national survey on mobile...

Written and Published By:

Interactive Educational Systems Design, [email protected]

In Collaboration with

STEM Market Impact, [email protected]

National Survey on

Mobile Technologyfor K-12 Education

Research Report

Educator Edition 2013

Sponsored by Amplify

About the Educator Edition

This Educator Edition is sponsored by Amplify. Amplify is reimagining the way teachers

teach and students learn. Our products and services are leading the way in data-driven

instruction, one-to-one mobile learning and next-generation digital curriculum and

assessment. With headquarters in New York City and more than 1,100 employees

across the country, Amplify is led by a team of digital education experts and has

provided innovative technology to the K-12 market for more than a decade under the

Wireless Generation name.

In March 2013, Amplify launched a next-generation tablet designed specially for K-12.

A customized version of a high-quality Android™ device, the Amplify Tablet provides

teachers with simple, intuitive tools to plan rich standards-aligned lessons, manage

a classroom full of tablets, assess student understanding on the fly and personalize

instruction. Students gain a mobile learning device that is organized around their in-

school courses and out-of-school interests. The tablet becomes their digital backpack,

filled with all of the content, assignments and activities of their classes, as well as tools

to individualize their learning and explore their interests. Finally, Amplify’s all-in-one

solution addresses a district’s need to manage and scale 1:1 deployments, with a robust

mobile device management system purpose-built for education, high-quality training

and customer support—all designed to help schools integrate the tablets into teaching

and learning in meaningful ways.

Please visit www.amplify.com/tablet for more information,

or call (800) 823-1969 to speak with a sales representative.

http://www.amplify.com/tablet

National Survey on Mobile Technology for Education

Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................... 3 Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Adoption of Mobile Technology..................................................................................................................... 5 A Closer Look at Mobile Technology Adoption ........................................................................................ 7 Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction....................................................................... 9 Apps....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Challenges Related to Mobile Technology Adoption and Implementation ........................................10

Findings in Detail .................................................................................. 11 Respondents’ Roles in Their Districts.........................................................................................................11 Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible ..............................................................12 Size of Respondents’ Districts.......................................................................................................................13 Adoption of Mobile Technology...................................................................................................................14 Likelihood of Adopting Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years .....................................................15 Likelihood of Wider Adoption of Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years...................................16 Most Significant Hurdles to Mobile Technology Adoption.....................................................................17 Access to Mobile Devices in Classrooms...................................................................................................19 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy ....................................................................................................20 Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use.........................................................................................21 Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for Student Instruction ............................................................22 Expected Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction...................................................24 Most Important Benefit Sought from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction ..........................26 Interest in 1-to-1 Solution..............................................................................................................................27 Beneficial Apps ..................................................................................................................................................28 Funding Sources for Mobile Technology Hardware.................................................................................30 Challenges in Implementing Mobile Technology.......................................................................................32

Appendix...........................................................................................33-51

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify

1

INTRODUCTION

Mobile technology is on the rise. Worldwide, tablet sales grew about

70% from 2012 to 2013 and are projected to surpass the sale of laptops

and desktops by 20151. More than one-third of U.S. teens own

smartphones, and 23% have tablets.2 In a recent survey, a majority of

parents felt that reading and math skills development were benefits of

their children’s use of mobile devices and applications.3 In this rapidly

changing technology environment, how are U.S. school districts

adapting?

In this report, Interactive Educational Systems Design (IESD), Inc., in

collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC, summarizes the findings

from an online survey conducted during May 2013. This survey of K-12

district technology and media leaders focused on the following:

Levels of adoption of mobile technology in schools, currently and in

the near future

Most significant hurdles to adoption of mobile technology

Access to mobile devices in classrooms

Bring your own device (BYOD) policy

Interest in purchasing tablets for student use

Types of mobile devices that have been or are planned to be adopted

for student instruction

Benefits expected and sought from mobile technology for student

instruction

1 Gartner Newsroom, http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2408515, April 4, 2013 2 “Teens and Technology 2013; 37% of All Teens Ages 12-17 Have Smartphones,” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, March 2013, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx 3 Living and Learning with Mobile Devices: What Parents Think About Mobile Devices for Early Childhood and K–12 Learning, Grunwald Associates LLC, 2013


2

Interest in a 1-to-1 solution using mobile devices

Apps considered most beneficial for student instruction

Funding sources for mobile technology hardware

Challenges in implementing mobile technology

A total of 558 qualified educators responded to the survey, with more

than 450 educators answering most survey questions.4

The margins of error at the 95% confidence level varied depending on

the number of respondents to a question. For example:

Sample Size Margin of Error A. Sample of 558 qualified respondents (Question 2)

4.1%

B. Sub-sample of 494 respondents from districts with significant adoption of mobile technology or very/somewhat likely to adopt in the next 1-2 years (Question 9)

4.4%

This is the second in what we plan as a series of annual online surveys

conducted by IESD in collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC.

The executive summary includes top-level comparison with results

from the 2012 survey.5

4 Qualified respondents were those who identified themselves as a District Instructional Technology Director/Coordinator, District Media Director, or District Information Technology Director/CIO/CTO. Respondents were recruited from the database of MCH Strategic Data and the database of Tech & Learning subscribers. There were several questions to which only a subset of respondents were routed, depending on their answers to previous questions, and one open-response question about challenges and solutions respondents’ districts have experienced in implementing mobile technology. There were fewer respondents to these questions. 5 The sampling strategies for the 2012 survey and the 2013 survey were not identical. In 2012, respondents were recruited from the database of Tech & Learning subscribers, whereas in 2013, respondents were recruited from both the Tech & Learning database and the MCH Strategic Data database. Additionally, the survey samples differed in distribution by role in the district. These differences may partially account for differences in results between 2012 and 2013.


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is an executive summary of top-level findings from an IESD national

online survey of K-12 district technology and media leaders conducted

during May 2013. This is the second in what we plan as a series of

annual online surveys conducted by IESD in collaboration with STEM

Market Impact, LLC. A total of 558 qualified educators responded to

the survey, with more than 450 educators answering most survey

questions.

Key Takeaways

2013 saw a steady surge in mobile technology adoption, with continued

growth very likely in the next two years. While there are few 1-to-1

mobile implementations, the barrier seems to be financial, as most

districts have interest in 1-to-1 if they could afford it. District interest in

purchasing tablets is also high. Many districts look to mobile technology

to make learning more engaging and personalized. However, before this

technology can reach its potential, many districts must solve mobile

device management issues and will need to provide strong professional

development and implementation support for teachers.

Adoption of mobile technology. More than half (59.6%) of the survey

respondents reported that mobile technology had been adopted in

about 25% or more of the schools in their district. An additional

15.5% reported that their districts were very likely to adopt mobile

technology in the next 1-2 years.

− Common methods of making mobile devices available included

having multiple classrooms share a cart with a class set of mobile

devices and providing one or more classrooms with a small set of

mobile devices that students share.

− Very few districts reported that classrooms have 1 to 1 ratio of

mobile devices to students. However, a large majority of


4

respondents expressed interest in implementing or expanding a 1 to

1 solution using mobile devices if budget allowed.

− A large majority of respondents expressed interest in purchasing

tablets for student use.

− iPad was by far the most common type of mobile technology that

districts had already adopted or planned to adopt, followed by

Google Chromebook, mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD

model), and iPod Touch. District policies on BYOD vary widely.

Benefits from mobile technology for student instruction. The most

commonly expected and sought after benefits from adopting mobile

technology for student instruction included their potential to be

engaging for students and to support personalization of instruction to

meet the needs of different students.

Types of apps desired. Categories of apps most often identified as

beneficial to student instruction were digital textbooks, student

productivity tools, and creation tools.

Significant hurdles to mobile technology adoption. Respondents from

low-level adopting and non-adopting districts most often identified

cost and lack of technology infrastructure to support mobile technology as

among the most significant hurdles to getting mobile devices used for

student instruction.

Challenges in implementing mobile technology. Respondents from

districts currently adopting and/or likely to adopt mobile technology

frequently identified several challenges to implementing mobile

technology, including problems with mobile device management; need

for teacher professional development and support, and/or teacher

lack of knowledge or experience; technology infrastructure issues,

including bandwidth limitations and Wifi connectivity problems; and

issues related to keeping mobile devices in use, such as breakage,

repair, theft, and security.


5

Adoption of Mobile Technology

Adoption of mobile technology within U.S. K-12 districts is currently

significant and is likely to grow over the next 1-2 years.

A majority (59.6%) of the survey respondents reported that mobile

technology had been adopted in about 25% or more of the schools in

their district.

− This included more than one-third of districts (35.8%) where it

had been adopted in about 75% or more of their schools.

− 21.0% had not adopted mobile technology in any of their schools.

Another 31.6% reported that their districts were somewhat or very

likely to adopt mobile technology in the next 1-2 years, including

15.5% who indicated that their districts were very likely to adopt. This

included:

− 18.1% from districts that have adopted mobile technology in one

or a few schools and that are likely to adopt it beyond a few

schools in the next 1-2 years, including 9.5% who indicated that

their districts were very likely to adopt beyond a few schools.

− 13.5% from districts that have not adopted mobile technology for

student instruction in any of their schools but that are likely to

adopt in the next 1-2 years, including 6.0% who indicated that

their districts were very likely to adopt.

Comparing the results of this year’s survey with the 2012 National Survey, adoption of mobile technology has expanded substantially among districts that were already using mobile technology in one or more schools. In particular, there was more than a 10-point gain in respondents reporting that 75% or more of their schools had adopted mobile technology (35.8% v. 23.4%).


6

Adoption of Mobile Technology for Student Instruction: Currently and in the Next 1-2 Years

59.6%&18.1%&

13.5%&8.8%&

Adoption in 25% or more of schools currently!

Adoption in one or a few schools currently & likely to adopt beyond a few schools in next 1-2 years !

No adoption currently but likely to adopt in next 1-2 years!

Low level & non-adopters currently & in next 1-2 years!

Growth in adoption over the next 1-2 years is more likely to come

from districts that have already adopted mobile technology in one or

a few schools than from districts that have not adopted technology in

any schools. A substantially larger percentage of respondents from

districts that have already adopted mobile technology in one or a few

schools reported that their districts were somewhat or very likely to

adopt mobile technology beyond a few schools in the next 1-2 years,

compared to respondents from districts that have not adopted

technology in any schools who reported that their districts were

somewhat or very likely to adopt mobile technology in the next 1-2

years (93.4% v. 64.3%). This same pattern remained true among

districts that were very likely to adopt (49.1% v. 28.7%).


7

A Closer Look at Mobile Technology Adoption

Access to mobile devices in classrooms. Among mobile technology

adopting districts,6 the most common method of making mobile

devices available was to have multiple classrooms share a cart with a

class set of mobile devices (51.4% of respondents).

− 24.5% of the respondents indicated that some or all classrooms in

their districts have a small set of mobile devices that students share.

− Few districts reported that classrooms have 1 to 1 ratio of mobile

devices to students (12.1%).

Access to Mobile Devices in Classrooms

51.4%&

24.5%&

12.1%&12.1%&

A cart with a class set of mobile devices is shared by multiple classrooms!

Some or all classrooms have a small set of mobile devices students share!

Some classrooms have a full class set of mobile devices and some don't!

Classrooms have a 1 to 1 ratio of mobile devices to students!

Funding sources for mobile technology hardware. Respondents from

mobile technology adopting and mobile technology likely districts7

were most likely to report that their districts fund mobile technology

hardware purchases using district technology funds (65.8%), general 6 For this report, mobile technology adopting districts refers to districts that had adopted mobile technology in approximately 25% or more of their schools. 7 Respondents were designated as being from mobile technology likely districts if they (a) indicated that their districts were somewhat or very likely to adopt in the next 1-2 years (if they were from districts that had not yet adopted mobile technology in any schools), or (b) indicated that their districts were somewhat or very likely to increase their level of adoption above the level of one or only a few schools in the next 1-2 years (if that was their current level of adoption).

In 2013, it was more common among mobile technology adopting districts to have multiple classrooms share a cart with a class set of mobile devices, compared to 2012 (51.4% v. 41.0%).


8

district funds (54.4%), grant/funding from the state (42.8%), federal

grant/funding (36.5%), and grant/funding from other sources (32.9%).

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies. Respondents reported a

wide diversity of district policies related to BYOD models.

− 30.2% reported that our BYOD policy is currently in development.

− 23.1% said that our policy encourages BYOD, compared to 15.0%

who reported that our policy is to not permit BYOD.

− 18.4% said that BYOD decisions were determined at the school

(9.5%) or classroom level (8.9%).

Purchasing tablets for student use. A large majority of respondents

(71.0%) reported a high level of interest among district leaders in

purchasing tablets for student use.

Types of mobile technology. By far, iPad was most often identified as

the type of mobile technology that districts had already adopted or

planned to adopt (81.4% of respondents).

− Other common responses were Google Chromebook (31.0%),

mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD model) (27.3%), and iPod

Touch (20.0%).

Compared to the 2012 National Survey, a larger percentage of this year’s respondents specified adoption of iPad (81.4% v. 73.5%), and a much higher percentage specified adoption of Google Chromebook (31.0% v. 14.1%). In contrast, a lower percentage identified mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD model) (27.3% v. 39.4%) and a much lower percentage identified iPod Touch (20.0% v. 38.8%), compared to last year’s respondents.


9

Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student

Instruction

Benefits expected. The most commonly expected benefits from

adopting mobile technology for student instruction were engaging for

students (62.2%), personalization of instruction to meet the needs of

different students (42.9%), interactive learning (36.3%), student-directed

learning (28.6%), and 1 to 1 computing (26.1%). (Respondents were

asked to choose up to three top benefits from a list of 12.)

Most important benefit sought. The top two expected benefits were

also the top choices for the single most important benefit sought:

engaging for students (27.0%) and personalization of instruction to meet

the needs of different students (21.2%).

Interest in a 1-to-1 solution. A large majority of respondents (84.3%)

indicated a high level of interest in implementing or expanding a 1-to-

1 solution using mobile devices in their district within the next 2

years if their budget allowed.

Apps

Beneficial categories of apps. The categories of apps most often

identified as beneficial to student instruction were digital textbooks

(76.9%), student productivity tools (e.g., storage for student files, note

taking, scheduling) (54.3%), and creation tools (e.g., documents, images,

video) (51.6%). (Respondents were asked to choose up to five top app

categories from a list of 18.)

Compared to the 2012 National Survey, a lower percentage of this year’s respondents identified interactive learning as an expected benefit (36.3% v. 54.7%). Student-directed learning was a new answer option added for the 2013 survey. The top two choices for most important benefits sought were the same in 2012 as in 2013, and were selected by similar percentages of respondents.

Respondents’ top selections in 2013 for app categories that would be beneficial to student instruction were similar to the results from 2012.


10

Challenges Related to Mobile Technology

Adoption and Implementation

Hurdles preventing/reducing adoption. Respondents from districts

that are current low-level adopters and non-adopters of mobile

technology and unlikely to increase level of adoption in the next 1-2

years most often identified cost (77.5%) and lack of technology

infrastructure to support mobile technology (50.0%) as among the most

significant hurdles to getting tablets and other mobile devices used for

student instruction. Other frequently mentioned barriers to mobile

device usage include device management too difficult (37.5%), teacher

difficulty in integrating use with classroom instruction (25.0%), and concern

about security/theft (25.0%).

Challenges in implementing mobile technology. When asked to

describe, in their own words8, the most significant challenges their

districts have experienced when implementing mobile technology,

respondents from mobile technology adopting/likely districts most

commonly mentioned issues related to:

− Mobile device management (configuring, monitoring, updating,

securing, filtering, deploying apps, erasing devices remotely)

(26.6% of respondents)

− Professional development and implementation support for

teachers/teacher lack of knowledge or experience (19.2% of

respondents)

− Bandwidth, Wifi connectivity, and/or technology infrastructure


− Breakage, damage to devices, repair, theft, and/or security issues

(10.3% of respondents).

8 Results are based on a thematic analysis of verbatim responses to an open-ended question. The percentage of respondents mentioning any particular theme in response to an open-ended question tends to be lower than the percentage of respondents selecting an answer choice from a list.


11

FINDINGS IN DETAIL

Respondents’ Roles in Their Districts

Respondents were asked to identify their role in their district.

33.5% identified themselves as District Instructional Technology

Directors/Coordinators. This represented 46.2% of the qualified

respondents.

22.1% identified themselves as District Information Technology

Directors/CIOs/CTOs. This represented 30.4% of the qualified

respondents.

17.0% identified themselves as District Media Directors. This

represented 23.4% of the qualified respondents.

27.4% identified themselves as none of the above. These respondents

did not meet the requirements of the survey and were not invited to

answer additional questions.

Figure 1. Respondents’ Roles in Their Districts

33.5%%

17.0%%22.1%%

27.4%%

District Instructional Technology Director/Coordinator!

District Media Director or equivalent!

District Information Technology Director/CIO/CTO!

None of the above!

(See Table 1 in the Appendix.)


12

Education Levels for Which Respondents Were

Responsible

Respondents were asked to identify the education level(s) for which

they were responsible, and were directed to indicate more than one

level as applicable.

74.2% were responsible for the elementary level.

72.9% were responsible for the middle/junior high level.

71.1% were responsible for the senior high level.

16.5% selected other.

Note that some respondents were responsible for multiple education

levels.

Figure 2. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%#

Other (please specify)!

Senior high level!

Middle/junior high level!

Elementary level!

16.5%#

71.1%#

72.9%#

74.2%#



13

Size of Respondents’ Districts

Respondents were asked to identify the size of their districts.

69.5% were from districts with enrollments less than 2,500 (“small”

districts).

21.1% were from districts with enrollments of 2,500 to 9,999

(“midsize” districts).

9.3% were from districts with enrollment of 10,000 or more (“large”

districts).9

Figure 3. Size of Respondents’ Districts


9 Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.


14

Adoption of Mobile Technology

Respondents were asked approximately what percent of schools in

their district had adopted mobile technology for student instruction.

Approximately 60 percent (59.6%) reported that mobile technology

had been adopted in about 25% or more of the schools in their

district.

More than one-third (35.8%) reported that it had been adopted in

about 75% or more of their schools.

21.0% reported that mobile technology had not been adopted in any

schools in their district, so far as they knew.

Figure 4. Adoption of Mobile Technology

29.4%&

6.4%&

10.1%&13.7%&

19.4%&

21.0%&

All or almost all schools in the district!

About 75% of the schools in the district!



One or only a few schools in the district!

None of the schools in the district as far as I know!



15

Likelihood of Adopting Mobile Technology in the

Next 1-2 Years

Respondents who reported that none of the schools in their district

had adopted mobile technology were asked how likely their district was

to adopt mobile technology for student instruction in the next 1-2

years.

A majority (64.3%) reported that their districts were either very likely

(28.7%) or somewhat likely (35.7%) to adopt mobile technology.

Only 13.9% reported that their districts were very unlikely to adopt

mobile technology.

Figure 5. Likelihood of Adopting Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years Among Current Non-Users

28.7%&

35.7%&

21.7%&

13.9%&Very likely to be adopted!

Somewhat likely to be adopted!

Somewhat unlikely to be adopted!

Very unlikely to be adopted!



16

Likelihood of Wider Adoption of Mobile

Technology in the Next 1-2 Years

Respondents who reported that one or only a few of the schools in

their district had adopted mobile technology were asked how likely

their district was to adopt mobile technology for student instruction

beyond a few schools in the next 1-2 years.

The vast majority (93.4%) reported that their districts were either

very likely (49.1%) or somewhat likely (44.3%) to adopt mobile

technology beyond a few schools.

Only 0.9% reported that their districts were very unlikely to adopt

mobile technology beyond a few schools.

Figure 6. Likelihood of Wider Adoption of Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years Among Current Low Users

49.1%&

44.3%&

5.7%& 0.9%&

Very likely to be adopted!

Somewhat likely to be adopted!

Somewhat unlikely to be adopted!

Very unlikely to be adopted!



17

Most Significant Hurdles to Mobile Technology

Adoption

Respondents from districts that had currently adopted mobile

technology in no schools or in one or only a few schools who also

indicated that their districts were somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to

increase their level of adoption in the next 1-2 years were asked to

select up to three of the most significant hurdles to getting tablets and

other mobile devices used for students instruction.

More than three-fourths (77.5%) chose cost.

Half (50.0%) chose lack of technology infrastructure to support mobile

technology.

Other hurdles that were selected by at least 20% of the respondents

included the following:

Device management too difficult (e.g., managing software updates and

licenses, deployment to students) (37.5%)

Teacher difficulty in integrating use with classroom instruction (25.0%)

Concern about security/theft (25.0%)


18

Figure 7. Most Significant Hurdles to Mobile Technology Adoption Among Low-Level & Non-Adopters Currently & in the Next 1-2 Years

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%#

Concern about security/theft!

Teacher difficulty in integrating use with classroom instruction!

Device management too difficult!

Lack of technology infrastructure to support mobile technology!

Cost!

25.0%#

25.0%#

37.5%#

50.0%#

77.5%#



19

Access to Mobile Devices in Classrooms

Respondents from mobile technology adopting districts10 were asked

which of several statements about availability of mobile devices was

generally true about most classrooms in their district.

The most frequently chosen statement was a cart with a class set of

mobile devices is shared by multiple classrooms (51.4% of respondents).

24.5% indicated that some or all classrooms in their districts have a

small set of mobile devices that students share.

Only 12.1% indicated that classrooms have 1 to 1 ratio of mobile devices

to students.

Figure 8. Access to Mobile Devices in Classrooms

51.4%&

15.2%&

12.1%&

12.1%&9.3%&

A cart with a class set of mobile devices is shared by multiple classrooms.!

Some classrooms have a small class set of mobile devices and some don’t.!

Classrooms have 1 to 1 ratio of mobile devices to students.!

Some classrooms have a full class set of mobile devices and some don’t.!

Classrooms have a small set of mobile devices that students share.!


10 For this report mobile technology adopting districts refers to districts that had adopted mobile technology in approximately 25% or more of their schools.


20

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy

Respondents from mobile technology adopting and mobile technology

likely11 districts were asked which of several statements about Bring

Your Own Device (BYOD) was generally true about the policy in their

district.

The largest percentage of respondents (30.2%) reported that our

BYOD policy is currently in development.

23.1% said that our policy encourages BYOD.

18.4% said that BYOD decisions were determined at the school level

(9.5%) or classroom level (8.9).

15.0% reported that our policy is to not permit BYOD.

Figure 9. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy

30.2%&

23.1%&15.0%&

13.4%&

9.5%&8.9%&

Our BYOD policy is currently in development.!

Our policy encourages BYOD.!

Our policy is to not permit BYOD.!

No policy about BYOD in our district.!

Our policy is to have BYOD decisions determined at the school level.!

Our policy is to have BYOD decisions determined at the classroom level.!


11 Respondents were designated as being from mobile technology likely districts if they (a) indicated that their districts were somewhat or very likely to adopt in the next 1-2 years (if they were from districts that had not yet adopted mobile technology in any schools), or (b) indicated that their districts were somewhat or very likely to increase their level of adoption above the level of one or only a few schools in the next 1-2 years (if that was their current level of adoption).


21

Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use


likely districts were asked to characterize attitudes among their district

leadership about purchasing tablets for student use, on a scale of 1 to 5

where 5 = very interested in 1 = not at all interested.

A large majority (71.0%) reported a high level of interest (rating of 4

or 5), with 40.2% indicating that district leaders were very interested in

purchasing tablets for student use.

Only 9.6% reported a low level of interest (rating of 1 or 2).

Figure 10. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use

2.4%%

7.1%%

19.4%%

30.8%%

40.2%%1 (not at all interested)!

2!

3!

4!

5 (very interested)!



22

Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for

Student Instruction


likely districts were asked to indicate all the types of mobile technology

their district has adopted or plans to adopt for student instruction in

the next 1-2 years.

iPad was by far the most common response (81.4%).

Google Chromebook was selected by 31.0%.

iPod Touch was selected by 20.0%.

27.3% said they used mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD

model).

None of the other options was selected by more than 17% of the

respondents.


23

Figure 11. Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for Student Instruction

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%#

Amplify Tablet!

Intel Education Tablet!

Microsoft Surface!

Google Nexus!

Barnes and Noble Nook Tablet!

eBook reader (without Internet access or extra apps)!

Kindle Fire Tablet!

Android Tablet!

iPod Touch!

Mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD model)!

Google Chromebook!

iPad!

1.2%#

3.1%#

5.9%#

6.1%#

10.2%#

10.6%#

15.3%#

16.9%#

20.0%#

27.3%#

31.0%#

81.4%#



24

Expected Benefits from Mobile Technology for

Student Instruction

Respondents from mobile technology adopting/likely districts were

asked to select up to three benefits they expected to receive from the

adoption of mobile technology for student instruction in their district

(from a list of 12 options).

Most commonly selected: Engaging for students (62.2%)

Other benefits selected by at least 20% of the respondents included:

Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students

(42.9%)

Interactive learning (36.3%)

Student-directed learning (28.6%)

1 to 1 computing (26.1%)


25

Figure 12. Expected Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%#

Light weight and portable!

Low-cost and free apps available!

Ongoing formative assessment embedded within instruction!

Low total cost of ownership!

Platform to supplement or replace print textbooks!

Easy-to-use for students!

Flexibility in when and where to access content!

1 to 1 computing!

Student-directed learning!

Interactive learning!

Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students!

Engaging for students!

6.8%#

9.8%#

12.7%#

15.1%#

16.0%#

17.4%#

18.5%#

26.1%#

28.6%#

36.3%#

42.9%#

62.2%#



26

Most Important Benefit Sought from Mobile

Technology for Student Instruction

Asked to select the single most important benefit respondents seek in

mobile technology for student instruction in their district—using the

same list of options as the previous question about expected benefits

from mobile technology—respondents from mobile technology

adopting/likely districts most commonly selected the following:

Engaging for students (27.0%)

Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students

(21.2%)

Each of the other benefits was selected by less than 10% of the

respondents.

Figure 13. Most Important Benefit Sought from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction

27.0%&

21.2%&9.8%&

9.1%&

9.1%&

6.8%&5.0%&

12.0%&

Engaging for students!

Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students!

Interactive learning!

1 to 1 computing!

Student-directed learning!

Flexibility in when and where to access content!

Low total cost of ownership!

Other!



27

Interest in 1-to-1 Solution


likely districts were asked about their interest in implementing or

expanding a 1-to-1 solution using mobile devices in their district within

the next 2 years if their budget allowed, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 =

very interested in 1 = not at all interested.

A large majority (84.3%) reported a high level of interest (rating of 4

or 5), with 62.8% indicating that they were very interested in

implementing or expanding a 1-to-1 solution using mobile devices.

Only 5.0% reported a low level of interest (rating of 1 or 2).

Figure 14. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use

2.1%%2.9%%

10.6%%

21.5%%

62.8%%

1 (not at all interested)!

2!

3!

4!

5 (very interested)!



28

Beneficial Apps

Asked to select up to five categories of apps respondents thought

would be most beneficial to student instruction in their district (from a

list of 18 options), respondents from mobile technology adopting/likely

districts most commonly selected the following:

Digital textbooks (76.9%)

Student productivity (e.g., storage for student files, note taking,

scheduling) (54.3%)

Creation tools (e.g., documents, images, video) (51.6%)

Other apps that were selected by at least 20% of the respondents


Special education (34.8%)

Research and reference (e.g., dictionary, encyclopedia) (31.7%)

Online “class page” (e.g., to post assignments, calendar, messages to

students) (31.0%)

Student response system/student polling (27.3%)

Educational games (25.4%)

Books and stories (24.1%)

Simulation software (21.0%)


29

Figure 15. Most Beneficial Categories of Apps

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%#

Simulation software!

Books and stories !

Educational games !

Student response system/student polling!

Online “class page” !

Research and reference !

Special education !

Creation tools !

Student productivity !

Digital textbooks !

21.0%#

24.1%#

25.4%#

27.3%#

31.0%#

31.7%#

34.8%#

51.6%#

54.3%#

76.9%#

(See Table 15 in the Appendix, including information on apps categories not shown above.)


30

Funding Sources for Mobile Technology

Hardware

Asked to select all of the ways their districts fund mobile technology

hardware purchases, respondents from mobile technology

adopting/likely districts most commonly selected the following:

District technology funds (65.8%)

General district funds (54.4%)

Other sources that were selected by at least 20% of the respondents


Grant/funding from the state (42.8%)

Federal grant/funding (36.5%)

Families of students/bring your own device (BYOD) model (25.1%)

Local fundraising (e.g., by the PTA/PTO) (24.3%)

Grant/funding from other sources (32.9%)


31

Figure 16. Funding Sources for Mobile Technology Hardware

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%#

Grant/funding from other sources !

Local fundraising (e.g., by the PTA/PTO)!

Families of students/bring your own device (BYOD) model!

Federal grant/funding !

Grant/funding from the state !

General district funds !

District technology funds!

32.9%#

24.3%#

25.1%#

36.5%#

42.8%#

54.4%#

65.8%#



32

Challenges in Implementing Mobile Technology

Respondents from mobile technology adopting/likely districts were

asked to describe the most significant challenges their districts have

experienced when implementing mobile technology, and what solutions

have worked for them.

Based on analysis of the responses, the most frequently mentioned

challenge areas in implementing mobile technology were as follows:

Mobile device management (configuring, monitoring, updating,

securing, filtering, deploying apps, erasing devices remotely) (26.6% of

respondents)

Professional development and implementation support for

teachers/teacher lack of knowledge or experience (19.2% of

respondents)

Bandwidth, Wifi connectivity, and/or technology infrastructure (14.0%

of respondents)

Breakage, damage to devices, repair, theft, and/or security issues



33

Appendix: Data Tables

Table 1. Respondents’ Roles in Their Districts

Table 2. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible

Other:

1. All K-12

2. K-12

3. District K-12

4. K-12

5. adult

6. K-12

7. College Level

8. K-12

9. All

10. all

11. K-12

12. Multiple Levels and age groups

13. All programs we offer - elementary-

adult

14. Adult Education

15. pk,es,ms and hs

16. online music/video "How to"

17. multiple districts

18. preschool - TK

19. Higher Education

20. College level

21. Higher Education

22. All staff

23. Central office


41

24. K-12

25. K-12

26. Pre-K -12th

27. k-12

28. k-12

29. All levels

30. K-12

31. k-12

32. Administrative

33. ESC

34. BOCES

35. all levels

36. K-12

37. Alternative

38. Entire District

39. All levels

40. All levels- district

41. all levels

42. District

43. I work at all three levels.

44. Administration

45. Early Childhood

46. All of the above

47. PreK-12

48. Pre-K - 12

49. County Office of Education

50. K-12

51. k-12

52. Administration

53. Technology only (k-12), no

educational duties

54. District wide

55. K-12

56. k-8

57. District

58. prek-12

59. middle school and High school

60. PreK - 12

61. K-12

62. Prek-12

63. All

64. K-12

65. Pre K - 12

66. All levels

67. District k-12

68. Adult Education

69. Pre-K and Adult Ed

70. K-12

71. K-12

72. 6-12th grade


42

73. k-12

74. District

75. K-12

76. early college

77. District Wide

78. preK - 12

79. all levels

80. Junior/Senior High School Level

81. PK-12

82. K-12

83. SAU

84. prek-12

85. Cooperative Service Agency - 42

School Districts

86. K-12

87. all

88. all grades

89. Adult Education classes (Cosmetology,

Practical Nursing)

90. Pre-K - 12

91. K-12

92. K-12


41

Table 3. Size of Respondents’ Districts

Table 4. Adoption of Mobile Technology

Table 5. Likelihood of Adopting Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years Among Current Non-Users


42

Table 6. Likelihood of Wider Adoption of Mobile Technology in the Next 1-2 Years Among Current Low Users

Table 7. Most Significant Hurdles to Mobile Technology Adoption Among Low-Level & Non-Adopters Currently & in the Next 1-2 Years

Table 8. Access to Mobile Devices in the Classroom


43

Table 9. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy

Table 10. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use


44

Table 11. Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for Student Instruction

Other:

1. netbooks

2. Fujitsu Tablet Computer

3. macbook air

4. Windows Laptops

5. Windows 8 Netbooks

6. various brands of laptops

7. Renaissance Learning NEO2s at elementary level

8. 1:1 full laptops

9. Laptops

10. Windows 8 Tablet-Not the Surface

11. Staff can use what they like and we use MS version 7 netbooks and notebooks in carts

12. Macbook pros

13. We currently use two laptop carts


45

14. We are developing curriculum that can be presented on multiple devices

15. Samsung Galaxy Tablet

16. Standard laptops

17. Mac Air

18. Netbooks in place now

19. students grade 4-12 all have laptops with Verizon Internet

20. Windows 8 tablets

21. We are currently investigating possibilities

22. macbook and macbook air

23. Windows 8 Tablet

24. netbook

25. netbooks by Acer

26. Ultrabooks

27. netbooks

28. MacBook Air

29. Laptops

30. netbooks

31. Dell Latitude Tablets (Latitude 10)

32. Macbooks

33. 9-12 each have their own Fujitsu Touch Screen Tablet T731

34. laptops

35. small district means no funds for class sets... 4 teachers have a iPad and a laptop to share with

students

36. BYOD

37. some laptop carts


46

38. Kuno, Galaxy note

39. We are currently looking and evaluating several of the above media devices but have not

made a decision - YET! Very soon so we will be able to incorporate in the Fall 2013

40. also considering BYOD & Chromebook

41. Netbooks with Ubermix

42. wINDOWS 8 TABLETS

43. Intel Netbook with touch screen

44. One to One Laptops for every student from 6th grade to 12thgrade and Ipads from

Kindergarten to 5th grade

45. Dell 14" laptops

46. base Kindle tablet

47. Dell Latitude 10 with cover that has a BT KB

48. Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1

49. We are 1-1 macbooks

50. MacBook

51. Mac Book Air

52. Macbook Air Laptops

53. windows 8 tablet other than surface

54. Netbook Tablet

55. laptops - maybe ipads

56. iPad Mini

57. intel based ultrabooks

58. MacBook Air 13"

59. Netbooks

60. Dell laptop/netbook


47

Table 12. Expected Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction

Other:

1. Collaboration

2. Providing technology to students who have none at home

3. Testing statewide

4. Allow for required standardized testing

5. Annual standardized test taking capability

6. Levels the field for all learners


48

Table 13. Most Important Benefit Sought from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction

Table 14. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use


49

Table 15. Most Beneficial Categories of Apps


50

Table 16. Funding Sources for Mobile Technology Hardware

Other:

1. Our families rent or purchase for our 1-1 program

2. Not sure

3. Bookfee to the student.

4. I'm not sure

5. Bond Fund

6. Actually not sure on most of the answers but go by what I know already.

7. Sales tax

8. Special CIP fund from city

9. Permanent improvement funds

10. Technology Bond

11. tax levy

12. Textbook reimbursement

13. Donations of iPads and tablets from the general public textbook

14. funded at the local school level

15. PA EITC foundation

16. Capital Funds from Town


51

17. Sale of bonds

18. District bond funds

19. Bonds

20. Lease

21. Levy

The Educator Edition is sponsored by Amplify.

www.amplify.com

http://www.amplify.com

national survey on mobile...

Documents