National Survey on Mobile Technology for K-12 Education Research Report Educator Edition 2013 Sponsored by Amplify Written and Published By: Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. iesdinc@aol.com In Collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC info@stemreports.com
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 inschool 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.
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
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 2015 1. 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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 1
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 A. Sample of 558 qualified respondents (Question 2) 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) Margin of Error 4.1% 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. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 2
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 3
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. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 4
Adoption of Mobile Technology 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%). 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. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 5
Adoption of Mobile Technology for Student Instruction: Currently and in the Next 1-2 Years Adoption in 25% or more of schools currently! 18.1%& 13.5%& 8.8%& 59.6%& 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%). IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 6
A Closer Look at Mobile Technology 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%). 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 12.1%& 12.1%& 24.5%& 51.4%& 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 districts 7 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). IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 7
district funds (54.4%), grant/funding from the state (42.8%), federal grant/funding (36.5%), and grant/funding from other sources (32.9%). 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. 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%). IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 8
Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction 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. 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 Respondents top selections in 2013 for app categories that would be beneficial to student instruction were similar to the results from 2012. 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.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 9
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 words 8, 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 (14.0% of respondents) 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. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 10
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 27.4%% 22.1%% 17.0%% 33.5%% 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.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 11
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 Elementary level! 74.2%# Middle/junior high level! 72.9%# Senior high level! 71.1%# Other (please specify)! 16.5%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# (See Table 2 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 12
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 (See Table 3 in the Appendix.) 9 Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 13
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 21.0%& 29.4%& All or almost all schools in the district! About 75% of the schools in the district! 19.4%& 13.7%& 10.1%& 6.4%& About 50% of the schools in the district! About 25% 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! (See Table 4 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 14
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 13.9%& 28.7%& Very likely to be adopted! 21.7%& 35.7%& Somewhat likely to be adopted! Somewhat unlikely to be adopted! Very unlikely to be adopted! (See Table 5 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 15
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 5.7%& 0.9%& Very likely to be adopted! 44.3%& 49.1%& Somewhat likely to be adopted! Somewhat unlikely to be adopted! Very unlikely to be adopted! (See Table 6 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 16
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%) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 17
Figure 7. Most Significant Hurdles to Mobile Technology Adoption Among Low-Level & Non-Adopters Currently & in the Next 1-2 Years Cost! 77.5%# Lack of technology infrastructure to support mobile technology! 50.0%# Device management too difficult! 37.5%# Teacher difficulty in integrating use with classroom instruction! 25.0%# Concern about security/theft! 25.0%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# (See Table 7 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 18
Access to Mobile Devices in Classrooms Respondents from mobile technology adopting districts 10 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 9.3%& 12.1%& 12.1%& 15.2%& 51.4%& 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.! (See Table 8 in the Appendix.) 10 For this report mobile technology adopting districts refers to districts that had adopted mobile technology in approximately 25% or more of their schools. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 19
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy Respondents from mobile technology adopting and mobile technology likely 11 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 Our BYOD policy is currently in development.! 9.5%& 8.9%& 30.2%& Our policy encourages BYOD.! 13.4%& Our policy is to not permit BYOD.! 15.0%& 23.1%& 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.! (See Table 9 in the Appendix.) 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). IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 20
Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use Respondents from mobile technology adopting and mobile technology 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%% 40.2%% 30.8%% 19.4%% 1 (not at all interested)! 2! 3! 4! 5 (very interested)! (See Table 10 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 21
Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for Student Instruction Respondents from mobile technology adopting and mobile technology 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. IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 22
Figure 11. Types of Mobile Technology Adopted for Student Instruction ipad! 81.4%# Google Chromebook! 31.0%# Mixed technology supplied by student (BYOD model)! 27.3%# ipod Touch! 20.0%# Android Tablet! 16.9%# Kindle Fire Tablet! 15.3%# ebook reader (without Internet access or extra apps)! 10.6%# Barnes and Noble Nook Tablet! 10.2%# Google Nexus! 6.1%# Microsoft Surface! 5.9%# Intel Education Tablet! 3.1%# Amplify Tablet! 1.2%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# (See Table 11 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 23
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%) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 24
Figure 12. Expected Benefits from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction Engaging for students! 62.2%# Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students! Interactive learning! 36.3%# 42.9%# Student-directed learning! 1 to 1 computing! 28.6%# 26.1%# Flexibility in when and where to access content! Easy-to-use for students! Platform to supplement or replace print textbooks! Low total cost of ownership! Ongoing formative assessment embedded within instruction! Low-cost and free apps available! Light weight and portable! 18.5%# 17.4%# 16.0%# 15.1%# 12.7%# 9.8%# 6.8%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# (See Table 12 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 25
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 Engaging for students! Personalization of instruction to meet the needs of different students! 5.0%& 6.8%& 12.0%& 27.0%& Interactive learning! 1 to 1 computing! 9.1%& 9.1%& 9.8%& 21.2%& Student-directed learning! Flexibility in when and where to access content! Low total cost of ownership! Other! (See Table 13 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 26
Interest in 1-to-1 Solution Respondents from mobile technology adopting and mobile technology 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%% 62.8%% 10.6%% 21.5%% 1 (not at all interested)! 2! 3! 4! 5 (very interested)! (See Table 14 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 27
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 included the following: 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%) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 28
Figure 15. Most Beneficial Categories of Apps Digital textbooks! 76.9%# Student productivity! 54.3%# Creation tools! 51.6%# Special education! 34.8%# Research and reference! 31.7%# Online class page! 31.0%# Student response system/student polling! 27.3%# Educational games! 25.4%# Books and stories! 24.1%# Simulation software! 21.0%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# (See Table 15 in the Appendix, including information on apps categories not shown above.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 29
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 included the following: 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%) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 30
Figure 16. Funding Sources for Mobile Technology Hardware District technology funds! 65.8%# General district funds! 54.4%# 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%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# (See Table 16 in the Appendix.) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 31
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 (10.3% of respondents) IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 32
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 - elementaryadult 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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 33
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 41
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 42
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 41
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 42
Table 9. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy Table 10. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 43
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 44
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 45
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 46
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 47
Table 13. Most Important Benefit Sought from Mobile Technology for Student Instruction Table 14. Interest in Purchasing Tablets for Student Use IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 48
Table 15. Most Beneficial Categories of Apps IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 49
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 IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 50
17. Sale of bonds 18. District bond funds 19. Bonds 20. Lease 21. Levy IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Educator Edition Sponsored by Amplify 51
The Educator Edition is sponsored by Amplify. www.amplify.com