Running head: BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES

BYOD: The Changing Phenomenology of Smart Devices

Craig Chubb
ETEC 511 64a
University of British Columbia
Stephen Petrina
7 November, 2013


BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 2
BYOD: The Changing Phenomenology of Smart Devices
In early 2010 when Apple Inc. arranged an event to unveil the iPad, few could foresee the
influence this nascent technology would have on the educational landscape. Technology pundits
around the world began castigating and haranguing Apple for producing an oversized iPod.
According to Steve Jobs authorized biographer, Walter Isaacson, Jobs felt depressed and
annoyed by all the negative attacks (Dilger, 2011). Today, late 2011, the majority of the negative
commentary has disappeared and the iPad has become one of the best selling digital devices of
all time. While the iPad was not the first tablet to arrive on the market, nor was it the first
smart mobile device created by a company, its release represented a major phenomenological
and epistemological shift in society, particularly around pedagogical theory. Although effective
integration of these devices is still in its infancy and somewhat messy, the educational field from
primary to post-secondary has seen a multifold adoption rate of smart devices by both students
and teachers. The sheer weight and speed at which this paradigmatic shift is taking place is
already causing school districts and post-secondary institutions to take notice and to reconsider
their role as providers of technology. Many institutions during these budget-constrained times
have started to offload traditional hardware support and maintenance responsibilities by
encouraging students to bring your own device into the classroom. While this may appear a
practical consequence of this changing paradigm, smart devices as e-learning tools in the
academic field have not been extensively researched and therefore the pedagogical outcomes are
still unknown (Shin et al., 2011). Although these devices offer unique and exciting educational
possibilities, the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement does present some serious
logistical, socio-economic, and pedagogical challenges. Despite these obstacles, the quick pace
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 3
of adoption and the latest research on smart device use is suggesting that something more
fundamental is taking shape, and that this movement signifies more than just a shift of financial
burdens for educational institutions. The implications of the way people now communicate,
access data, learn, teach, identify with themselves and others, are so profound that the question is
not if smart devices will change educational theory, but more precisely, by how much? This
paper will address these changes as well as examine the new phenomenological relationship that
is taking shape between people and their devicesa process that is ultimately re-orienting
personal and professional relationships, and in turn, is impacting the way in which people both
teach and learn.
The Background of BYOD
The BYOD movement is relatively new and it is one that is quickly gaining traction with
school districts across North America. The device in BYOD refers to a smart mobile digital
device that has virtually the same capabilities (in some cases more) as a desktop and laptop
computer. Smart devices typically come in two forms: the smartphone and the ultra-portable
tablet. Common brands include Apples iOS products, Googles Android-based phones and
tablets, as well as products created by Microsoft and its partnerships. There is no particular
feature set that smart devices need in order to be smart. Features typically include, high
definition video and still cameras, Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware, accelerometers,
magnetometers, WiFi, accelerated 2D and 3D graphics, and very significantly, multi-touch
interfaces. Arguably, the principal feature of these devices are the downloadable applications
which leverage some or all of the devices capabilities. Apps purchased, for example, on
Apples iTunes Store take full advantage of the hardware features. The breadth and creativity of
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 4
the applications is unprecedented, and it is this ecosystem that is largely responsible for
causing this changing phenomenology.
The recent popularity and growth of smart devices is likely attributed to the confluence of
the following three factors: First, the progression and maturity of smart operating systems, such
as Apples iOS and its larger App Store ecosystem creates a user friendly, multi-purpose
environment in which to produce and consume. Second, the stability and ubiquity of WiFi and
cellular/data networks allows for 24/7 data access, which is a necessary ingredient for mass
adoption. Third, the relatively inexpensive hardware offerings, especially under multi-year
contracts, allows for even low income earners to participate in this shift towards smart devices.
This last factor is particularly relevant because in order for the BYOD movement in schools to be
attainable, it first must achieve mass adoption. In the third quarter of 2010, 88.3 million PCs
were sold worldwide. In that same quarter, 80 million smartphones were purchased (White, 2011,
p. 82). More tellingly, the smartphone and tablet market is one of the few that is expanding
during these recessionary times (Xun et al., 2010, p. 460). As shown in Figure 1, it is estimated
that over the next couple of years the smartphone market will grow by 22 percent, and that by the
year 2015 all handsets sold will be smart (Xun et al., 2010, p. 460). Co-incident with this, is
the parallel growth of application downloads
for smart devices. Apples fledgling App
Store, for example, did not take long to reach
the one billion download mark (White, 2011,
p. 82). The aforementioned statistics suggest
that smart devices are here to stay. They are
that a pIcthora oI diHcrcnt modcIs oI ccIIuIar phoncs cxist.
Handscts couId bc runniny divcrsc opcratiny systcms and
posscss diHcrcnt hardwarc capabiIitics. Vorsc yct, rcuscd
handscts may havc worn out pcriphcraIs or bc dcpIoycd with
intcrmittcnt powcr sourccs and conncctivity. 5uch cxtrcmc
hctcroycncity is thc maor chaIIcnyc oI adaptiny soHwarc to
diHcrcnt modcIs oI dcviccs.
^s a pionccriny work Ior dcsiyniny IiIc-cycIc awarc
mobiIc dcviccs, wc aim at soIviny thc abovc probIcms
by makiny conncctions bctwccn thc rcsourcc providcd by
mobiIc dcviccs and dcmandcd by cducationaI appIications,
and proposiny potcntiaI soIutions Ior cxistiny chaIIcnycs.
5pccicaIIy, wc makc thc IoIIowiny contributions in this
papcr:
Vc study aII diHcrcnt typcs oI rcsourcc rcguircmcnts
oI scvcraI popuIar cducationaI appIications Ior mo-
biIc dcviccs, incIudiny IunctionaI, storayc, mcmory,
powcr consumption and nctwork bandwidth rcguirc-
mcnt, showiny that cducation is a yood t Ior smart-
phonc rcusc.
Vc anaIyzc thc IiIctimc oI diIIcrcnt componcnts in
mobiIc dcviccs, dctcrmininy that it is IcasibIc Ior smart-
phoncs to physicaIIy Iast Iony cnouyh to bc uscIuI in a
sccond scttiny.
Vc discuss thc chaIIcnycs and potcntiaI soIutions oI
dcsiyniny IiIc-cycIc awarc ccIIuIar phoncs Ior cduca-
tionaI appIications, raisiny thc tcchnicaI probIcms to
bc soIvcd in ordcr to maximizc thc bcnct oI a sccond
smartphonc usc.
Vc bcyin with a dctaiIcd backyround about thc smartphonc
markct and motivatc mobiIc dcvicc rcusc in 5cction !!.
KcIatcd work is prcscntcd in 5cction !!!. 5cction !V prcscnts
our cxpcrimcntaI sctup. ur cxpcrimcnts oI studyiny cd-
ucationaI appIications on mobiIc dcviccs arc prcscntcd in
5cction V. 5cction V! discusscs thc chaIIcnycs oI IiIccycIc-
awarc dcsiyn oI mobiIc dcviccs and 5cction V!! concIudcs.
!!. 1INA1I^
A. Smcrlphoncs
!n rcccnt ycars, smartphoncs havc bccn onc oI thc Icw
yrowiny markcts in thc cIcctronics industry, cvcn in todays
rcccssionary cconomy. ^ccordiny to !!Ls VorIdwidc Quar-
tcrIy MobiIc Fhonc 1rackcr, vcndors shippcd a totaI oI 4.
miIIion units in thc Iourth guartcr oI Z00v, up Jv.0% Irom
thc samc guartcr a ycar bcIorc. !or thc IuII ycar, vcndors
shippcd a totaI oI 1J4.Z miIIion units in Z00v, up 1.1%
Irom thc 11.4 miIIion units in Z008. !iyurc 1 shows thc
rcccnt and prcdictcd smartphonc markct yrowth Irom Z008
throuyh Z01J 1|. 1hc yurc shows that, ovcr thc ncxt thrcc
ycars, it is cstimatcd that thc scymcnt wiII scc an ovcraII
Z1.J pcrccnt yrowth ratc, to J8J miIIion units in Z01J. !t is
aIso cstimatcd that aImost aII handscts soId wiII bc smart by
thc ycar oI Z01 Z| . 1his data shows that smartphoncs arc
bm0fthDn0 bhlm0nt5
400
350

300


250

200

150

100
50
0
2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E
I[urc I. Wordwdc smar|phonc shpmcn|s Irom Z006 |o Z013
now, and wiII bc cvcn morc in thc Iuturc, a huyc markct,
and thus a yood taryct Ior ccII phonc rcusc.
Howcvcr, thc cnvironmcntaI impact oI thc incrcasiny
numbcr oI mobiIc dcviccs is a prcssiny probIcm. !ocusiny on
thc scmiconductors in thc dcviccs aIonc, thc amount oI toxic
chcmicaIs rcguircd to manuIacturc a scmiconductor is stay-
ycriny 11| . !or a sinyIc !K^M dic oI 1.Z CI, JZ yrams oI
chcmicaIs arc rcguircd. !n thc ycar Z000, thc scmiconductor
industry manuIacturcd a totaI oI iU` CI oI dics,
rcguiriny 1.J miIIion kiIoyrams oI toxic chcmicaIs. ^Iso,
duc to thc incrcasiny numbcr oI scmiconductor dcviccs that
arc manuIacturcd cach ycar, thc disposaI costs oI thcsc scmi-
conductors is Iikcwisc incrcasiny. ^dditionaIIy, bccausc thc
manuIacturiny proccss Ior scmiconductors rcguircs hiyhIy
puricd siIicon, thc cncryy rcguircd to manuIacturc scmi-
conductors is vcry hiyh. ^bout 41 M1 oI cncryy is rcguircd
to manuIacturc a !K^M with a 1.Z CI dic 18|. 1hc
amount oI cncryy rcguircd to manuIacturc scmiconductors
is such that by Z01, 1.J% oI 1apans nationaI cIcctricity
budyct is cxpcctcd to bc consumcd by thc scmiconductor
manuIacturiny industry 11|. ^pproximatcIy o00 kiIoyrams
oI IossiI IucIs arc rcguircd to ycncratc thc cncryy nccdcd
to manuIacturc a sinyIc kiIoyram oI scmiconductor J|.
!urthcrmorc, accordiny to 5cmatcch, Ioundry cncryy con-
sumption is stiII incrcasiny 1Z| .
B. Mohilc Ocviccs in LJucclion
!or a handsct to bc viabIc Ior rcusc, wc assumc that it
has workiny wircIcss communication capabiIity, a diyitaI
camcra and intcrnaI mcmory. ^ handsct can stiII contributc
cvcn aHcr IaiIurcs oI its pcriphcraI componcnts such as its
camcra, IocaI dispIay, or thc uscr intcrIacc, providcd its
wircIcss capabiIitics rcmain IunctionaI. Hcncc wc scc that in
thc currcnt modcI thcrc is siynicant opportunity Ior dcvicc
rcusc. !t now bccomcs a mattcr oI ndiny an appropriatc
appIication Ior rc-commissioniny thcsc dcviccs.
!n J| , Bcrcdc aryucs that thc currcnt ycncration oI ccII
phoncs oHcr opportunitics Ior Icarniny that had prcviousIy
bccn inIcasibIc. Morc and morc succcssIuI cxpcricnccs
duriny rcccnt ycars has aIso shown that appIyiny ccIIuIar
Retrieved from Xun et al, 2010.
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 5
powerful, portable, and highly customizable, which means its uses are virtually limitless in any
aesthetic.
BYOD and e-Learning
e-Learning methods have dramatically changed over the last two decades. Before smart
devices even existed schools used dedicated classroom computer labs to engage their students
with technology. Although dedicated computer labs are still being used today, school WiFi
networks and powerful web browsing capabilities of smart devices may make the labs redundant.
When districts factor this in and the costs associated with lab maintenance (especially the more
recent laptop cart programs), it is not surprising that districts are encouraging students to bring
their own device. However, many questions remain unanswered with respect to the devices
performance as a pedagogical tool. Many educators are cautious about another device being
introduced into the learning environment, causing further technological fragmentation and
confusion. As well, many educators still associate smartphones as simply being cellular phones,
and do not immediately consider or understand the larger possibilities of incorporating them into
the larger classroom aesthetic.
For day-to-day use, smart devices offer useful and practical solutions in education. For
example, a student can search and borrow library books while riding on the morning Skytrain.
They can register for courses, check for any changes in their class schedules, and track their
grades using apps or their web browser whenever and wherever they need them (Shin, Shin,
Choo, & Beom, 2011). As a pedagogical tool, smart devices have virtually endless possibilities.
To name only a few, students can watch recorded lectures, download assignments, use the built-
in cameras for fieldwork, and teachers can do instant poling via SMS, or encourage
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 6
backchannel discussions using Twitter feeds (Yee and Hargis, 2009, p. 10). More
transformative, however, are the potential multimedia capabilities which provide students a
whole new mode of interaction (Xun et al., 2010, p. 460). New sophisticated software like
Augmented Reality or Semantic Web tools (which will be discussed in more detail below) are
already engaging students in new and dynamic ways that are simply made unachievable with
traditional paper-based methods.
Social and Logistical Challenges of BYOD
If educational institutions begin migrating to a BYOD policy and therefore reduce the
number of dedicated computer labs, then access problems will inevitably arise. While perhaps
less of an issue at post-secondary institutions, students in elementary and secondary schools are
not likely to own their own smart devicealthough there are exceptions. A poll done at the start
of the 2011 school year for all incoming grade 8s at Rockridge Secondary School in West
Vancouver, revealed that close to 90 percent of students have some form of smart device.

This is

not surprising considering that Rockridge is situated in a very wealthy area, but what do schools
do when ownership rates are more average? Virginias Hampton City Schools, for instance,
implemented their BYOD program in the 2010-2011 school year, and overcame this dilemma by
purchasing a reserve of smart devices for low income learners (Weinstock, 2010). While a
workaround it is arguable that this solution is sustainable. The district in Virginia will have to
continue supplying hardware and providing the maintenance to these smart devices, which (a)
does not completely solve the offloading problem, and (b) the chances of these devices getting
lost or stolen are that much greater because of their diminutive size. On the contrary, BYOD may

This pole was conducted by the Social Studies department to identify trends at Rockridge.

BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 7

still be the better option for the district despite these challenges because their 1-to-1 laptop
program, which had good results, had to be scrapped because their maintenance costs were not
feasible (Weinstock, 2010).
Researchers in California are working to overcome these socio-economic obstacles by re-
using older, discarded smartphones. Current smartphones on average are discarded every 18
months, which amounts to millions of devices being discarded every year. (Xun et al., 2010, p.
461). On the one hand, the potential for reuse is huge and it may give students access to devices
who otherwise could not afford them. On the other hand, technical challenges need to be
overcome and basic issues of obsolescence. For instance, recycled devices are much less reliable.
Due to the technical limitations of flash memories or SSD disks, such devices will have much
higher failure rates as they age (Xun et al., 2010, p. 466). Additionally, not all smart devices are
created equal and may not have all the necessary hardware features or access to software to make
them effective in a classroom setting. Even ubiquitous and commonly used technologies such as
PDF are not available on all devices. Therefore, continued device hardware and software
heterogeneity will make effective classroom integration a serious challenge for both the teacher
and professor. The underlying concern is that instructors will be forced to simplify lessons and
therefore the curriculum in order to accommodate this heterogeneity. For IT departments,
extreme device heterogeneity can pose serious technical challenges (Xun et al., 2010, p. 460).
Chief Information Officers (CIO) worry of adding another layer of technical support to an
already burdened system and wonder how a consistent lesson can be devised that allows every
make and model of machine to participate (Weinstock, 2010). To make matters worse, not only
do CIOs have to worry about hacking issues with an open virtual environment, they will also
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 8
need to be responsible for maintaining an increasingly sophisticated cloud environment from
which students will interface (Weinstock, 2010). Based on these challenges it remains to be seen
whether or not a BYOD policy will save IT budgets in the long run.
Some teachers and professors have banned smart devices in their classroom, citing it as a
distraction. The concern is that students would rather be checking their Facebook account,
texting their friends, or playing games instead of learning. While professors do consternate over
this in post secondary institutions, some consider it a moot point because the student pays for his
or her tuition. Teachers in public schools worry as well, but device policies in schools are often
inconsistent because of the different levels of technical support and teacher skill. Nonetheless,
how does one encourage device use but discourage device distraction? According to Marc
Prensky, in Teaching Digital Natives, student distraction can be remedied if educators stopped
teaching the old ways, because students want to create using the tools of their time (2010, p.
2-3). If his statements hold true, then this represents the beginning of fundamental pedagogical
change. If proven false, a distraction-free learning environment may be impossible to achieve
and may inevitably become part of the new learning phenomenon.
Some critics believe that smart devices such as iPads are just the latest novelty items
and that their use will have virtually no impact on student learning (Yin, 2011). According to
Larry Cuban, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, there is very little
evidence that kids learn more, faster or better by using these machines (Yin, 2011). Although
Abilene Christian University (ACU) did recently discover from their research that students who
annotated text on their iPads scored 25 percent higher on questions regarding information
transfer than their paper-based peers (Clough, Jones, McAndrew, & Scanlon, 2008), Cubans
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 9
assertions do not acknowledge a more potent realitywhich is the insatiable appetite for smart
devices and the inexorable shift of using them in education. Professors at Chatham University in
Pittsburgh have recently drawn this same conclusion. Despite that tablet PCs foster more
interactivity between professor and pupil, students still overwhelmingly prefer to use the multi-
touch iPad (Wieder, 2011). The new phenomenological experience with touch-based devices
appears to be taking precedent over traditional computing, even if means sacrificing functionality
in the process.
New Pedagogical Realities of BYOD
The presence of ubiquitous immersive digital environments today are essentially
affecting the way in which students want to learn (Martin et al., 2011). Whatever the virtual
environment, be it social networking or networked gaming, students are showing a strong
preference to use multi-touch devices. The latest Horizon Report, which forecasts the most
promising technologies likely to affect education, predicts that smart devices are currently the
most successful example of ubiquitous technologies (Martin et al., 2011). Ubiquitous
computing is based on the concept of invisible computing power that can act and react according
to the users needsthat interfacing with the device is so natural and fluid that much of the
experience resides in the subconscious realm (Martin et al., 2011). Because of this and the
evolution of the web, the one size fits all educational model is being directly challenged. Smart
devices now put the user at the centre of the educational process and this could cause friction
with traditional learning methodologies which have tended to place the teacher and professor at
the centre.
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 10
Augmented Reality and the Semantic Web are notable examples of this digital evolution.
With Augmented Reality, traditional modes of learning are being enhanced to improve
comprehension. Students, for instance, can access content from their device but instead of basic
text, real-time graphics, simulations or 3D models augment the learning process (Martin et al.,
2011). The learning experience may be so comprehensive that face-to-face contact with
instructors or teachers may be obviated. Further, Semantic Web technologies, which are presently
in their infancy, may become so sophisticated that the sheer volume of information on the web
could be tamed for the purpose of extracting meaning from it and to provide personalized
services according to the needs of the user (Martin et al., 2011). While Augmented Reality may
address the issue of content for the learner, the Semantic Web could potentially provide the
context. Although the overall impact of this is still unknown, it is hard to deny its potential
influence on pedagogy. What is more, the speed at which change is taking place also ensures
further pedagogical instability. Many educationists today, for example, believe that the Social
Webwhere knowledge acquisition is driven by social interaction in virtual communitieswill
be the main driver for learning for many years to come. But, according to the 2010 Horizon
Report, the Social Web in education is already on a downward trend and its effectiveness as a
learning tool remains to be seen (Martin et al., 2011). While further instability is to be expected,
and that this may be exasperating for some instructors, it does not appear to be having the same
effect on students.
As long as service quality and content is excellent, students show a strong willingness to
use smart devices in education (Shin et al., 2011). Some university students, for instance, have
designed software applications to fill a void in the educational market (Clough et al., 2008).
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 11
According to Clough et al. (2008), smartphone users demonstrated a high degree of creative
mobility in the way they used their devices and adapted both the device use and their learning
strategies to suit their needs. That students are willing to do this suggests that something more
visceral or perhaps emotional is taking place between user and technology. For example, the
researchers at ACU also discovered in their study that Grad students working in an online
program reported a 95 percent satisfaction rate for online iPad-based coursework (Clough et
al., 2008). What is interesting about the ACU study is not necessarily the former statistic which
showed that scores were higher when using iPads, but rather the latter ACU statistic which
revealed satisfaction levels. Similarly, a different study out of the University of Cincinnati
concluded that there is not a single activity...that could not be carried out just asif not more
efficiently and effectively on an internet-connected desktop or notebook computer as it can on an
iPad (Johnston, 2011). Despite notebooks demonstrating a pedagogical edge over iPads,
students still chose to use them over notebooks because its fundamental appeal was its simple
convenience of the multi-touch interface and outstanding image resolution (Johnston, 2011).
Additionally, students in the study did not always bring their laptops to class because of their size
and weight, but most had their smart devices literally close at hand. Whether it is the tangible and
fluid software response of ones fingers crossing the screen, or simply its portability, an intimacy
seemingly now exists between agent and devicean intimacy that would have earlier been
considered laughable, even absurd.
Smart devices as educational tools have changed the learning aesthetic because access to
information has changed. Traditional temporal or geographic walls have essentially been
destroyed. Although a more democratized learning aesthetic does not necessarily preclude or
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 12
invalidate traditional learning methodologysuffice it to sayadaptations to current
methodology will be required to accommodate this new smart device reality. The university of
Virginia Tech, for example, discovered that smartphones have significant potential for
improving self-directed student learning outside the classroom (White, 2011, p. 82). Clough et
al. (2008) also concluded from their research that smart devices have changed the nature of
learning, that ubiquitous access has created an infinite number of informal learning
opportunities which may challenge traditional systems. Although many definitions exist,
informal learning includes all forms of intentional or tacit learning in which we engage either
individually or collectively without direct reliance on a teacher or externally organized
curriculum (Clough et al., 2008). Informal learning is predominantly contextually driven.
Informal learners with ubiquitous data access will download information on location wherever
and whenever an interest is triggered (Clough et al., 2008). Interestingly, the research also
suggests that learners using smart devices seldom used pre-designed mobile learning
applications; Instead, they deployed their devices in ways that were appropriate to their current
physical and temporal context and learning needs (Clough et al., 2008). When given the option
of using different hardware, even if it meant a more appropriate machine, students preferred
using their own personalized device. Given this new phenomenological and epistemological
mode of informal learning, the degree to which formal learning will be impacted is still largely
unknown (Clough et al., 2008).
Summary
The BYOD movement is still in its infancy and many obstacles still need addressing
before it goes mainstream in education. While students prefer to use multi-touch smart devices in
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 13
a school setting, deficiencies still exist in their application. It is reasonable to suggest that as
smart devices become more sophisticated that many of the technical challenges will eventually
be remedied. As well, while smart devices can be a financial burden, many consider it a
necessary one because the phenomenological advantages justify the costs. Today, one does not
have to look very far to see an individual on the street or in the classroom, solitary or in a group,
with his or her head down interfacing with their device. The new agent-device relationship is so
seductive and the experience subconscious, that interfacing with a piece of hardware has become
as normal as inter-facing with individuals. Perhaps the need to own a portable device which can
access virtually anything or can allow one to communicate with anyone at anytime, speaks to the
genuine need for human beings to be interconnected. Regardless, it is the new digital aesthetic
and it is one that is irreversibly migrating to the classroom. While it is currently difficult to
assess the pedagogical outcome of the BYOD movement, more change and further instability is
inevitable. The classroom or lecture hall itself may need to be re-imagined altogether to
accommodate learning in the 21
st
century. While it is safe to assume that human relationships
will always be central to learning, it is not guaranteed that those relationships will take place in
traditional learning settings. Users will probably never know if Steve Jobs had envisaged this
when he unveiled the iPad early last yearbut whatever the future holdsthe paradigmatic shift
has already taken place, with technology being in the lead car, and pedagogy racing to catch up.
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 14
References
Clough, G., Jones, A., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with PDAs and
smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 359-371.
Dilger, D. E. (2011, October 21). Steve Jobs was annoyed and depressed over initial reaction to
iPad launch. Retrieved from http://www.appleinsider.com/"articles/"11/"10/"21/"
steve_jobs_was_annoyed_and_depressed_over_initial_reaction_to_ipad_launch.html
Johnston, H. B., & Stoll, C. J. (2011, May 17). Its the pedagogy, stupid: Lessons from an iPad
lending program. Magazine eLearn, 2011(5).
Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gill, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011, November). New
technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers &
Education, 57(3), 1893-1906.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives. California: Corwin.
Shin, D.-H., Shin, Y.-J., Choo, H., & Beom, K. (2011, November). Smartphones as smart
pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning devices. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 27(6), 2207-2214.
Weinstock, J. (2010, January). Left to their own devices. T H E Journal, 37(1), 32-36. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/"login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=47599916&site=ehost-live
White, J., & Turner, H. (2011, February). Smartphone computing in the classroom. Pervasive
Computing, IEEE, 10(2), 82-86.
Wieder, B. (2011, March 18). iPads could hinder teaching, professors say. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 57(28), A22-A23.
BYOD: THE CHANGING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMART DEVICES 15
Xun, L., Ortiz, P. J., Browne, J., Franklin, D., Oliver, J. Y., Geyer, R., . . . Chong, F. T. (2010,
August 15). A case for smartphone reuse to augment elementary school education. Green
Computing Conference, 2010 International, IEEE, 459-466.
Yee, K., & Hargis, J. (2009, October). iPhones and smartphones. The Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 10(4), 9-11. Retrieved from http://www.doaj.org/"doaj?
func=abstract&id=455612&recNo=2&toc=1&uiLanguage=en
Yin, S. (2011, January 5). Classrooms experiment with Apple iPad. PC Magazine Online.
Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/"article2/"0,2817,2375205,00.asp