Deployment of Mobile Devices in Classrooms

Michael Serfin
Vince Moore
The University of North Texas
United States
MichaelSerfin@my.unt.edu
VinceMoore@my.unt.edu
Since the turn of the century the educational arena has seen an influx of digital devices, with high
hopes they have the ability to help students learn more effectively. However, do these devices live
up to their imagined potential, or is their effectiveness overvalued and under delivered? The
purpose of this paper is to research current methods of deployment for digital devices in the
classroom in order to ascertain what deployment strategies work, why they work, and how they
work. What are the similarities between perceived successful deployments, and conversely why do
many technology launches fail to make a meaningful impact? Finally, is there information about
the effectiveness of such deployments, or is the wealth of data all perceptions of its effectiveness
rather than hard data points such as test scores, grades, and other such statistics. Hopefully by
gaining this knowledge, educators will be better prepared to utilize tablets, smartphones, as well as
other devices in their classrooms successfully.

Introduction
Smartphones and tablets have grown in popularity over the past 15 years and become a fixture in our daily
lives. Since the year 2000, mobile technology has enjoyed steady progress, and these devices have become
commonplace in many different areas (Chen, Yen, & Chen, 2009). Along with this massive growth and utilization
of mobile technology, people have started to use these devices in different ways, from texting, blogging, and instant
messaging programs to Internet queries, gaming, and even educational applications. History shows us that the
educational arena is no stranger to the incorporation of various forms of innovation (Thompson, 2013). However,
many times these efforts are wasted, or end in disappointment due to failure to research the technology properly.
The newest device or concept is frequently rushed into the educational marketplace without the time or commitment
to research it further. Often, this leads to a deficiency in understanding as to how the technology can help and a lack
of dedication and support from the teachers themselves (Cuban, 2001). To avoid the same results, educators must
resist the urge to throw tablets and smartphones into their respective classrooms without first understanding if these
digital devices are effective learning tools. If they are, they must then figure out why they are effective and how that
same success can be duplicated in their own classroom.
This paper delves into research regarding the implementation of digital devices in the classroom. The
research reviewed in this paper presents a view of tablets and smartphones in the educational environment and what
lead to the success or failure of the implementation. Also, many of the papers contain surveys regarding the
perception of digital devices. This is important because the way tablets and smartphones are viewed by
administrators, teachers, and students can have an impact upon the acceptance of the devices as well (Davis, 1989).
By looking into this research, this paper attempts to detect similarities where utilization of digital devices has been
successful. By understanding what those similarities are, educators can be better prepared when moving forward
with their own implementations. Also, by studying different approaches to tablet and smartphone use in the
classroom, it will be possible to identify the limitations of these devices. This knowledge will allow educators to not
only better understand what the capabilities of digital devices are, but also allow them to enhance the chances of
successfully implementing these devices in their respective educational environments.

Literature Review
Many of the studies found and analyzed show digital devices enjoy a high approval rating among teachers
and students when asked about their use in the access of information. Many found it very easy to access information

quickly and easily with tablets and smartphones. For instance, Gikas and Grant (2013) conducted interviews at the
group and individual level regarding the utilization of digital devices in a classroom environment. Gikas and Grant
discussed the collaborative and social characteristics of tablets and smartphones, and what the students beliefs were
as to the advantages of the devices. What they found was that students felt the devices provided a distinct advantage
in how they were able to access information quickly and easily. Not only was information more accessible, but
response times from other students as well as their teachers seemed improved as well. Jones, Alston, and Gayle
(2013) found comparable results, the students in their study also felt that tablets and smartphone enhanced their
ability to retrieve information rapidly. Also, they described it being easier to find the information they were looking
for, again a similar response to Gikas and Grant (2013).
Further delving into the perception students had of the response time of teachers in the Gikas and Grant
(2013) study, a teacher named Fons (2010) found that his own behavior was modified in this same matter. Fons
describes his experience in the following passage: The ease of adding or editing my comments made it more likely
that students would receive more detailed comments. I feel the quality and quantity of feedback for students
improved while using the tablets (pp. 482). This demonstrates that student were not the only entities to perceive
this benefit, but a teacher also found that tablets enhanced his ability to quickly catalogue information and
disseminate it to students. Not only was this process faster, but he felt it was better quality and clarity than he
previously provided without the benefit of digital devices.
While the previous cited papers were focused upon higher learning environments, the trend of quick and
easy access to information continues at the K-12 level as well. In fact, even within a preschool environment.
Teachers within a study conducted by Parnell and Bartlett (2012) found having smartphones allowed them to
catalogue events quickly without the need to step away from the experience. They could also take pictures of the
child during the event, expressing that they felt it could provide additional context in the future. All of this
information is catalogued and readily available to be searched and accessed at any time. Also, it provided the ability
to share these experiences with parents over other technologies such as blogs, or sharable note taking software.
Another example of how digital devices can augment the experience for students is provided by Wallace
and Witus (2013). They found that tablets, in this case iPads, were extremely useful in a course setting which varied
between classroom and field work. This study also had a somewhat unique nature to it, as it was an outreach
program for K-12 educators. So, not only were these students, but also experienced educators in their own right.
The student-teachers who participated within the Earth Science class were able to utilize the iPads for data collection
in the field, while also allowing them to share that information quickly and easily for more involved discussion with
other students and teachers. Wallace and Witus (2013) note how this changed the dynamic from previous courses:
Participants had access to the information that they collected during the day in the field that they could instantly
share with others, and this led to meaningful field discussions that typically had not occurred in past courses. In past
courses, there was always a time delay in disseminating data collected from the field to the participants. (pp. 391)
This again demonstrates the perception that digital devices are a powerful tool in the classroom, uniquely positioned
due to their nature of being easily portable and having the ability to be virtually connected to different types of
digital networks.
Building upon the theme of rapid and easy access to information being helpful to students, Kang (2012)
provides a study looking at Organic Chemistry students and their perceptions into using smartphones as a
replacement for traditional flashcards. In this survey, Kang found that the students had very positive experiences
with the smartphones. However, one statement stood out amongst the rest with regards to the mobility of these
devices: Mobile phone based learning application [sic] are valuable because I always have my Mobile phone with
me but I do not always have my computer, texts, notes, and other learning methodologies with me. (Kang, 2012).
This quote hammers home the concept that these devices can provide students with an asset with which to carry their
work with them at all times, due its size and almost commonplace usage as a communications device in todays
society.
One could also note from the previously discussed studies, that the use of technological advances in
education does not have to be limited to technological or scientific classroom environments. Willie Miller (2012)
found that students at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis generally enjoyed using iPads in a
multitude of different course types. These classrooms included Tourism Management, Communication Studies,
Physical Education, Music, Organizational Leadership, Journalism, and English. In each case, the students felt the
iPad was responsible for giving them a new way to look at information regarding the course topic, and overall
enhanced the classroom experience. Much to the same degree Jones et al. (2013) described how a tablet can have
value due to the multitude of different learning possibilities it presents. They recommend incorporating tablets into
agricultural coursework, which again bolsters the argument that digital devices have a place among all types of
curricula and not just those which study digital technology.

As earlier stated, Miller (2012) found that students felt the iPad gave them different ways of looking at
data. Another study (Herro, Kiger, & Owens, 2013) looked at different avenues for employing smartphones and
tablets in education. Within it, they described several ways of incorporating digital devices in the classroom
environment. These included the use of eBooks, augmented reality game creation, use in teacher preparatory
courses, and app driven learning. Again, this exhibits the flexibility tablets and smartphones provide.
Administrators, teachers, and students are not limited to predetermined modalities of instruction with these devices,
they offer a multitude of learning possibilities which be built upon over time. All of these studies together show the
perceived power and flexibility of tablets and smartphones in the educational landscape, seemingly regardless of
subject matter altogether.
This leads to a different set of questions regarding digital devices in the classroom, one regarding the
perception students have of technology before they ever use them for instruction. Bulloch (2013) tackled this very
subject, and found that most students would be very accepting of tablet and smartphone use should they be asked to
utilize them for educational purposes. Bulloch also found that 98% of college students own a smartphone,
demonstrating how they have become such a massive part of students everyday lives. Due to the fact that most
students have already purchased or otherwise own these devices, coupled with an amicable sentiment towards using
them within the educational space, one can postulate that there would be little pushback regarding their deployment
in instruction. However, this fact may lead to schools dismissing the needs for adequate training regarding tablet
and smartphone use. Kaur and Slimp (2013) surveyed 270 community colleges in their report, and found most did
not provide training for students on tablets or smartphones whatsoever. They discovered the students were left to
fend for themselves regarding using the devices properly, as it was assumed they possessed the prior knowledge
necessary to operate them. Rather than training, most community colleges implemented a help desk in order to
assist students when the need arose. It should be noted that although students were not offered proper training for
digital devices, the teachers usually received formal guidance and training (Kaur & Slimp, 2013). This makes it
clear that administrators, and educators in general, view smartphones and tablets as being widely accepted by the
younger generation of students. So much so that training is often overlooked for this group, because the students are
often perceived as being better prepared for their incorporation into the classroom than even the teachers themselves
are.
Kim, Chun, & Lee (2014) go further into the adoption patterns of students regarding mobile technology.
What they found was a vast difference in the adoption rates between college students and the U.S. national average,
with college students adopting at a much higher degree. They state that due to these findings they can support the
notion that rapid technology adoption is something indicative of the younger generation, and not as prevalent with
older individuals. One reason given for the young generations level of acceptance was peer manipulation. Not so
much on a cognitive level, but more the subliminal effect it had upon members of the same groups. It was found
that if a student was part of a circle which contained many other smartphone adopters, the chances of that individual
becoming an adopter themselves was greatly elevated (Kim et al., 2014). This is a key finding regarding
smartphones and tablets in the classroom, as it further extends the notion of just how socially connected these
devices have become. Just as we see how mobile devices can have a perceived effect on collaborative efforts, we
also now understand how a social environment can have an effect on their usage altogether. This view is further
advanced by Lee (2014), who states All of our models confirmed the strong impact of normative peer influence on
a college students adoption of a smartphone. This result indicates that a college student behaves in a way that
conforms to the expectations of her friends and that creates a favorable image among her friends (pp. 316). Due to
these studies, the impact of peer influence on students in regards to smartphone adoption should not be ignored, but
to the contrary, seems like a valid influence to be considered when deploying devices into the classroom.
Certain studies also displayed definite issues regarding mobile technology deployments. First off,
frustration was shown to be a common occurrence in teachers a well as students when devices were not behaving as
intended, or had otherwise become inoperative (Fons, 2010; Gikas & Grant, 2013; Miller, 2012; Kang, 2012). In
large deployments, or initiatives across multiple school districts, this needs to be acknowledged as a dedicated
hardware support structure will need to be established. Another issue described by Taotao, Wenxin, and Shengquan
(2013), which is the unintended consequences such a drastic change in technology can create. They state: when
a new technology is introduced into a new educational system, many innovations may be brought about to other
elements in the whole system. If the innovations and the impacts they have brought cannot be treated well, the future
of the new technology's existence in the educational system would not be optimistic. (pp. 68) This cannot be
overstated, as Cheon, Lee, Crooks, and Song (2012), Fried (2008), and Suki & Suki (2011) all found similar results
when implementations of mobile devices occurred in the classroom.
As Taotao et al., (2013) described above, if these advancements and the impact they have cannot be
contained within the realm of educational development, there is a very real likelihood the initiative will fail. One

such distraction is shown by Miller (2012), where a student explained: I found myself want[ing] to play with the
apps or search the web rather than focus on course material (pp. 58). So we see here one of the very reasons
mobile devices present such an enticing alternative to teachers and students, their flexibility, can also be a detriment
if not addressed properly. Many students described being enticed to use their smartphones or tablets for
entertainment purposes, or just mere distraction. Whether or not they would have found other ways to distract
themselves is something these studies did not expand upon, which could be a possible topic for another study.
It should also be noted that Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) found performance expectancy, or
the theory that one will behave in a way commensurate to their belief in how the technology will perform, is the
strongest indicator of that persons intentions. In other words, how a teacher expects the technology to behave is
how they will act towards it. If they believe mobile devices do not present a valuable alternative, they very likely
will not conduct themselves in a way conducive to a successful implementation. This is a key finding, because as
Gikas and Grant (2013) noted, Still, it is important to note that the participants who volunteered to share their
experiences did so because they felt the mobile devices did impact their learning another story would have
emerged if participants who did not see the benefits of the devices were captured. (pp. 25) This captures the
essence of what Venkatesh et al. (2003) described; people within the Gikas and Grant study (2013) were
forthcoming with their experiences because they saw the benefits of the technology. It is unlikely that every teacher
in a school system will have the same view of tablets and smartphones as those presented in these studies, and one
must ask if the results would be different if much of the population regarded mobile technology as frivolous before
starting. This underscores the need to understand the perceptions of teachers regarding mobile technology before
any school wide roll out begins, because negative views can have a large impact on enacting these devices for use in
coursework.

Discussion
Gikas and Grant (2013), Miller (2012), and Kang (2012) all display a common perception among the
participants in regards to mobile technology in the classroom. All seemed to agree that tablets and smartphones
allowed quick and easy access to information for coursework purposes, and that this benefit lead to better outcomes
and improved quality. This perception must be kept as paramount in any digital device implementation, as it seems
to be a very common theme in successful deployments. When students can access pertinent information quickly and
easily, it will lead to a better perception and acceptance of the program. Since this is believed to create a highly
perceived value, it can be argued that the converse could lead to increasingly negative opinions of mobile
technology as learning devices. This is not a huge concern among students though, because as seen in Bulloch
(2013), Kim et al. (2014), and Lee (2014) students are already more accepting of mobile technology use in their
daily lives. A dissatisfaction regarding quicker access to information would likely not lead to abandoning the
technology because it has already been incorporated into their lives in many other ways.
Although students may not abandon digital devices for this reason, teachers are generally not as supportive
or used to tablets and smartphones to begin with (Kaur & Slimp, 2013). Because of this, they most likely will have
a much lower threshold for dismissal of their use in the classroom. Cuban (1990) demonstrated a reoccurring theme
amongst technology upgrades throughout history, and if teachers fail to see the ease of use or rapid access to data
that they would otherwise not experience, it is probable they will begin to question the usefulness of the devices as
learning tools. In a way, this harkens back to Venkatesh et al. (2003) and their assertion that people will behave
towards something as they expect it to perform, or performance expectancy. Since there would be no real way for
the teachers to completely valuate mobile technology via test scores in the short term, much of their opinion on the
devices could hinge upon seeing perceived value on how tablets and smartphones can enhance their own work, as
well as making their job easier.
As described by Fons (2010) and Parnell and Bartlett (2012), mobile technology can have a huge impact
upon how the teacher can interact with their students. Both studies found a high perception of how the technology
was valuable because it made the job of the educator easier, and also lead to a belief that their resulting work was
enhanced. This seems like an avenue that needs more research, where the focus of the study is not upon the students
perceptions of value, but rather targeted towards whether or not teachers feel the technology makes their work easier
to accomplish. This paper therefore postulates that a high acceptance rate can be achieved if much of the focus of
implementation is placed upon how the devices can help teachers, not students. Students do not need to be
convinced of the technology, and they are not the one in control of their usage. The end results are immaterial in
this respect, if it is believed mobile technology will lead to higher test scores, or enhanced learning in general. The

primary focus of implementation should be with making those responsible for their utilization see how valuable they
can be to them.
Other common themes across research is the dissatisfaction and frustration that builds when devices are
malfunctioning, or when distraction sets in due to their characteristic flexibility. Teachers need to be prepared
beforehand for these pitfalls, by training how to handle these situations and setting up support structures preceding
deployment to mitigate any issues. Again, any hindrance to the smooth classroom introduction, or continuity of
workflow, can lead to teachers abandoning the initiative because it is too disruptive. This leads back to the previous
point of focusing the effort on teachers, not students. Any way to demonstrate tablets and smartphones are there to
help them accomplish their goals, and not hinder them or cause frustration, is believed to be an optimal way of
safeguarding deployment from failure. This can be accomplished by the aforementioned training, making sure
teachers understand how to use the devices before they arrive in the classroom. Also, showing educators there will
be support in the respect of a contracted help desk, private technical support personnel, or even extra devices on
hand for backup could go a long way in displaying to teachers the commitment administrators have to their success
and work/life balance. In this way, presenting the idea that the administration is committed to helping the teachers is
vitally important.
It should be said that while it is believed mobile technology will lead to higher test scores or enhanced
learning in general, the truth of the matter is that research on this subject is extremely limited. No evidence could be
found to back up this claim, and in this respect the research is limited to increasing the chances of positive
perception and adoption of tablets and smartphones in the classroom. Therefore, this research does not allow any
argument to be made concerning the positive or negative effects on the learning capabilities of such devices in this
arena. Much more research needs to be conducted, and over time it is believed that more hard data will be available
on the subject. Perhaps this is due to mobile devices lack of support in the classroom until 2010, when the iPad was
introduced and subsequently gained massive popularity in the corporate and educational arenas (Nguyen, Barton, &
Nguyen, 2014).

Conclusion
Tablet and smartphone use in the classroom holds great possibilities for administrators, teachers, and
students alike. However, more study needs to be done regarding their true effectiveness in a classroom
environment. Due to the dearth of actionable research regarding the impact these devices have upon student
outcomes, focus must be turned to the positive effect they can bring to teachers. Showcasing the ability to lessen a
teachers workload and make their job easier or more pleasant can create an atmosphere of greater adoption into the
educational space. This, in turn, could lead to a wealth of information regarding the true nature of how these mobile
devices can enhance students learning potential. The more opportunities present themselves to research device
effectiveness, the greater the prospective knowledgebase can be. One way to accomplish this is to take all possible
steps to insure teachers are comfortable adopting tablets and smartphones, and that they see them as a benefit to
themselves which can not only optimize their teaching, but their time management and workload as well.
Perception can only take the research so far, and as stated much more needs to be done in the area of
effectiveness of tablets and smartphones in education. To get there, we must ensure that there are teachers who will
accept the devices into their classrooms willingly. A widespread effort is needed to make certain the constant
reform cycles (Cuban, 1990) of the past are not repeated. It cannot be said enough, for effective research and
adoption of tablets and smartphones in the classroom environment, teachers must see the advantages to such devices
for them personally and not just the students. Anything less would most likely be met with general defensiveness
and skepticism.

References
Bulloch, S. (2013). An examination of the hybrid implementation of customized smartphone and tablet applications
with traditional classroom instruction. International Journal of Computer Applications, 75(2), 2430.
Chen, J., Yen, D., & Chen, K. (2009). The acceptance and diffusion of the innovative smart phone use. Information
and Management, 46, 241248.

Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education
based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59, 10541064.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
Cuban, L. (2001). Why bad reforms wont give us good schools. The American Prospect, 12(1), 46-48.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Fons, J. (2010). A year without paper: tablet computers in the classroom. The Physics Teacher, 48, 481-483.
Fried, B. C. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906914.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning
with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 1826.
Herro, D., Kiger, D., & Owens, C. (2013). Mobile technology: case-based suggestions for classroom integration and
teacher educators. Journal Of Digital Learning In Teacher Education (International Society For Technology In
Education), 30(1), 30-40.
Jones, J., Alston, A., & Gayle, G. (2013). An analysis of a tablet PC enhanced learning enviornment in the
agricultural sciences. NACTA Journal, 57(3),
Kang, C. (2012, April). Mobile computing device as tools for college student education: a case on flashcards
application. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Digital Image Processing, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Kaur, A., & Slimp, M. (2013) Technology review: tablet usage in the college setting - a survey. Community College
Enterprise, 19(2), 79-82.
Kim, D., Chun, H., & Lee, H. (2014). Determining the factors that influence college students adoption of
smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 578588.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). Examining the factors that influence early adopters smartphone adoption: The case of college
students. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 308-318.
Miller, W. (2012). iTeaching and learning. Library Technology Reports, 48(8), 5459.
Nguyen, L., Barton, S., & Nguyen, L. (2014). iPads in higher educationhype and hope. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(1), 190-203.
Parnell, W., & Bartlett, J. (2012). iDocument. YC: Young Children, 67(3), 50-58.
Suki, N. M. & Suki, N. M. (2011). Using mobile device for learning: from students perspective. US-China
Education Review, A 1, 4453.
Taotao, L., Wenxin, L., & Shengquan, Y. (2013). A study of the tablet computer's application in K-12 schools in
China. International Journal Of Education & Development Using Information & Communication Technology, 9(3),
61-70.
Thompson, A. D. (2013). Technology in teacher education: major milestones in our history. Journal Of Digital
Learning In Teacher Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 29(4), 109.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425478

Wallace, D., & Witus, A. (2013). Integrating iPad technology in earth science K12 outreach courses: field and
classroom applications. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 385-395.