Mobile devices are increasingly upheld as powerful tools for learning and school reform. In this article, we prioritize youth voices to critically examine assumptions about student interest in mobile devices that often drive the incorporation of new technologies into schools. By demonstrating how the very meaning of mobile phones shift as they are institutionalized and by highlighting the divergences between adult and youth assumptions about these devices, we make a significant contribution to policy debates about the role of new digital technologies in the classroom. In addition, we explore challenges such as privacy, freedom, and resource-use that emerge when scaling-upthe use of mobile technologies in the classroom.
AnyonJ. (1981). School class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.
2.
AnyonJ. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AzevedoF. S. (2011). Lines of practice: A practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 147-184.
4.
BarronB. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.
5.
BennettS.MatonK.KervinL. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775-786.
6.
BlumeH. (2013a, August27). LAUSD launches its drive to equip every student with iPads. Los Angeles Times.
7.
BlumeH. (2013b, September25). LAUSD halts home use of iPads after devices hacked. Los Angeles Times.
8.
BlumeH. (2013c, September26). Consequences for lost, stolen LAUSD iPads not yet ‘ hammered out.’Los Angeles Times.
9.
boydd.MarwickA. (2011, September22). Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. Paper presented at the A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128
10.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
11.
CollinsA.HalversonR. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 18-27.
12.
ComptonM.WeinerL. (2008). The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories for resistance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
CubanL. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CubanL.KirkpatrickH.PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834.
17.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
18.
DeweyJ. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Macmillan.
20.
diSessaA. A. (2000). Changing minds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
21.
EynonR.MalmbergL.-E. (2011). A typology of young people’s internet use: Implications for education. Computers & Education, 56, 585-595.
22.
FacerK.FurlongR. (2001). Beyond the myth of the “cyberkid”: Young people at the margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 451-469.
23.
FineM. (2002). Disruptive voices: The possibilities for feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24.
FreyN.FisherD. (2008). Doing the Right Thing with Technology. English Journal97(6), 38-42.
25.
GirouxH. (1987). Introduction: Literacy and the pedagogy of political empowerment. In FreireP.MacedoD. (Eds.), Literacy: Reading the word and the world (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.
26.
GramsciA. (1971). Prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.
27.
GregoryA.SkibaR. J.NogueraP. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin?Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.
28.
HallS. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In MorleyD.ChenK. (Eds.), Stuart hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 25-46). London, England: Routledge.
HessF. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
32.
HidiS.RenningerK. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.
33.
HoweN.StraussW. (2000). Millennials rising: The next greatest generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
34.
ItoM.BaumerS.BittantiM.boydd.CodyR.Herr-StephensonB.. . .TrippL. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
35.
ItoM.OkabeD.MatsudaM. (Eds.). (2005). Personal, portable, pedestriam: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
37.
JenkinsH. (2010). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
38.
KolbL. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
39.
KoppW. (2001). One day, all children…: The unlikely triumph of teach for America and what I learned along the way. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
40.
KrendlK. A.BroihierM. (1991). Student responses to computers: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
41.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.
42.
LankshearC.KnoebelM. (2004, April). From flogging to blogging via wifi: Designing pedagogy for i-mode and smart mobs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
43.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
LipmanP.HurshD. (2007). Renaissance 2010: The reassertion of ruling-class power through neoliberal policies in Chicago. Policy Futures in Education, 5, 160-178.
45.
LooiC. K.SeowP.ZhangB.SoH. J.ChenW.WongL. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 154-169.
46.
McCrackenG. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
47.
MorganD. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
National Education Technology Plan. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education.
49.
PhilipT. M.GarciaA. D. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 300-319.
PrenskyM. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63, 8-13.
52.
PrivateerP. M. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education: Strategic paths taken and not taken. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 60-79.
53.
PughK. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46, 107-121.
54.
RheeM. (2013). Radical: Fighting to put students first. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
55.
RosenL. D.CarrierL. M.CheeverN. A. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
56.
SelwynN. (2006). Exploring the “digital disconnect” between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 31, 5-17.
57.
SoH. J.SeowP.LooiC. K. (2009). Location matters: Leveraging knowledge building with mobile devices and web 2.0 technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 367-382.
58.
TapscottD. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
59.
TurkleS. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books.
60.
ValenciaR.SolórzanoD. (1997). Contemporary deficit thinking. In ValenciaR. (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 160-210). Washington, DC: Routledge Falmer
61.
van den BeemtA.AkkermanS.SimonsP. R. J. (2011). Patterns of interactive media use among contemporary youth. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 103-118.
62.
WadeS. E. (2001). Research on importance and interest: Implications for curriculum development and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 243-261.
63.
WeinerL. (2007). A lethal threat to U.S. Teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 274-286.
64.
ZeichnerK. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544-1552.
