newsletter, taken with a

cell phone (http://room132.com/2006/03/12/room-132-gifts-of-writing-burnished-

pinch-pots-contra-dancing-and-mr-pettis-has-had-way-too-much-sugar/). This

website featured objective classroom blogs that could be created using a cell

phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8oD8IlzZD8

http://joelypop.googlepages.com/DigitalTechnologyandDemocracy.pdf

http://www.marcprensky.com/blog/archives/000043.html

http://www.flickr.com/groups/visualstory/discuss/72157600608751745/

http://room132.com/2006/03/12/room-132-gifts-of-writing-burnished-pinch-pots-contra-dancing-and-mr-pettis-has-had-way-too-much-sugar/

http://room132.com/2006/03/12/room-132-gifts-of-writing-burnished-pinch-pots-contra-dancing-and-mr-pettis-has-had-way-too-much-sugar/


• Examples of creating and posting a class blog from anywhere using a cell phone

(http://www.blogger.com/mobile-start.g). This site was a sponsored website for

Blogger.com featuring mobile technology.

• Google Mobile, a free search engine application for web-enabled cell phones

(http://www.google.com/mobile/). This site was a sponsored website for

google.com featuring Google Mobile technology.

• Yahoo Mobile, a free search engine application for web-enabled cell phones

(http://mobile.yahoo.com/). This site was a sponsored website for yahoo.com

featuring Yahoo Mobile technology.

• A culminating video that summarized the potential cell phone have as a learning

tool

(http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=40c570a322f1b0b65909).

This video was biased in support of cell phone use in education.

In addition to the demonstrations and informational videos, an optional list of more “how

to” videos and demonstrations were available for those participants who wanted to learn

more about using cell phones in the classroom. Each selection was meant to gain the

attention of the participants, show relevance to the participants' work, and to assist the

participants in gaining the skills needed to implement cell phones as learning tools.

In order to begin the module, the investigator emailed invitations with the module

website link to participants. The investigator originally planned to require participants to

register a username and password in order to participate. However the investigator

decided that this may deter some staff from participating in the study so this feature was

not integrated. The investigator chose to make the process as simple as possible for

http://www.blogger.com/mobile-start.g

http://www.google.com/mobile/

http://mobile.yahoo.com/

http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=40c570a322f1b0b65909


the participants by sending them the link only. Although the survey was entirely

anonymous in order to encourage a greater response rate and to encourage honest

answers, Survey Monkey was used for the pre and post survey which allowed the

investigator to view the computer IP address of each participant. This prevented

participants from taking each section more than once and allowed the investigator to

count completed surveys only. The web-based module was created using Google Page

Creator with Survey Monkey software embedded on a webpage. Table 4 illustrates the

three module sections as well as the activities involved.

Table 4 Module Design

Module Module Content Section 1 Pre-Test

o Attitudinal Survey o 27 closed and open-ended questions o Intended to gauge attitudes towards the use of cell phones in

education o Rating of statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale with options

ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree o Includes comments

Section 2 Introduction to cell phone technology as a learning tool o Online demonstrations illustrating the capabilities of cell phones for

educational purposes o Cell phone-based communication tools o Java applications o Research tools o Classroom integration tips

Section 3 Post-Test o Attitudinal Survey o 29 closed and open-ended questions o Intended to determine if the demonstration, highlighting the potential

of cell phones as educational tools, had an influence on the participants’ attitudes towards their use in educational settings

o Rating of statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree

o Includes comments, demographic data and personal cell phone usage


Module limitations. The instructional web-based module simply served as an

overview and basic introduction to the use of cellular phones as tools in education by

offering introduction of the topic. As a result of time constraints and the need for a

satisfactory number of responses, participants were not exposed to the amount of research

conducted on this topic in European and Asian nations. In addition, learners were not

exposed to the true potential that cell phones may provide in terms of narrowing the

digital divide. As a result of time constraints, they were simply introduced to the initial

idea with the hope that they may follow-up on their own, based on their interest in the

digital divide dilemma. An “optional” fourth section was added to the module with a list

of articles and resources for those who wanted to learn more on their own, at the

conclusion of the study. Finally, the module was limited by the fact that it was not

hands-on in the sense that participants were not able to use an actual cell phone as they

followed along, for practicality reasons. The demonstrations, videos and articles were

designed to be used and integrated immediately, therefore, participants were given tips

that could be easily utilized immediately following the conclusion of the module.


Chapter IV: Data Analysis and Results

The data analysis and results chapter serves to describe the sample population

data and the learning objective results.

Sample Population Data

The sample population for this project was 23 instructional and administrative

staff at a non-profit alternative learning center located in Maui, Hawai'i. Because the

investigator is the Technology Coordinator at the organization and because the Executive

Director, who participated in a pilot study of this project, encouraged staff to participate

and utilize work time to do so, a 100% return rate was anticipated. After two months and

many invitations from the investigator asking staff to participate, nine data sets were

completed, resulting in a 39% participation rate. The participants were invited to

participate via email which included a link to the project website,

http://joelypop.googlepages.com/cellphonesforeducation (Appendix A). The website

started with an introduction to the project then explained the directions; 1) to complete

the pre-survey that included the disclaimer; 2) to view a series of demonstrations and

informational video related to cell phones in education; 3) to complete the post-survey;

and 4) optional links to additional information and demonstrations if the participant was

interested in learning more. The instructions informed the participants that the entire

project required approximately one hour to complete and, if they were not able to

complete all the steps in one sitting, they could return to where they left off at another

time. The instructions also emphasized that in order for preliminary survey results to be

counted, the post-survey had to be completed as well. Although the responses are

anonymous, the survey software, www.surveymonkey.com, tracked each computer's IP

http://joelypop.googlepages.com/cellphonesforeducation


address so that duplicates could be removed. This ensured that all data sets included in

the results came from respondents who took both the pre and post surveys. Ideally, the

website would have been set up so that the participants were automatically advanced to a

new screen once they completed each step. This would have ensured the investigator that

all of the demonstrations were viewed. However, the investigator chose not to do this for

fear that participants would quit in the middle of the steps not knowing how much more

demonstrations were ahead of them. The investigator felt that the results would be better,

both in terms of quality and quantity, if the participants knew where they were and where

they were headed, up front.

Of the nine completed data sets, seven were from females and two were from

males. The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 75 with the majority being from 33

to 48 years old. Most of respondents were instructors while two were administrators and

two were both instructors and administrators. All of the respondents owned cell phones

and over half of them used their cell phones frequently while the remainder used their

cell phones either often or occasionally. The majority of the respondents had owned a

cell phone for five to nine years.


DEMOGRAPHICSSex

Female, 78%

Male, 22%

FemaleMale

Figure 4. DEMOGRAPHICS: 78% Female and 22% Male.

DEMOGRAPHICSAge Group

18-23, 11%

24-32, 11%

33-48, 56%

49-75, 22%

75+, 0%

18-2324-3233-4849-7575+

Figure 5. DEMOGRAPHICS: Majority are between ages 33-48.


DEMOGRAPHICSPosition

Instructor, 56%

Administrator, 22%

Both, 22%

Other, 0%

InstructorAdministratorBothOther

Figure 6. DEMOGRAPHICS: 56% of participants are instructors.

DEMOGRAPHICSDo you own a cell phone?

Yes, 100%

No, 0%

YesNo

Figure 7. DEMOGRAPHICS: All participants are cell phone owners.


DEMOGRAPHICSHow frequent is your cell phone usage?

Frequent, 56%

Often, 22%

Occassional, 22%

Emergency, 0%

Other, 0%

FrequentOftenOccassionalEmergencyOther

Figure 8. DEMOGRAPHICS: 56% of participants frequently use their cell phone.

DEMOGRAPHICSHow many years have you owned a cell phone?

>1, 0%

1-4, 22%

5-9, 56%

10-14, 22%

15-20, 0%

>11-45-910-1415-20

Figure 9. DEMOGRAPHICS: 56% of participants owned cell phones at least 5 years.


Learning Objective Results

The learning objectives for this project were to: 1) inform and demonstrate to

educators, various ways in which cellular phones can serve as learning tools; 2)

determine preliminary and post-demonstration educator attitudes toward the use of

cellular phones as a learning tool; and 3) analyze motivational factors aligning with

attitudinal changes toward the use of cellular phones in an educational setting. The

investigator recorded moderate differences between the preliminary survey and post-

survey results which indicated that attitudinal changes did occur when the participants

viewed the demonstrations and informational videos relating to cell phones and

education. The participants were asked to rate their perceptions using a 5-point Likert-

type scale with response options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree as well

as comments. The preliminary survey results revealed that the participants were very

supportive of bans on cell phones in classrooms and felt strongly that cell phones were a

distraction in the classroom. The preliminary survey also revealed that instructors did not

regularly integrate forms of educational technology in their classrooms and were not

confident in their technology skills.

Perceptions. There were 15 questions asked to gauge the participants' perceptions

towards the use of cell phones in education. Before viewing the demonstrations and

informational videos, 67% of the participants agreed with school policies that ban cell

phones and 67% strongly agreed with instructor's policies against the use of cell phones

during class time. However, after viewing the demonstrations and informational videos,

67% of the participants disagreed with school policies that ban cell phones and 56%

disagreed with instructor's policies against the use of cell phones during class time. The


preliminary survey also showed that all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that

it was disrespectful for students to leave their cell phones on during class time. After

viewing the demonstrations and informational videos, only 11% still felt that way. The

preliminary study showed that the majority of participants felt that cell phones were a

serious problem and were distracting in a classroom while the post-survey results showed

that most participants disagreed that cell phones were a problem in the classroom.

Participants who felt that they had either personally observed or heard others complain

that cell phones caused distractions in the classroom, appeared to re-evaluate that they

had either observed or heard of this problem in the post-survey. Ironically, not all of the

participants were aware that cell phones had the potential to be used for cheating in

school until after they viewed the demonstrations and informational videos that discussed

the issues and possible solutions. Overall, the participants were much more likely to

relax their stance against cell phones in schools and to see the potential benefits after they

had viewed the demonstrations and informational videos.


PERCEPTIONSI would agree with school policies against cell phone use (talking, texting, etc.) during class

time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%R

espo

nses

Pre-SurveyPost Survey

Pre-Survey 0% 0% 33% 67% 0% 0%

Post Survey 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree N/A

Figure 10. PERCEPTIONS: Agreement with school policies against cell phones.

PERCEPTIONSI would agree with an instructor's policy against cell phone use (talking, texting, etc.) during

class time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Res

pons

es

Pre-SurveyPost-Survey

Pre-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 56% 33% 11% 0% 0%


Figure 11. PERCEPTIONS: Instructor policies against cell phone use.


PERCEPTIONSI would agree with a school policy against cell phones ringing during class time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 67% 22% 11% 0% 0%


Figure 12. PERCEPTIONS: School policies against cell phone ringing.

PERCEPTIONSI would generally not agree with school policies against cell phone use (talking, texting, etc.)

during class time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 56% 22% 22% 0% 0% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 11% 67% 11% 0%


Figure 13. PERCEPTIONS: School policies against cell phone use during class.


PERCEPTIONSI think it is disrespectful when students do not turn off their cell phones during class time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 0% 56% 44% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 44% 44% 11% 0% 0%


Figure 14. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones as disrespectful.

PERCEPTIONSWhen a cell phone rings in the classroom, it is a serious distraction

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 22% 44% 33% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 44% 44% 11% 0% 0%


Figure 15. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones as a distraction.


PERCEPTIONSIt bothers me when a cell phone rings during class time

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 22% 44% 33% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 44% 22% 33% 0% 0%


Figure 16. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones as bothersome.

PERCEPTIONSI do not think cell phones are a serious problem in the classroom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 44% 11% 44% 0% 0% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 22% 78% 0% 0%


Figure 17. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones as a serious problem in the classroom.


PERCEPTIONSI have observed that students are distracted by cell phones in the classroom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 33% 44% 22% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%


Figure 18. PERCEPTIONS: Observations of cell phones in the classroom.

PERCEPTIONSI am likely to complain to others about cell phones ringing or being used in classrooms

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 11% 33% 33% 11% 11% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Figure 19. PERCEPTIONS: Complaints to others about cell phones.


PERCEPTIONSI hear people complain about cell phones ringing or being used in classrooms

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 11% 67% 0% 0%


Figure 20. PERCEPTIONS: Others complaining about cell phones in classroom.

PERCEPTIONSI have read/heard about cell phones being used for cheating in school

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 11% 44% 33% 11% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 11% 67% 11% 0%


Figure 21. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones used for cheating in school.


PERCEPTIONSI think cell phones have the potential to be an effective resource for cheating on tests,

quizzes, etc.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 44% 33% 22% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 33% 44% 22% 0% 0%


Figure 22. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phone potential for cheating in school.

PERCEPTIONSI do not mind when students use their cell phones during class as long as they are not talking

on the phone (i.e., it's okay if they text message, browse the web, etc.)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 33% 44% 0% 11% 11% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 11% 33% 56% 0%


Figure 23. PERCEPTIONS: Students using cell phones, just not to talk.


PERCEPTIONSI think cell phones have the potential to be an effective resource for educational purposes

such as documentation, researching, etc.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 11% 11% 33% 33% 11% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 78% 22% 0%


Figure 24. PERCEPTIONS: Cell phones potential to be a learning tool.

Skill Level. Twelve questions were asked to gauge the participants' skill level in

relation to personal technology use and classroom technology use. Before viewing the

demonstrations and informational videos, only 33% of the participants believed they

possessed the skills needed to implement classroom activities using technology. After

viewing the demonstrations and informational videos, 88% of the participants agreed or

strongly agreed that they possessed such skills. Only 22% of the participants looked for

new ways to use technology in the classroom before viewing the demonstrations and

informational videos. However, 66% either agreed or strongly agreed that they look for

new ways to use technology in the classroom after viewing the demonstrations and

informational videos. Only 11% of the participants assigned class projects that integrated

technology before viewing the demonstrations and informational videos. After viewing


the videos and informational videos, 33% of the participants reported that they assigned

class projects integrating technology. The preliminary survey showed that only 33% of

participants knew how to use advanced cell phone features such as text messaging,

picture, video and web access. After viewing the demonstrations, 89% of the participants

knew how to use advanced cell phone features. The preliminary survey also showed

of participants could not use cell phone features in the context of the classroom while the

post-survey only showed that 11% of the participants could not use cell phone features in

the context of the classroom.

67%

SKILL LEVELI possess the skills to implement classroom activities in which students use technology such

as word processing, spreadsheets, and graphics

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 11% 33% 33% 11% 11%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 11% 44% 44% 0%


Figure 25. SKILL LEVEL: Skills needed to implement technology in class.


SKILL LEVELI can evaluate and use a variety of instructional software programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 67% 33% 0%


Figure 26. SKILL LEVEL: Skills to evaluate instructional software.

SKILL LEVELI can use the internet as an instructional tool on a regular basis

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 33% 67% 0% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0%


Figure 27. SKILL LEVEL: Skills to use internet as instructional tool.


SKILL LEVELI use email regularly to communicate with co-workers

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%


Figure 28. SKILL LEVEL: Email usage to communicate with co-workers.

SKILL LEVELI use email regularly to communicate with students

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 78% 22% 0% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 33% 44% 22% 0% 0%


Figure 29. SKILL LEVEL: Email usage to communicate with students.


SKILL LEVELI use multiple new technologies personally

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 11% 22% 56% 11% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 22% 11% 17% 0%


Figure 30. SKILL LEVEL: Personal use of new technologies.

SKILL LEVELI look for new ways to use new technologies in the classroom and evaluate their results

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 11% 56% 22% 0% 11%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 11% 22% 44% 11%


Figure 31. SKILL LEVEL: Evaluating new technologies for classroom.


SKILL LEVELI can use advanced features of the cell phone such as text messaging, picture/video and web

access

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 33% 33% 0% 33% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 11% 33% 56% 0%


Figure 32. SKILL LEVEL: Use of advanced cell phone features.

SKILL LEVELI can use various cell phone features in the context of the classroom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 11% 56% 0% 33% 0% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 44% 22% 11% 11%


Figure 33. SKILL LEVEL: Use of cell phone in classroom.


SKILL LEVELI am willing to take risks and try new things and I don't panic when things go wrong in the

classroom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%R

espo

nses


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 22% 56% 22% 0%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 56% 44% 0%


Figure 34. SKILL LEVEL: Willingness to try new things in classroom.

SKILL LEVELI frequently assign class projects, which integrate a variety of technologies that are also

learning tools

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 22% 33% 11% 0% 33%

Post-Survey 0% 11% 44% 22% 11% 11%


Figure 35. SKILL LEVEL: Technology as class projects.


SKILL LEVELI accept the philosophy that discusses the differences between learners of today with

learners of yesterday and I am willing to make adjustments in the classroom that respond to these differences

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Res

pons

es


Pre-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 44% 22%

Post-Survey 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0%


Figure 36. SKILL LEVEL: Adapting to a new generation of learners.

Demonstrations and Informational Videos. When the participants were asked to

identify the specific demonstrations and informational videos that impacted their

perceptions the most, 33% said that all of the demonstrations and informational videos

impacted their perceptions, while 22% said that the Marc Prensky PowerPoint, “Engage

Me or Enrage Me” had an impact. Eleven percent reported the U.K. documentary as

having an impact, 11% recognized the “Have You Been Paying Attention?” video, and

11% recognized the ideas for cell phone use in the classroom as having an impact. Mark

Prensky's “Engage Me or Enrage Me” PowerPoint presentation was presented as a Key

Note Address by Marc Prensky, a well-known author who has written about the

differences between today's learners and yesterday's. The U.K. documentary entitled

“Mobile Phones, Mobile Minds” is a 27 minute video made in the U.K. capturing teacher


experiences with mobile phones in the classroom. The video is a bit grainy because it

as actually made to be viewed on an iPod or mobile phone. The “Have You Been

Paying Attention?” video summarized many of the points made in the all of the

demonstrations and looks to the potential of cell phones in education. Many of the

presentations included ideas for using cell phones in education such as Internet use,

Flickr, class blogs, scavenger hunts, language lessons, and more. In addition, 89% of the

participants indicated that they found at least one idea that they would consider using in

their own classroom.

w

DEMONSTRATIONSOf the demonstrations viewed, which had the most impact on your perceptions towards the

use of cell phones as learning tools?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Res

pons

es

Demonstrations

Demonstrations 33% 11% 11% 0% 22% 11%

All UK VideoHave you been

paying Unsure Prensky Ideas for useattention?

Figure 37. DEMONSTRATIONS: Which had the most impact?


DEMONSTRATIONSOf the demonstrations you viewed, are there any you would consider using? If so, which

one(s)?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Demonstrations

De trations 11% 11% 33% 11% 11% 11% 11%

languages Unsure All Many Internet Flickr Engage youth

Figure 38. DEMONSTRATIONS: Will participants use any?

Variance. The individual responses between the preliminary survey and the post

survey varied to a great degree. Among the questions relating to perceptions, individual

responses varied over 4 points when using the 5-point Likert-scale formula to compare

pre and post answers. Among questions relating to skill levels, individual responses

varied over 2.5 points in some cases. The variance in the preliminary and post survey

responses reveal that there were significant changes in attitudes once the participants

engaged in the web-based demonstrations and informational videos. This led the

investigator to conclude that, by demonstrating various uses for cellular phones in a

learning environment, educators are more willing to consider using them as a learning

tool in their own locus of control.

Learn

mons


PERCEPTIONSVariance in Pre & Post Survey Results

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree N/AVariance

Figure 39. PERCEPTIONS: Variance between pre and post survey.

SKILL LEVELVariance in Pre & Post Survey Results

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

0.5


-0.5

0.0

1.0

1.5

Variance

Figure 40. SKILL LEVEL: Variance between pre and post survey.


Chapter V: Discussion

The discussion chapter serves to describe the: 1) conclusions of the study; 2)

findings in relation to Keller’s ARCS Model; 3) implications; 4) lessons learned; 5)

recommendations; and 6) future research.

Conclusions

The goal of this project was to determine whether educator attitudes toward the

use of cellular phones as a learning tool could be changed when participating in a web-

based instructional module that showcases its use. Research has already confirmed that

cell phones have been successfully used as a learning tool in many countries while

playing an important role in connecting content to students. The challenge in the United

States lies in educators recognizing the opportunity that cell phones provide and then

becoming motivated to take the opportunity. By demonstrating various uses for cellular

attitudes towards

e use of cellular phones as a learning tool in the United States, could indeed be

changed. Furthermore, most of the educators surveyed became more willing to consider

using cell phones as learning tools in their own locus of control.

As a result of the limited sample size, the results of this study are not considered

to be statistically significant in terms of drawing overall conclusions about educator

attitudes in general. However, they do tell the story of educator and administrator

attitudes at this non-profit learning center on Maui and how the attitudes changed over

the course of this study. If the attitudes and perceptions were successfully changed

among this small group, it is possible and even likely that the same could happen

elsewhere.

phones in a learning environment, this study determined that educator

th


Preliminary-survey results showed that respondents were overwhelmingly

supportive of cell phone bans in schools and classrooms and felt that cell phones had the

potential to be a major distraction in the classroom and had the potential for cheating and

abuse. The preliminary-survey results showed no clear majority of participants

supporting the notion that cell phones had the potential to be an effective learning tool.

Post-survey results revealed that respondents became less supportive of or even non-

supportive of cell phone bans in schools and classrooms and no longer felt that cell

phones had the potential to be a major distraction in the classroom. Respondents were

less than convinced that cell phones had the potential for cheating and abuse. It is

possible that respondents felt that the benefits outweighed the risks of bringing cell

se risks. All of the

post-survey respondents supported the notion that cell phones had the potential to be an

effective learning tool. Therefore, the survey results confirmed that, with information

and exposure, educator attitudes towards the use of cell phones as learning tools, can

change from ambivalence and disdain, to support. Educators became willing to seek out

and evaluate new types of technology for their own classroom and became more

confident in their own teaching abilities. This was demonstrated when participants

became more confident in their own abilities to integrate classroom activities utilizing

technology, after they had viewed the demonstrations and informational videos. It is the

position of the investigator that, due to the preliminary negative attitudes towards cell

phone use as a learning tool, the participants in this study would not have explored this

option for their own classrooms had they not participated in this study.

phones into the classroom and were therefore less concerned with tho


In consequence of the sm dy, it was not apparent whether

younge

were

jority owning cell phones for five to nine years

frequent use, the investigator was unable to determine whether participants

who ha

t

ith

h

onstrate to

educato

f

ith

t

etting.

all sample size of this stu

r educators were more tolerant towards cell phone use in the classroom as

previous research had found. Furthermore, because 100% of the survey participants

cell phone owners themselves, with the ma

and reporting

d more experience with cell phones were more tolerant toward their use in the

classroom. However, none of the participants in the study reported a high use of

technology integration in their classrooms or curriculum. Therefore, one could argue tha

their lack of technology use in education may have contributed to their discomfort w

cell phones in education in the pre-survey results. The post-survey results showed that

participants looked for new ways to use technologies in their classrooms at levels muc

higher than in preliminary findings, resulting in an unexpected conclusion that exposure

to new technology increased the educators' confidence in their own skills and abilities to

seek out and evaluate learning tools on their own.

Keller’s ARCS Model

The learning objectives for this project were to: 1) inform and dem

rs, various ways in which cellular phones can serve as learning tools; 2) to

determine preliminary and post-demonstration educator perceptions toward the use o

cellular phones as a learning tool; and 3) to analyze motivational factors aligning w

attitudinal changes toward the use of cellular phones in an educational setting. The

investigator feels Keller’s ARCS motivational model is crucial to understanding wha

factors impacted the attitudinal changes toward the use of cellular phones in an

educational s


The intent of the ARCS model as it relates to Instructional Design, was to

“improve the motivational appeal of instructional materials” using four concepts: 1)

Attention; 2) Relevance; 3) Confidence; and 4) Satisfaction (Keller, 1987). The

investigator selected the web-based module demonstrations and articles based up

Keller's ARCS model. The investigator selected a varied list of demonstrations and

informational videos for the project website in order to inform the participants of seve

concepts: 1) the impact technology can have on education; 2) the changes in today's

learners and how education must adapt accordingly; 3) a snapshot of how other countrie

are using cell phones as learning tools successfully; 4) balanced discussion regardin

concerns and solutions regarding cell phones as learning tools; and 5) specific ideas

examples for cell phone use in the curriculum. Each selection was meant to gain the

attention of the participants, show relevance to the participants' work, assist the

participants in gaining the skills needed to implement cell phones as learning tools.

Based upon the results of the preliminary and post-survey outcomes and the

differences in attitudes and perceptions between the two, the selected demonstrations and

informational videos effectively increased the motivational appeal of this study by

addressing the ARCS model categories. The concept of using cell phones as a learn

tool in the United States is a new concept for educators, many of whom have focused o

banning and controlling their use rather than expanding their use. Therefore, the concept

of this project as well as the module title invoked “attention” from the participants in th

form of curiosity. Because the survey participants worked for a non- profit learning

center where funding is an on-going concern and innovative and afforda

on

ral

s

g

and

ing

n

e

ble learning tools

are rare, this project was “relevant” to the educators because it offered to them a possible


learnin

the

in the

at using technology is

their classroom goals (Keller and Bichelmeyer, 2004). As long

as techn

s to

ng

to

existed.

g tool that could help to meet their needs in applying technology-based curriculum

and connecting lesson plans with their students without additional costs. Many of

demonstrations featured in the project focused on how to use cell phones for educational

purposes and featured interviews with other educators who have successfully done so.

The investigator believes this created “confidence” in the participants with their skills and

know-how. This was revealed when the survey respondents' confidence increased in

relation to their technology skills and in their plans to use some of the ideas found

demonstrations, resulting in increased expectancy for success. Finally, the

demonstrations and informational videos created incentives for the survey participants to

connect with students and provided a new tool to carry out the agencies mission, “to

provide unique and educational learning opportunities in a caring environment,” thereby

creating “satisfaction” in the participants.

The literature suggests that professional development aimed at getting teachers to

use technology will not occur until it can be demonstrated th

instrumental in meeting

ology continues to advance and proliferate in the lives of our students while

learning tools and methods remain static, it will become more difficult for educator

effectively connect with students. The time has come for educators to realize that

technology has already become instrumental in meeting the goals of their classrooms.

Therefore, the ARCS motivational model used in this study was effective in motivati

educators not only to learn more about the use of cell phones as learning tools but also

become engaged on the topic and to change negative perceptions that previously


Implica

d

ign

of

ude

needs.

ld

tions

The implications of this study are both obvious and obscure. The preliminary

survey results showed that educators at the non-profit learning center on Maui use

technology to email their co-workers and utilize the Internet to prepare for classroom

lessons. However, they did not consider emailing their students, and they did not ass

classroom projects that integrate technology. One can conclude that technology is not a

high priority in relation to curriculum development and delivery whether it is due to

funding constraints, lack of technology-awareness or know-how. The concluding

implications of the slightest exposure to educators as a result of this project, regardless

whether they participated in the surveys, inspired the idea in the minds of educators that

affordable technology related to learning is on the horizon. They no longer have to

surrender to the notion that they cannot advance their teaching techniques to incl

technology by reason of funding constraints and unfulfilled professional development

For some, the implications of this study are more defined and tangible. The

investigator felt that the most important demonstration that survey participants wou

gain from was Marc Prensky’s “Engage Me or Enrage Me” PowerPoint, featuring

differences between today's learners and yesterday's (found at:

http://joelypop.googlepages.com/PrenskyPowerPoint.ppt). As such, the investigator felt

the most important question in the survey was, “I accept the philosophy that discusses the

differences between learners of today with learners of yesterday, and I am willing to

make adjustments in the classroom that respond to these differences.” Although the

results for the pre and post-survey were both positive (the post-survey results being more


positive), it is important for educators to be reminded of exactly who their students are,

how their students are changing and how learning tools are evolving as a result. Rather

than resist the changes occurring in education, it is beneficial for educators to embrace

them and recognize that in order to reach their students and instill life-long learning in

their students and themselves, they have got to be open to new ideas, new concepts and

new tools.

Since this study concluded, five events have taken place at the subject learning

center that the investigator feels is a direct result of the demonstrations and i

videos found on this website:

1. Two instructors who team teach the high school foundations program purchas

series of computerized learning games that are now being successfully used in

class. The laughter from the studen

nformational

ed a

ts can be heard throughout the building,

hones

ay

l is to

was not and educational technology plan or budget.

confirming that they are truly engaged in the activities.

2. On a recent field-trip to the beach, photos were taken by students with cell p

and brought back to the classroom to integrate into the lesson plan.

3. An instructor requested that a classroom “Wiki” be created for her class as a w

to communicate with her students, their parents and to post assignments.

4. An instructor recently announced to his GED class that his number one goa

make every one of his students into life-long learners, and he will do anything

necessary to do so.

5. The Executive Director has written several grant proposals that directly integrate

educational technology into the curriculum and budget. Prior to this project, there


In conclusion, this study has had implications on the learning environment

observe al d. Before the study, there was little talk about technology besides the occasion

wish for a brand new computer lab, which everyone realized was highly unlikely. The

organization's website hadn't been updated for over five years and therefore was entirely

ignored while the office photocopier was the most exercised piece of technology on-site.

Instructors and administrative staff now appear to be excited about new possibilities

technology can provide to their work and are much less intimidated by the thought of

learning something new. This study showed participants that a learning tool exists which

is as powerful as a computer, as versatile as a digital video camera, as small as a deck of

cards and is already owned by much of the population. Now the educators are aware of

the potential cell phones have as a learning tool which may lead them to consider other

learning tools as an option for their classrooms, whether the learning tools are traditional

or not. The results reveal engaged learners and rejuvenated educators.

Lessons Learned

Overall this project went well with the exception of the participant response rate.

It was the hope of the researcher that 100% of the non-profit learning center’s educators

and administrative staff would participate in this project because: 1) the Executive

Director encouraged staff to participate and on work time and offered compensatory

time-off for doing so; 2) the investigator was a staff member; and 3) the investigator

assumed that the educators and administrative staff would want the opportunity to learn

about new and inexpensive learning tools. However, during the design phase of this

project, the investigator realized that it was going to be more of a challenge than she

originally anticipated in convincing staff to participate. When the investigator attempted


to gain staff participation in the design and implementation of the organization’s new,

interactive website, (a website that had not been updated for several years), she then

realized the level of disinterest in technology that educators and administrative staff

carried. At that point it was too late to change the design phase of this research project

however the investigator was able to make the project website as user-friendly and simple

as possible. For example, rather than creating usernames and passwords, participants

were able to access the site from the emailed invitation instantly. Rather than build the

web-based module so that each step had to be completed systematically before the next

step could be accessed, all steps were found on the home page, laid out in order, with

clear directions. The investigator felt that if the participants could see what was required

and where they were in the process, they would be more likely to complete the study.

The investigator also included links to an optional blog, created so the participants would

have the opportunity to discuss thoughts and ideas, encourage discourse and create

interest among participants.

In retrospect, the investigator miscalculated how intimidating the web-based

module may have appeared to participants, by seeing the list of items for which they had

to complete. Upon closer examination, they would have realized that many of the items

were optional yet staff may not have read the steps in detail and may have been initially

overwhelmed with the amount of information on the project website. This could be why

only nine staff members, of the 23 invited, completed the project. In addition, no one

participated in the blog. The blog required the users to register with Gmail, which may

have discouraged some from participating in the study and it may have been viewed as

another time consuming step in the process, although optional.


An informal survey was distributed after the close of the project. The results

revealed that time was the number one factor for staff who either did not participate in the

study at all or who did not complete the study. Ironically, the investigator learned that

many staff members viewed some or all of the demonstrations but did not take any of the

surveys and therefore were not counted in the results. This is peculiar because the

surveys, both anonymous, took a much shorter amount of time to complete than viewing

the demonstrations and informational videos. However, it reveals that the implications of

the study may have reached more educators than is apparent in the survey results.

The investigator developed and designed much of this project on her own, before

a University of Hawai'i at Manoa, College of Education advisor had been assigned. She

did so because she wanted to make sure she had enough time to complete the project.

However, in retrospect, the investigator should have waited to get more input from the

advisor, once assigned, before designing so much of the project. The advisor would have

had important questions for the investigator and may have avoided some of the problems

encountered. Although time was an issue, the overall success of the project could have

improved.

Modifications

If the investigator had the opportunity to make modifications to this study, more

questions would have been added that relate directly to the demonstrations and

informational videos. The investigator would also figure out a way to know which

participants viewed what demonstrations and informational videos. For example, if a

participant only viewed one or two demonstrations, while another viewed all of them,

how do their responses differ? Should they be counted equally? The project, as it was


designed, relied on the honor system, however the investigator was able to correlate

responses with computer IP addresses so duplicates could be eliminated and pre and post-

surveys with too little time in between could also be eliminated.

If the investigator could modify the current project, she would also design the

web-based module differently. She would design the site so that upon completion of one

step, the module progressed to the next step. The reason for this is so the project

participants do not become overwhelmed with the amount of steps required. The current

survey informed the participants that the entire process would take approximately one

hour to complete and gave directions as to how suspend their progress at a certain point

and return at another time to complete the project. However, the extensive list of

demonstrations on the module website may have weakened the impact of the directions.

The investigator would also reduce the number of demonstrations and

informational videos overall. Although they were all very relevant to the subject, the

investigator now realizes that not everyone is as interested in knowing nearly everything

possibl r e about a subject as she is because she is, in fact, a researcher! The investigato

would also have liked to implement more interactive demonstrations that allowed users to

practice skills on their cell phones as they were viewing a demonstration. Time and

technical abilities prevented the investigator from doing so. To make up for this

deficiency, several of the “optional” demonstrations gave the participants the opportunity

to become more interactive with the presentations.

The investigator received very little comments from the participants themselves

regarding their thoughts and opinions of the project’s website so it is difficult to

determine what else could be modified in order to make their experience better. It would


be helpful to implement a more effective tool to obtain feedback from survey

participants.

Future Research

Future research is needed regarding educator attitudes towards the use of cell

phones as educational tools, in the United States in particular. Research reveals that cell

phones are widely used for educational purposes in many other countries such as Asia,

Europe, Australia and more. There is very little research in the United States that does

not focus on the problems with cell phones in schools, supporting growing trends in the

United States to ban cellular phones from schools or at the very least, from classrooms. It

would be useful for future research to also focus on differences among age groups and

differences among various job positions within academic settings in order to determine if

there are indeed differences in perceptions among age groups and whether there are

differences among those in decision and policy making roles.

Additionally, future research is needed regarding student attitudes towards the use

of cell phone for educational purposes in the United States. If educators are willing to

implement cell phones as learning tools, will students be willing to use something that is

so vitally linked to their social-existence, for educational purposes? The challenge will

be to design learning in a way that closely resembles what students find in their everyday

lives, integrating interactive collaboration and visual media with lesson plans.

As this small study has revealed, exposure and information to a new technical

learning tool that engages learners can lead to educator curiosity and willingness to

explore even more learning tools. As free-ware and Web 2.0 tools become more relevant


and obtainable, there will be many more new and affordable technology tools available to

students and educators.

This study focused on a small learning center on Maui that hopes to be successful

in utilizing new technologies that are inclusive to all of their students, regardless of their

socio-economic state. By considering these educators to be a sample of educators as a

whole, future research may reveal that educators in the United States are willing to

change existing perceptions and consider cell phones as learning tools, if they are

effectively informed of their possibilities.


References

Campbell, S. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing,

nd classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280-294.

Campb

,

ing/mobile-computing-

cheating, a

ell, S., & Russo, T. (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: An

application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile

phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs

70(4), 317-334.

Can Elmo help kids learn? (2006). T.H.E. Journal, 33(17), 8-8.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th ed.). New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Gates: Cell phones, not laptops, will best answer poor students' needs (2006, March 1).

eSchool News. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from

http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/mobile-comput

articles/index.cfm?rc=1&i=36850;_hbguid=431ff20a-1cd7-40c6-999c-

07ac7e8cb13f

Hawkins, B., & Oblinger, D. (2007, September/October). The myth about the need for

public computer labs: “Students have their own computers, so computer labs are

no longer needed.” EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), 10-11.

Heyman, J., Swertlow, F., Ballard, M., Barnes, S., Duffy, T., Gray, L., et al. (2005

,

.

January 24). psssst…WHAT'S THE ANSWER?. People, 63(3), 108-111.

Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everyday activities of digital kids

International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1509-1529.


International Telecommunication Union, (2004, May). ICT Free Statistics Home Page,

Retrieved June 2004, from http://itu.int/itu-d/ict/statistics/

Jereb, E

f

en,

Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private

Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keller, J.B., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2004). What happens when accountability meets

technology integration. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve

Learning, 48(3), 17-24.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design.

Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

Kim, S. H., Holmes, K., & Mims, C. (2005). Opening a dialogue on the new technologies

in education. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,

49(3), 54-89.

Kingsley, K. (2007). Empower diverse learners with educational technology and digital

media. Intervention in School & Clinic. 43(1), 52-56.

McGuire, L. (2005). Assessment using new technology. Innovations in Education &

Teaching International. 42(3), 265-276.

Miranda, C. (2005, February 7). Cam phones, go home. Time, 165(6), 18-18.

., & Smitek, B. (2006). Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 15-27.

Jones, A. (2007, May). Cheat sheet. Teacher Magazine, 18(6), 14-14.

Katz, J. (2005). Mobile phones in educational settings. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), A sense o

place: The global and the local in mobile communications. Vienna: Passag

Verlag.


Perkins, D. (1985). The fingertip effec mation-processing technology shapes

Pickett, d

Prensky g!

arning/What%20Can%20You%20Learn%20fr

t: How infor

thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 11-17.

A., & Thomas, C. (2006, April). Turn OFF that phone. American School Boar

Journal, 193(4), 40-44.

, M. (2005, June 13). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anythin

Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(5). Retrieved March 12, 2007, from

http://www.elearningsource.info/ele

om%20a%20Cell%20Phone.pdf

Rice, R., & Katz, J. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: Digital divides

of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27(8/9), 597-623.

Scherer Leadership, 63(4), 7-7.

Sulliva

01.

Sullivan, L. (2006, October). Poll: Parents support student cell phones. Technology &

Surry, D

national, 37(2), 145-154.

lving

c1

Samuelson, R. (2004, August 23). A cell phone? Never for me. Newsweek, 63.

, M. (2006). Speaking with an accent. Educational

n, K. (2006, July 9). In war-torn Congo, going wireless to reach home: For poor,

cell phones bridge digital divide. Washington Post Foreign Service, p. A

Learning, 27(3), 6-6.

., & Land, S. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use

technology. Innovations in Education and Training Inter

The digital divide that wasn’t. (2003, August 19). BusinessWeek, Special Report: So

Social Problems, Retrieved September 7, 2007, from

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2003/tc2030819_4285_t

26.htm


Wood, G. (2006). Recognizing the generational divide: When X meets Y at the tribal

college. Tribal College Journal, 17(4), 24-25.

Yang, Z. (2006, November 15). Cell phones can play vital role in health and in n

the 'digital divide,' says electronic leader Irwin Jacobs. Cornell Chron

arrowing

icle Online,

Nov06, Retrieved September 7, 2007, from

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/Jacobs.cover.zy.html

almy, M., & Ben-Zacken, O. (2004). Mobile phones in education: The case of

mathematics

Yerush

. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from the Haifa Faculty of Education

Web Site: http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~michalyr/celular%20report.pdf

use cell phones as mini-PCs (2006, April 5). eSchool News. RetrieveYouths d February

27, 2008, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/mobile-

computing/mobile-computing-

articles/index.cfm?rc=1&i=36915;_hbguid=60579e3b-76a3-4beb-9622-

410ded3cb1d2


Appendix

ix A. Project Website Screenshots Append

Append tions

Append

Append

Append

Appendix B. Participant Consent

ix C. Pre-Survey Percep

Appendix D. Pre-Survey Skill Level

ix E. Post-Survey Perceptions

ix F. Post-Survey Skill Level

ix G. Demographics Survey

Appendix H. IRB Approval


Appendix A. Project Website Screenshots


Appendix B. Participant Consent


Appendix C. Pre-Survey Perceptions


Appendix D. Pre-Survey Skill Level


Appendix E. Post-Survey Perceptions


Appendix F. Post-Survey Skill Level


Appendix G. Demographics Survey


Appendix H. IRB Approval


The End!

cell phones in education 1 running head: cell phones in ...reeser/c reeser plan b final.pdf ·...

Documents