Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) poli

Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) policies have been gaining popularity in schools across the
U.S., as increasing numbers of households are able to afford mobile devices, adults are using them
more prolifically, teachers are becoming more aware of and open to technology aids in the classroom,
and administrations are realizing that they will never be able to secure funding for the 1:1 child-todevice
initiatives (Johnson, 2012, p. 84) that Collins and Halverson (2009) note are necessary “for
technology to make real inroads in instruction” (p. 37).
However, there does still remain some “controversy about using personal devices in schools”
(Walling, 2012, p. 42). This controversy seems to arise between a “their way” camp not willing to fight
against what Rideout, Fochr, and Roberts call “a teenager with a cell phone glued to her fingertips” (as
cited in Walling, 2012, p. 44) but rather work with that model, and a “no way” camp that completely
bans personal mobile devices from use during school hours, as the Broward County, Florida, school
BYOD POLICY 3
board did in 2010 (Walling, 2012, p. 44). One staunch and often-cited detractor of BYOD, Gary Stager,
claims, “BYOD is a bad policy that constrains student creativity, limits learning opportunities and will
lead to less support for public education in the future” (as cited in Nelson, 2012, n.p.); Stager also calls
it the “worst idea of the 21st century” (as cited in Watters, 2012, p. 36). Other criticisms at the
classroom level are, as Nelson (2012) notes, management problems, cheating, and a lack of
“meaningful” integration, as well as the challenge of funding IT infrastructure upgrades at the school
level (n.p.). The digital divide is also a major concern, with one superintendent arguing that, if a BYOD
policy is enacted, “it is essential to ensure that the issue has been considered and that a solid plan is in
place to address those issues” (Baule, 2012, p. 35). Once a policy is in place, concerns turn to things
such as controlling network access, content filtering, and maintaining a network that, even if installed
new this year, “will be obsolete by 2015” (Raths, 2012, n.p.).
But regardless of vocal detractors and ongoing challenges, the research and evidence from
early-adopter schools are supporting that BYOD policies are “good for kids” and that they “empower
students to use the devices they already have with them as connections to learning” (Nelson, 2012,
n.p.). For example, New Milford High School in New Jersey has found success in allowing students to
use their smartphones during class for “communication, calculation, photography, videography, and
calculations” (Watters, 2012, p. 36). Principal Eric Sheninger justifies the policy by stating “We live in
a world where these devices are a huge part of our students' lives. Schools should position themselves
to not only take advantage of this resource as budgets are tight, but also teach students about the
powerful tool they possess” (as cited by Watters, 2012, p. 36). Other schools that are cited as successful
examples of BYOD policies profiled in the recent literature include Chester Middle School in New
York (see Walling, 2012, p. 44), the Osseo Area Schools district in Minnesota (see “BYOD Strategies,”
2012, p. 36-37; Nelson, 2012, n.p.), the Lake Travis Independent School District in Texas (see “BYOD
Strategies,” 2012, p.34, 36), the New Canaan Public Schools district in Connecticut (see “BYOD
BYOD POLICY 4
Strategies,” 2012, p. 36), the Jordan School District in Utah (see Raths, 2012, n.p.), the Hanover Public
School District in Pennsylvania (see Raths, 2012, n.p.), the Park Hill School District in Missouri (see
Raths, 2012, n.p.), and Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy in Florida (see Raths, 2012, n.p.).
These schools' successes come as no surprise, as they are using the students' access to the
Internet and technology to facilitate active learning. In the first volume of his “Tech-Savvy Teaching
and Learning Series,” Walling (2012) explains that “if teachers involve students in using the computer,
then the potential for active learning increases” and that “This potential is even more likely to be
realized if student computers are readily available—meaning in the classroom, not down the hall in a
computer lab” (p. 4). This seems to be translating to quantifiable learning increases at early-adopter
schools. A poetry teacher at Chester Middle School reported that “students 'who used their cell
phones...got 80 percent of the questions about the poem correct on a state test.' By contrast, students
taught the same material in the traditional way scored only 40 percent correct” (Walling, 2012, p. 44).
Johnson (2012) sums up the movement toward embracing BYOD well: “As the proverb says,
'It's easier to steer a camel in the direction it's already headed.' This camel is already heading in a
singular direction—toward increased technology use” (p. 84). That does not mean, however, that
schools should follow blindly. Johnson notes that planning and providing specific guidelines for those
doing the purchasing (of both the devices and the content that will be used on them) are necessary
before implementing a BYOD policy (p. 84-85). Likewise, Harris (2012) gives some stern warnings to
schools considering BYOD, stating that “Schools that adopt BYOD are not the same institutions plus a
few smart phones, they're an entirely new ecology. Or at least they better be … Smartphones won't
make kids any smarter unless the devices are used to their full potential” (p. 14).
And it seems that it is in the spirit of helping students reach that full potential that the successful
BYOD policy will be undertaken. As Nelson (2012) states, “We have the exciting opportunity to teach
students to ask the right questions, use the real-world tools that they have in their hands to find the best
BYOD POLICY 5
answers, and share that in an authentic way with those around them” (n.p.). It is in this spirit that I
propose a BYOD policy be enacted for English Composition II classes offered through Fort Hays State
University and Sias International University's dual degree program.

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 1:

นำอุปกรณ์ของตัวเองของคุณ ("BYOD") นโยบายได้รับความนิยมในโรงเรียนผ่านการสหรัฐอเมริกา เป็นตัวเลขที่เพิ่มขึ้นของครัวเรือนสามารถซื้อโทรศัพท์มือถือ ผู้ใหญ่จะใช้เพิ่มเติม prolifically การกลายเป็นครูมากขึ้นตระหนักถึง และเปิดรับเทคโนโลยีพื้นฐานในห้องเรียนและจัดการได้ตระหนักถึงว่า พวกเขาจะไม่สามารถจองทุน 1:1 เด็ก-todeviceริเริ่ม (Johnson, 2012, p. 84) คอลลินส์และ Halverson (2009) เหตุจำเป็น"เทคโนโลยีจะทำให้รองจริงในคำสั่ง" (p. 37)อย่างไรก็ตาม มียังคงบาง "ถกเถียงเกี่ยวกับการใช้อุปกรณ์ส่วนบุคคลในโรงเรียน"(Walling, 2012, p. 42) ถกเถียงนี้ดูเหมือนว่าจะ เกิดขึ้นระหว่างการ "ทาง" แคมป์ไม่ยินดีที่จะต่อสู้กับสิ่ง Rideout, Fochr และโรเบิตส์โทร "วัยรุ่นกับโทรศัพท์มือถือที่ติดปลายนิ้วของเธอ" (อ้างถึงใน Walling, 2012, p. 44) แต่แทนที่จะ ทำงานกับรุ่นที่ และเป็น "วิธี" แคมป์ที่สมบูรณ์ห้ามอุปกรณ์โมบายส่วนบุคคลจากการใช้ในระหว่างชั่วโมงเรียน เป็นโรงเรียน Broward เขต ฟลอริด้านโยบาย BYOD 3คณะกรรมการได้ในปี 2553 (Walling, 2012, p. 44) หนึ่ง staunch และมักจะอ้างถึง detractor ของ BYOD, Gary Stagerอ้าง "BYOD เป็นนโยบายดีที่จำกัดความคิดสร้างสรรค์ของนักเรียน จำกัดโอกาสการเรียนรู้ และจะนำไปสู่การสนับสนุนน้อยกว่าการศึกษาสาธารณะในอนาคต " (เป็นการอ้างอิงในเนลสัน 2012, n.p.); ยังเรียก stagerมัน "เลวความคิดในศตวรรษที่ 21" (เป็นอ้างอิงใน Watters, 2012, p. 36) วิจารณ์ที่อื่น ๆclassroom level are, as Nelson (2012) notes, management problems, cheating, and a lack of“meaningful” integration, as well as the challenge of funding IT infrastructure upgrades at the schoollevel (n.p.). The digital divide is also a major concern, with one superintendent arguing that, if a BYODpolicy is enacted, “it is essential to ensure that the issue has been considered and that a solid plan is inplace to address those issues” (Baule, 2012, p. 35). Once a policy is in place, concerns turn to thingssuch as controlling network access, content filtering, and maintaining a network that, even if installednew this year, “will be obsolete by 2015” (Raths, 2012, n.p.).But regardless of vocal detractors and ongoing challenges, the research and evidence fromearly-adopter schools are supporting that BYOD policies are “good for kids” and that they “empowerstudents to use the devices they already have with them as connections to learning” (Nelson, 2012,n.p.). For example, New Milford High School in New Jersey has found success in allowing students touse their smartphones during class for “communication, calculation, photography, videography, andcalculations” (Watters, 2012, p. 36). Principal Eric Sheninger justifies the policy by stating “We live ina world where these devices are a huge part of our students' lives. Schools should position themselvesto not only take advantage of this resource as budgets are tight, but also teach students about thepowerful tool they possess” (as cited by Watters, 2012, p. 36). Other schools that are cited as successfulexamples of BYOD policies profiled in the recent literature include Chester Middle School in NewYork (see Walling, 2012, p. 44), the Osseo Area Schools district in Minnesota (see “BYOD Strategies,”2012, p. 36-37; Nelson, 2012, n.p.), the Lake Travis Independent School District in Texas (see “BYODStrategies,” 2012, p.34, 36), the New Canaan Public Schools district in Connecticut (see “BYODBYOD POLICY 4Strategies,” 2012, p. 36), the Jordan School District in Utah (see Raths, 2012, n.p.), the Hanover PublicSchool District in Pennsylvania (see Raths, 2012, n.p.), the Park Hill School District in Missouri (seeRaths, 2012, n.p.), and Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy in Florida (see Raths, 2012, n.p.).These schools' successes come as no surprise, as they are using the students' access to theInternet and technology to facilitate active learning. In the first volume of his “Tech-Savvy Teachingand Learning Series,” Walling (2012) explains that “if teachers involve students in using the computer,then the potential for active learning increases” and that “This potential is even more likely to berealized if student computers are readily available—meaning in the classroom, not down the hall in acomputer lab” (p. 4). This seems to be translating to quantifiable learning increases at early-adopterschools. A poetry teacher at Chester Middle School reported that “students 'who used their cellphones...got 80 percent of the questions about the poem correct on a state test.' By contrast, studentstaught the same material in the traditional way scored only 40 percent correct” (Walling, 2012, p. 44).Johnson (2012) sums up the movement toward embracing BYOD well: “As the proverb says,'It's easier to steer a camel in the direction it's already headed.' This camel is already heading in asingular direction—toward increased technology use” (p. 84). That does not mean, however, thatschools should follow blindly. Johnson notes that planning and providing specific guidelines for thosedoing the purchasing (of both the devices and the content that will be used on them) are necessarybefore implementing a BYOD policy (p. 84-85). Likewise, Harris (2012) gives some stern warnings toschools considering BYOD, stating that “Schools that adopt BYOD are not the same institutions plus afew smart phones, they're an entirely new ecology. Or at least they better be … Smartphones won'tmake kids any smarter unless the devices are used to their full potential” (p. 14).And it seems that it is in the spirit of helping students reach that full potential that the successfulBYOD policy will be undertaken. As Nelson (2012) states, “We have the exciting opportunity to teachstudents to ask the right questions, use the real-world tools that they have in their hands to find the bestBYOD POLICY 5answers, and share that in an authentic way with those around them” (n.p.). It is in this spirit that Ipropose a BYOD policy be enacted for English Composition II classes offered through Fort Hays StateUniversity and Sias International University's dual degree program.

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 3:

นำอุปกรณ์ของคุณเอง ( BYOD ) นโยบายได้รับการดึงดูดความนิยมใน โรงเรียนทั่วประเทศ
สหรัฐ เป็นตัวเลขที่เพิ่มขึ้นของครัวเรือนสามารถซื้อโทรศัพท์มือถือที่ผู้ใหญ่ใช้พวกเขา
เพิ่มเติมวรรณกรรมอิตาเลี่ยน ครูจะกลายเป็นมากขึ้นตระหนักถึงและเปิดให้สื่อเทคโนโลยีในชั้นเรียน ,
และบริหารจะรู้ตัวว่าพวกเขาจะ ไม่สามารถเพื่อรักษาความปลอดภัยเงินทุนสำหรับ 1เด็ก 1 todevice
ริเริ่ม ( จอห์นสัน , 2012 , หน้า 84 ) ที่คอลลินส์และแฮลเวอร์สัน ( 2009 ) หมายเหตุ จำเป็นสำหรับเทคโนโลยีที่จะให้ inroads
ที่แท้จริงในการสอน " ( หน้า 37 ) .
แต่ก็ยังคงมีการโต้เถียงเกี่ยวกับการใช้อุปกรณ์ส่วนบุคคลในโรงเรียน "
( ผนัง , 2012 , หน้า 42 ) ความขัดแย้งครั้งนี้น่าจะเกิดขึ้นระหว่าง " วิธี " ค่ายของพวกเขาไม่เต็มใจที่จะต่อสู้กับสิ่งที่ rideout fochr
, ,โรเบิร์ตเรียก " วัยรุ่นกับโทรศัพท์มือถือติดที่ปลายนิ้วของเธอ " (
อ้างในผนัง , 2012 , หน้า 44 ) แต่ทำงานกับรูปแบบ และ " ไม่มีทาง " ค่ายที่สมบูรณ์
bans โทรศัพท์มือถือส่วนบุคคลจากการใช้ระหว่างชั่วโมงเรียน เป็น Broward County , ฟลอริดา , โรงเรียน
BYOD นโยบายที่ 3
บอร์ดทำใน 2010 ( ผนัง , 2012 , หน้า 44 ) หนึ่งอย่างแข็งขันและมักจะอ้างกระโดงคางของ BYOD , แกรี่ stager