Educ Inf Technol

DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9235-7

Mobile phones in education: Challenges

and opportunities for learning

Jared Keengwe & Gary Schnellert & Denise Jonas

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract The millennials use mobile phones on a daily basis to keep in touch with
family and friends (Lenhart 2010). However, the role of mobile phones in education
needs to be close examined as educators strive to incorporate mobile leaning devices
in the classroom. Consequently, schools will not only need to evaluate their school
curriculums but also recognize the power in the digital devices to engage, enable, and
empower Gen-M and iGen learners. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide
a rationale for the need for administrators to design guidelines for schools planning to
adopt mobile phones in their curricula. Additionally, this article is intended to
stimulate reflections on effective ways to adopt mobile phones in education to engage
learners.

Keywords Mobile phones . Cell phones . Millennial generation . Schools . Student

learning

1 Introduction

In a survey by Zelos Group, not having a cell phone is “a social faux pas for kids”
(Batista 2003). Additionally, “Four in 10 (40 %) teens say they would die without
their cell phones, and nearly half (46 %) say that having a cell phone is the key to
their social lives” (Trim 2009). The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Study

J. Keengwe (*)
Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

G. Schnellert
Educational Leadership Stop #7189, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

D. Jonas
Cheney Middle School, 825 17th Ave E, West Fargo, ND 58078, USA
e-mail: DJONAS@[Link]
 Educ Inf Technol

(Rideout et al. 2010) concluded there has been an explosion in mobile phone
ownership and usage by over the past 5 years, citing two thirds (66 %) of 8 to
18 years old use mobile cphones. The same study also cited ownerhip and usage
increases among 8 to 10 years-old from 21 to 31 % , 11- to 14-years-old increasing
from 36 to 69 %, and 15- to 18-years-old rising from 56 to 85 %. Additionally, young
adult are using mobile phones on a daily basis to keep in touch with family and
friends (Lenhart 2010).
A catalyst for the mobile learning phenomenon is the fact that mobile phones can
also be used for text messaging. This feature allows individuals to silently connect
with users anytime and anywhere to socialize and instantly share private information.
A national survey reported that 46 % of young adults like texting because they can
multitask, which allows them to operate the device while watching televison, using
the computer or listening to music (HarrisInterative 2008). Further, 42 % reported that
texting was a faster way to communicate. Females enjoy multitasking and waiting for
messages; while males find the device to be just fun, and would rather text than talk to
others in person (HarrisInterative 2008).
Mobile phines cellular phones are closing the “digital divide” as minorities make
up a larger share of cell-only homes and are more likely to use their mobile phone to
access the Internet, text message and play music than Whites (Lenhart 2010).
Similarly, there was an increase in mobile phone usage among Hispanics and African
Americans ages 10–18—56 % for Hispanics and 50 % for African Americans
(Horrigan 2008). This trend indicates that mobile phone technology has a great
potential to reduce the digital divide among different ethnic groups as well as those
in lower socio-economic status.

1.1 Purpose of the article

Based on results on how youths use mobile phones, it is reasonable to argue that the
common-place nature of technology has established their comfort in communicating
through e-mail, social networks, and text messaging versus in person (Rebore and
Walmsley 2010). In the world of Gen-M and iGen, technology devices are not tools;
they just are (Rosen 2011). Gen-M and i-Gen generation view mobile phones as just
another tool to use for communication, productivity, entertainment, and to access
information (Kolb 2010). Additionally, due to the need for schools to engage and
retain all students, technology may just be the motivating tool especially for the Gen-
M and iGen learners (Rosen 2011). As a result, schools will not only need to evaluate
their school curriculums but also recognize the power in the digital devices to engage,
enable, and empower Gen-M and iGen learners. Therefore, the purpose of this article
is provide a rationale for the need for administrators to design guidelines for schools
planning to adopt mobile phones in their in their curricula.

2 Millenials and mobile phones

Millennials are individuals born between 1977 and 2000. Generation M (Gen-M)
refers to digital natives: “M” referring to millennials or multi-taskers (Woempner
2007). Further, they are multi-taskers, prefer graphics before text, respond to instant
Educ Inf Technol

gratification, enjoy social networking, like random access, and expect adults to
include them in decision-making. Tulgan (2009) describes them as Generation
‘Y’—born between 1978 and 1990 and Generation ‘Z’—born between 1991 and
2000. Millennials have unique characteristics, such as admiration for parents, open
and eager, team oriented, demanding of themselves, multi-taskers, socially consious,
and pressured to succeed (Coates 2007). Further, the ‘millenials’ communication
styles can be viewed as connected, instantaneous and impatient.
The millennials have lived during the era of rapid technological changes and a
highly interconnected global world. This generation has tolerance for increased
interactions or collaboration with peers (Tulgan 2009). Their WWW stands for
Whatever, Whenever, Wherever (Rosen 2011). On average, this generation send
39.1 text messages per day, with 15 % sending over 200 messages per day (Lenart
et al. 2010) while 72 % of them claim they can text blindfolded with a QWERTY
mobile phone keyboard (Parker 2007). Clearly, the millenials live in the moment and
obtain information instantly, at their fingers, 24-7 (Rainer and Rainer 2010).
Gen-M and iGens have unique communication and learning styles, morphing
education through thinking tools, learning research, and digital lifestyles supported
by 21st century learning theories (Trilling and Fadel 2009). Gen-M teens are using
technology to become “free agent learners” (Project Tomorrow 2010). As Black
(2010) noted:
Educators are becoming more aware that Gen Y has considerably different
experiences and expectations and that it even thinks and processes information
differently than students of the past. As digital natives, students of Gen Y have
been surrounded by computer technology since birth; they know it well, they
use it constantly, and they expect it in the classroom (p.100).
The millenials experience their own learning through peer collaboration, informa-
tion sharing, tutoring via Facebook, online games, and tests. They are also interested
in using their personal tools, such as, mobile phones, laptops, and iPods for educa-
tional purposes. Mobile technologies such as smartphones, notebooks have multiple
and powerful capabilities, and most millenials possess some kind of mobile device
and cellular network (Johnson et al. 2010). However, these tools present many
opportunities as well as challenges in education (Kearney et al. 2012).
Many parents have purchased mobile phones to be used mainly in the event of an
emergency (Reardon 2008). Many parents argue that in an age where school violence
exists, cellular phones provide an instant connection between children and parents
in the event of a threat. Some parents have even gone as far as purchasing GPS-
based services to allow them to track their child via cellular phone (Parmar 2010).
Parents also want children to carry cellular phones in school in case they need help
(Montano 2010).
Today’s smart mobile phones have become high-tech mobile computers with
operating systems supporting a calendar, planner, camera, Internet resource, enter-
tainment system, and audio video functions (Andersen 2009). Further, these tools
allow users to browse, use on-line applications, and retrieve web resources anytime
anywhere. Mobile phone users can connect to people worldwide while walking down
the street connecting to on-line websites such as Facebook, Bebo, and MySpace
(Shoemaker-Galloway 2007). The various applications, such as digital photos,
 Educ Inf Technol

games, music, and entertainment allows not only mobile phone users to pass the time,
but also creates opportunities for users to utilize their digital mobile devices as tools.

3 Challenges for using mobile phones

The National Safety Council (2010) reported that 28 % or 1.6 million crashes occur
per year due to hand-held or hands-free mobile phones. As a result, many states have
established legislation requiring the use of hands-free devices or banned the use of
cell phone while driving all together (Cell Phone Safety 2011). Mobile phones are
being blamed for meeting tardiness as staffers are using mobile phones as an excuse
to call colleagues when running late (Batista 2003). Further, New York City passed a
law that fines a person if their mobile phone rings during a public performance
(Batista 2003). States, such as Oklahoma and New York restrict the use of mobile
phones by faculty who are expected to eliminate mobile phone use during the school
day (PBP Executive Reports 2009).
The use of mobile phones has typically been underrated as a desired media at
school (Johnson 2010). While proponents of mobile phones view them as a potential
learning tool for on-line resources, communication, and multi-media creativity, many
school leaders only see them as a hindrance to meaningful learning especially
considering their host of likely distractions from student ring tones, e-mails, texting,
tweeting, and cheating (Trilling and Fadel 2009). In the United States, at least 20
states banned their use in K-12 public schools (Kartz 1999). These early policies did
not favor mobile phones incorporation into the school curriculum. Consequently,
mobile phones have created a love-hate relationship for students, parents, and school
personnel.
Instant messaging accessed through mobile phones and Internet social networking
sites appear to be the most common ways for teens to harrass others. This is a form of
cylberylbulling defined as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of
computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (Hinduja and Patchin 2011).
Although bullying has been a societal problem for generations, cyberbullying takes
on an added twist from schoolyard bullying as messages can be replicated and go
viral to dozens of people at a time and instantly (Richmond 2010). Cyberbullying has
magnified backyard bullying as behaviors cross geographical boundaries due to
technological services with offenders becoming even more vicious due to the anom-
inity of the user ([Link] 2008).
In 2010, numerous incidents of cyberbullying were reported that led to teen
suicides in the United States (Hartwell-Walker 2010). Cyberbullying has been diffi-
cult for schools as most of the behavior actually take place outside of school where
they have limited authority, yet has an impact on students during the school day.
Schools must then rely on parents who may be oblivious to the problem and/or have
limited technical skills to monitor their children’s behavior via technology devices
(Richmond 2010). The instantaneous messaging of mobile phones comments leaves
little time for users to confront or squelch rumors before they are widespread, making
cyberbullying a greater problem than bullying in a decade ago. The effects of
cyberbullying can ultimately have a negative impact on the lives of mobile phone
users, school environments, and society. The victims of cyberbullying report having
Educ Inf Technol

fear, embarrassed to go to school, depression, and low self-esteem (Hinduja and

Patchin 2011).
An equally disturbing trend by mobile phone users has been the use of built-in
cameras to take nude photos, known or unknown, to be sent to other mobile phone
users, known as “sexting” (Duranni 2009). Sexting has created distraction for youth,
parents, and schools as today’s youth are pushing the boundaries of communication
and relationships through the trading of inappropriate pictures and the sharing of
suggestive photos via instant messaging (Obringer and Coffey 2007). Posted or
shared image can contribute to the youth being victimized, exploited, and/or suscep-
tible to cyberbullying. While the sharing of inappropriate pictures has been around
since the invention of the camera, mobile phones make it easier for photos to be
quickly shared with hundreds via instant messaging and then uploaded to social
networking sites (Trim 2010).
According to Lenhart at the Pew Internet Research Center (2009), 4 % of youth
ages 12–17 have sent sexually suggestive, nude, or nearly nude images via texting
while 15 % have received suggestive and/or nude photos. Although the statistics do
not compare to the over 66 % of youth-texters in the market, it does indicate that the
youth are active in using mobile phones for dangerous, if not illegal behaviors.
Sexting occurs equally among boys and girls, by teens in relationships, teens looking
for a relationship, and/or when images are shared with others outside of any relation-
ship (Lenhart 2009).
While a majority of sexting occurs outside the school environment during online
evening sessions, what happens in cyberspace does not stay in cyberspace (Richmond
2010). Mobile phones turned on during lunch time can quickly lead to a furry of
reactions and distractions by students receiving negative and/or sexting messages
from the morning or night before. Regrettably, teachers and school dministrators end
up dealing with issues that disrupt the school environment generated by behaviors
that took place outside of the school setting (Trim 2010). Consequently, current
debate in some school districts have incorporated off-campus mobile phone behaviors
violations to the school’s student handbook policy and are open to disciplinary action
by the school.
In a review of issues related to personal electronic communications, Kemerer
(2011) noted that some instances of off-campus behaviors are not protected under
First Amendment rights including threats of violence against faculty or students, and
messages and images advocating drug use at school or school-related activities. For
schools to apply disciplinary action to off-campus violations of personal electronic
devices, the school must establish a linkage between the students misuse of the device
and legitimate interests of the school. While law enforcement practices are evolving
to deal with issues related to sexting, penalties vary from state to state and range
from education counseling programs to charges of felony sexual abuse of a minor
(Lenhart 2009).
Cheating practices have made schools apprehensive to endorsing the use of
mobile phones throughout the school day. Schools and educators have been dealing
with cheating for generations and can be said the problem is as old as test-taking.
Digital cheating goes beyond text messages as users photograph tests to share with
friends, texting of answers during exams, storing of information for later access, or
the utilization the Internet to locate resources or answers during an exam (McGrory
 Educ Inf Technol

2010). Ironically, many students do not see cheating behaviors as a big deal.
Vennochi (2007) described the generational behavior of cheating as a difference in
peer worldview. While stealing a tape from the neighborhood store would have been
unethical in the baby-boom generation, Gen-M and iGen users may not care about
downloading and sharing music that they have not purchased (Millron and Sandoe
2008).
Mobile phone status among peers has also created unhealthy pressures and
addictive behaviors contributing to mental health concerns for the youths. Some
critics report obsessed millenials are not getting enough sleep as they are sleeping
with their phones and staying up late at night texting (McCann 2008). In a report by
the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, “Teenagers who excessively use their cell
phone are more prone to disrupted sleep, restlessness, stress and fatigue” (cited in
McCann 2008, p. 1). Mobile phones are also responsible for brain tumors, migraines,
and lowering sperm count due to radio frequencies. However, hundreds of studies
have inconclusive evidence to support these claims (Cell Phone Safety 2011).
Companies such as the National School Safety and Security Services and many
law enforcement officials, have discouraged school leaders from revising current
policies to open campus use of mobile phones by students due to distractions, along
with increased security concerns (National School Safety and Security Services
2007). Further, mobile phones have been linked to the calling in of bomb threats
untraceable by the school system. A tragic concern has been the potential for mobile
phone line overload generated during an emergency if students rush to make phone
call as this would render emergency response team’s mobile phone systems useless
(National School Safety and Security Services 2007) when they are needed most.

4 Opportunities for using mobile phones

Mobile phone features have also changed the way daily events are captured and tasks
are completed. Video features, for instance, generate face-to-face conferencing via
Internet resources such as Skype (Johnson 2010). Further, cellular phones also allow
the average caller to take pictures, capture video clips to store in albums, post to
websites, and share with family and friends. The widespread use of technology
outside the school walls morphs its way in as it becomes an extension of users’
brains and a part of the users’ everyday lives (Johnson 2010). Further, the human
needs to communicate and share information regardless of the form or tool schools
acknowledge changes over time (Fisher and Frey 2010). As a result, schools may
need to reevaluate the opportunities and potential with mobile phones to supplement
instruction and enhance student learning.
While the invention of the mobile phone has generated numerous opportunities in
the daily lives of users, its use had generated debate centering on phone etiquette,
issues of privacy, ethical and legal use. Public mobile phone etiquette defines ground
rules for respectful use of this device in public situations, social surroundings, and
family settings. Faull (2006) described off-limit areas for mobile phone use in public
settings such as movies, libraries, medical facilities, cemeteries, places of worship,
and generally public transportation areas. However, many users have become down-
right rude in social settings due to the mobile phone obsession.
Educ Inf Technol

A question was raised in a report from Project Tomorrow (2011), “How can mobile
learning enable, engage and empower today’s students as learners?” (p. 5). Lemke
stated (2010), “The responsibility of educators is to ensure that today’s students are
ready to live, learn, work and thrive in this high-tech, global, highly participatory
world” (p. 244). However, good instructional technology does not place emphasis
soley on the technology, but on the process (Saettler 2004). Common teaching
practices such as lectures, assigned readings, study guides, learning games, and
expository papers will still serve as the foundation for learning even with mobile
phone adoption (Rosen 2011). “Like the chalkboards of our school days, the best
technologies fade into the background” and they “weave themselves into the fabric of
everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (Fisher and Frey 2010, p. 223).
As schools struggle with distractions such as cyberbullying, cheating, and
sexting, 46 states have passed anti-bullying law (Bully Police USA 2011).
Even so, disruptive behaviors occurring outside of school make it difficult for schools
to police behaviors due to minimal jurisdiction (Johnson 2010). Most schools also
lack a comprehensive approach to character development and prevention (Richmond
2010). In many school districts, penalties for mobile phone use at school include
warnings, parent pick up, confiscation of mobile phones, after school detention, or
suspension.
Respectful behavior and mobile phone etiquette should also be a topic of conver-
sation for families. Faull (2006) stated, “It’s important to let your children know that
when a person steps out of a social or familial situation to use a mobile phone, they
keep themselves from experiencing the moment . . .” (p. 1). Kolb (2010) suggested
that teachers also regulate the use of mobile phones in the classroom by establishing
when and where students store mobile phone before entering the classroom and /or
when not in use for learning. “Social contracts can be developed as an agreement to
define classrooms expectations for how, when, why, and where mobile phones will be
used in the classroom” (Kolb 2010, p. 13). This also presents the opportunity to talk
with teens about mobile phone etiquette, unwanted distractions such as cyberbully-
ing, cheating, and sexting, and ramifications for violations.
Schools have the legal right to ban mobile phones on school campuses; yet student
non-compliance may compromise the school’s policy effectiveness, contributing to
even more distractions. The mobile phone prohibition is a disservice to today’s
students and educators (Fisher and Frey 2010). Mobile phones have great potential
to enhance teaching and learning (Katz 2005) and facilitate active learning by
enabling students to customize the transfer of and access to information in order to
build on their skills and knowledge and to meet their own educational goals (Sharples
et al. 2007, p. 223). Consequently, administrators will need to support a relaxed
mobile phone policy and open campus use of mobile phones.

5 Implications

According to the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) (2007),

higher-order thinking skills and digital citizenship are critical skills for 21st century
students to learn effectively for a lifetime and to live productively in our emerging
global society. ISTE has identified six performance indicators for students: creativity
 Educ Inf Technol

and innovation, communication and collaboration, research and information flu-

ency, critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making, digital citizenship
and technology operations and concepts. Schools will need to provide instruction
in which students can develop these skills through real-world activities and with
today’s technological devices. However, to benefit learners calls for sound
investments in school technology resources and support for teacher training
(O’Dwyer et al. 2004).
The reality of mobile phones coupled with Web 2.0 resources are just one example
of how savy teachers are using this portable device purposefully in the classroom.
Kolb (2010) described the use of Gabcast, Gcast, and Hipcast to capture audio and
video segments by mobile phone to post to the Internet for classroom projects.
Mobile phone calling and texting features can also be used with free web sites such
as FreeConferencePro and Jott to generate telephone conferences and create speech-
to-text e-mails. Aligned with classrooms curriculums, resources such as these can be
used on field trips, for interviews, on-the-go data collection, and assessment of
learning.
Johnson (2010) provided examples of mobile phone lesson integration to enhance
lectures through the recording of segments, polling of student responses or for note-
taking. Assigned readings would be completed via e-books and on-line curriculums
to be accessed anytime anywhere. Students could also use audio and video features
for expository learning research and digitial history projects as they collect research
on site. While curriculum standards and expected outcomes will serve as the foun-
dation for classroom instruction, creative use of mobile phone technology will
enhance lessons and engage learners, and empower them to take ownership of their
learning.
Faull (2006) suggests establishing “quiet zones” and “phone-free” times for
respectful and responsible mobile phone use. Teens are losing sleep due to their 24/
7 obsession to mobile phone to maintain social networking, conversations and texting
(McCann 2008). Thus, parents can designate times when millenials must shut off
their phones and/or turn them in for the night to model and monitor phone etiquette
(Faull 2006). As Trilling and Fadel (2009) stated:
Though our tech tuned 21st century students are often more fluent in the
use of technology than their parents or teachers, they will always need
guidance in how to best apply these powerful tools to complex learning and
creative tasks. (p. 70).
Appropriate Professional development will also provide teachers with the knowl-
edge and skills to understand and utilize technology with ease (Rudnesky 2006).
Organizations such as the National Association of Secondary School Principals and
American Association for School Administrators have focused their efforts to design
and deliver technology leadership strands to provide administrators with relevant
professional development training and leadership around technology (Ullman 2011).
Mobile phones provide a high degree of mobility, flexibility and independence.
However, only skilled teachers can provide students with the support to use any
instructional technology device in an appropriate way, and as Johnson (2010) argues,
“Savvy teachers will figure out how to change distraction to focus by using students’
personal technologies to improve learning and teaching” (p. 22).
Educ Inf Technol

References

Andersen, E. (2009, August 31). Cell phones in schools: Toys or tools? Retrieved from [Link]
com/lifestyles/article_b851282e-[Link].
Batista, E. (2003). She’s gotta have it: Cell phone. Retrieved from [Link]
lifestyle/news/2003/05/58861.
Black, A. (2010). Gen Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educational Horizons, 88(2), 92–101.
Bully Police USA (2011). North Dakota passes an A++ law. Retrieved from [Link]
nd_law.html.
Cell Phone Safety (2011). Retrieved from [Link]
Coates, 1. (2007). Generational learning styles. River Falls, WI: LERN Books.
[Link] (2008). Statistics thay may shock you! Retrieved from [Link]
com/blog/tag/cell-phone/.
Duranni, A. (2009). Sexting growing trend among teens. Retrieved from [Link]
articles/sexting.
Faull, J. (2006). Teaching kids cell phone etiquette. Retrieved from [Link]
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Preparing students for mastery of 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca &
R. S. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 221–240). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
HarrisInterative (2008). CTIA advocacy. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link].
Hartwell-Walker, M. (2010). Cyberbullying and teen suicide. Retrieved from [Link]
lib/2010/cyberbullying-and-teen-suicide/.
Hinduja, S. P., & Patchin, P. J. (2011). Cyberbulling fact sheet. Retrieved from[Link]
Cyberbullying_Identification_Prevention_Response_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Horrigan, J. B. (2008). Mobile access to data and information. Retrieved from [Link]
press-releases/2008/Mobile-Access-to-Data-and-Information.
International Society for Technology in Education (2007). NETS standards for students 2007. Retrieved
from [Link]
Johnson, D. (2010). Taming the chaos. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(3), 20–23.
Johnson, L. F., Levine, A., Smith, R. S., Haywood, K. (2010). Key emerging technologies for postsec-
ondary education. The Education Digest, 34–38.
Kartz, J. E. (1999). Connections: Social and cultural studies of the telephone in American life. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Katz, J. E. (2005). Mobile phones in educational settings. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), A sense of place: The global
and the local in mobile communication (pp. 305–317). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Kevin Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a
pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(14406), 1–17. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/
14406.
Kemerer, F. (2011). Free speech and privacy dimensions of student misuse of their own electronic communi-
cations devices in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the issues and related law. Retrieved
from [Link]
[Link].
Kolb, L. (2010). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Eugene, OR: International
Society for Technology in Education.
Lemke, C. (2010). Preparing students for mastery of 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S. Brandt (Eds.),
21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 243–269). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Lenart, A., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickurh, K. (2010). Teens and social media. Retrieved from http://
[Link]/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_Report_
Final_with_toplines.pdf.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and sexting. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link].
Lenhart, A. (2010). Cellphones and American adults. Retrieved from [Link]
Reports/2010/PIP_Adults_Cellphones_Report_201.pdf.
McCann, K. (2008). Excessive mobile phone use affects sleep in teens. Retrieved from http://
[Link].
McGrory, K. (2010). Students today cheat by tweet (and texting, cell, internet…). South Florida Sun—
Sentinel, B.2.
 Educ Inf Technol

Millron, V., & Sandoe, K. (2008). The next generation cheating challenge. Innovate: Journal of On-line
Education, 4(6). Retrieved from [Link]
Cheating_Challenge.pdf.
Montano, A. (2010). Should children be allowed to have cell phones in school? Retrieved from http://
[Link].
National Safety Council (2010). National Safety Council warns drivres on the dagenrs of cell phone use
while driving. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link].
Obringer, J. S., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: a national survey. Journal of
Technology Studies, 33(1), 41–47.
O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics
associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12(48).
Parker, D. (2007). Cell phones are allowing citizens to monitor/record behavior of law enforcement
personnel. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link].
Parmar, N. (2010). New ways to track your kids. Retrieved from [Link]
technology/New-Ways-to-Track-Your-Kids/.
PBP Executive Reports. (2009). Dealing with cell phones in school—legally. Malvern, PA: Center for
Education and Employment Law.
Project Tomorrow (2010). Creating our future: Students speak up about their vision of 21st century
learning. Retrieved from [Link]
Project Tomorrow (2011). The new 3 e’s of education enabled, engaged, empowerd: How today’s students
are leveraging emerging technologies for learning. Retrieved from [Link]
pdfs/SU10_3EofEducation(Students).pdf.
Rainer, T. S., & Rainer, J. W. (2010). The millennials: Connecting to America’s largest generation.
Nashville, TN: B and H Publishing Group.
Reardon, M. (2008). Mobile carriers’ see opportunity in teen market. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/8301-12261_7-[Link]?tag=contentMain;contentBody.
Rebore, R. W., & Walmsley, A. L. (2010). Recruiting and retaining teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Richmond, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: How to make it stop. Scholastic Administrator, pp. 38–42.
Rideout, M. V., Foehr, P. U., & Roberts, P. D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-
olds. Menlo Parks, CA: The Kaiser Family Foundation.
Rosen, L. D. (2011). Teaching the iGeneration. Educational Leadership, 10–15.
Rudnesky, F. (2006). Raise the bar for everyone with technology integration. Retrieved from http://
[Link]/Portals/0/Content/[Link].
Saettler, P. (2004). The evoluation of American educational technology. Sacramento, CA: Information Age
Publishing.
National School Safety and Security Services (2007). Cell phones and text messaging in schools. Retrieved
from [Link]
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Shoemaker-Galloway, J. (2007). Social networking defined: Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and other
community websites. Retrieved from [Link]
a22280?template=article_print.cfm.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Trim, D. (2009). Teen cell phone use. Retrieved from [Link]
Trim, D. (2010). What should teaches do about sexting? Retrieved from [Link]
articles/what-should-teachers-do-about-sexting.
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage generation Y. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ullman, E. (2011). School CIO: Follow the leader. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]?id=38512.
Vennochi, J. (2007, September 20). Reading, writing, and cheating. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
[Link]
Woempner, C. (2007). Teaching the next generation. Retrieved from [Link]
PDF/4005PI_GenerationsApril2007.pdf#search=“genera.