BYOD - How does it fit in an international school 1:1 laptop program?

This blog entry came about after a friend and former colleague posed a simple question to me in an email - what do I think about BYOD? An innocent enough question, coming from a HS principal in the Middle East who is considering starting a 1:1 laptop program. As we have been in discussion again about changing the model of our 1:1 program away from a school-owned model, and BYOD has been brought into the conversation, this little question resulted in a rather long response . . . so I thought I would drop my thoughts on the subject in here as well . . .

The BYOD question is a big one. We have been hashing through this ourselves the last little while as we are considering switching to a student-owned model. In international schools, the BYOD question is very different than in a public school back home though. BYOD is a huge buzzword right now so don't get caught up in the hype, which is clearly focused on schools back home. So let's get into this from an international school's perspective . . .

First of all, schools back home are going BYOD to get technology into the classrooms without incurring very much cost to the school itself. There are still costs however, particularly in infrastructure and connectivity, in-house technical support, and teacher training. These are all very real and important issues which must be in place before any laptop program is launched or it will fail for sure. The machines themselves are just one part of the equation, and you need everything else as well in order to succeed.

Let's talk about the different models for laptop programs first, and then come back to the other considerations such as your faculty, the school programs on offer, and how the laptop program will support learning and be integrated into the classroom.

In my mind, there are 4 models for laptop programs (all with their own advantages and disadvantages):

1) BYOD - all students buy their own machines ranging from laptops to tablets to smart phones, which meet some kind of minimum specifications prescribed by the school. The school would still need to provide wireless connectivity and would have to provide training and support for at least the faculty (assuming that the school provides machines for the faculty). As there is no consistency with the hardware or the software in students hands, what you end up with is a program where computing is an adjunct to what is going on in the classroom. There will be some integration of technology, but it will not be consistent across the school as not everyone has the same tools to work with all of the time. The integration that you do see will be with the faculty who take this on and use Web2 tools which are browser based, free, and multi-platform. The faculty and technology integration in general, end up being the losers here, as it becomes very challenging to support students using a variety of equipment in the classroom, and to do anything constructive with integrating technology when there is no commonality of tools amongst your students.

2) Student-owned model with a strict prescription for the make/model/operating system allowed within the school. With this model, the school regulates exactly what machine the students have, but they are owned by the students and they can buy them anywhere they want. With this kind of model, the school might also have students buy into a school software package/licensing agreement to ensure that everyone has the same software tools available to them, but this scheme might not be appropriate or do-able within the school environment you are in or within the laws/regulations of the country. Some people call this "Bring This Device" as you are specifying exactly what the student needs to have. There will likely be pushback from some parents with this kind of model as some companies/organizations only pay for the tuition of their children, so this would be an extra expense. Such a model is also challenging for a school to implement and regulate - you have to be really firm with this or else it will morph into the regular BYOD model above. Another consideration here is that the school will have little to no hand in the support and warranty/servicing of these machines as they would be coming from various sources/vendors with different warranties, operating systems and overall packages. This can get pretty messy, especially if you are trying to tell a parent that they just bought a new machine which does not fit the school specifications . . . making it very hard to strictly enforce.

3) Student-owned model where students must purchase a complete package of machine plus software through the school. The school can completely regulate what the students have in their hands without actually owning all of the machines. With this kind of model the school can offer machines at reduced prices through volume purchasing and special deals with the vendors, but this is again subject to the laws and regulations of the country that you are in. And there will always be pushback from certain segments of you school population depending on what platform you choose, vendor you work with, and whether people have access to buying the same machines at cheaper prices elsewhere. And there will also be the segment of the population who will not want to incur the extra cost of buying a computer as well - they will want everything included in the tuition costs. The faculty and students are the clear winners here, as technology integration can really take hold and be effective in any classroom. The real difference between this model and the one above is that the school is enforcing the overall package that is bought by the student/parents for use at school and therefore has better control over the software, operating system, support, maintenance and warranty of those machines.

4) School-owned model where the school purchases, provides, maintains and supports all of the machines in the school - this is our current model which we are actively looking to phase out over the next few years. The school has complete control over everything in this case, which is great for the faculty and for the student body in terms of integrating technology in the classroom as everyone has same tools. It's also great for parents as there is no extra costs involved to them - everything is part of the tuition no matter if it is being paid for by a company, personally, or by another organization such as an embassy. The loser here is the school due to the tremendous cost involved with implementing, maintaining and supporting such a program. Combined with a lack of ownership of the machines by the students, this creates an environment which is very expensive to keep working - we are finding our 1:1 program to be hard to sustain in the long run using this model. With changing student populations from year to year, rising costs for repairs/replacements each year over a three year refresh cycle, and completely replacing all of the machines in a school division each year (on a rotation), it all adds up to a lot of fiscal headaches. Strangely enough, the students can be winners or losers in this model, depending on the grade they are in and where their school is with respect to the refresh cycle. My daughter is currently using some old, decrepit netbooks through this year, and then will move to a used PC laptop next year which will be in its last year of usage. After that, she will get a brand new machine (which will likely involve a change a platform) to use for two years, unless the school changes to a student-owned model by that time. So her computing outlook in the school is not very good for the next few years, which does not sit well with me as a parent.

I have worked within a BYOD laptop program at a previous school, which was very difficult on a day-to-day basis. Even as a technology and computer science teacher, it was often frustrating trying to help and support students in my own classes who had different machines (PC laptops, Mac laptops, Tablet-PCs, old machines, new machines, machines on their last legs), difference operating systems (various versions of Windows and Mac OSX, different languages, and even the occasional Unix box) and different software packages (licensed versions of Office, pirated copies of software from the market or downloaded online, and free/trial/alternative versions of various packages). On a day-to-day basis, I found it very difficult to support my students with their projects, and I know that other faculty who were less tech savvy simply gave up trying. These teachers either did not try to integrate technology (because they couldn't) or they assigned projects where the students decided upon the tools that they would use to complete them (some with technology and some without). In both of these cases, technology was not being integrated in these classrooms but was relegated to being an add-on if the student had the right tools available and the knowledge to use them.

My school currently has a school-owned model which is also not ideal. We are looking to move to a student-owned model over the next few years which is somewhere in between #2-3 above - this is all in discussion right now. Our current model is simply not sustainable, economically speaking. Moving away from the school-owned model has been discussed in past years, but has always been knocked back for a variety of reasons, but it might just be the right time to make a change now.

Other considerations that you have to think about that play a major role in this decision include:

1) Money - Who is paying for the program? Included through tuition, a capital levy, or simply budgeted for every year? BYOD and school-owned models are both all about the money - when the school has the money and when it does not. This is why BYOD programs are popular in public schools back home, and seem to be part of the conversations in international schools when they just starting a 1:1 laptop program. It seems to me that international schools which start out with a BYOD program either keep with that model due to financial reasons, or change to a more integration friendly over over time.

2) Full Technology Integration - Are you aiming for a fully integrated program (meaning technology is available for use 24/7 on a 1:1 basis, with coaches/integrators available to support faculty, and with a possible shift away from dedicated technology classes and computer labs)? If you are getting rid of your computer labs and are expecting all teachers and students to use technology in the classroom whenever it is appropriate to enhance teaching and learning, then you need some kind of consistency with the tools on hand. In my opinion, this is where a BYOD program falls down, hard. Not all devices are created equal - I find it very hard to expect teachers to come up with innovative and engaging lessons which integrate technology, where they have to differentiate for the different learning styles and abilities of their students, as well as the myriad of devices that they might have in their hands that day. It can be done, but is it asking too much of the faculty?

3) School Program - Will the platform/machine be expected to support all aspects of a student's course load, or will the school maintain specialized labs and software licenses for these courses/purposes? If you have courses in your school which have special needs for hardware or software as most international schools do, then a BYOD program will have to be supplemented with specialized labs and software licensing schemes to get these tools into the hands of the students, whereas the other models above can somewhat mitigate these factors. For example, we have art, design technology and photography courses which use specialized software and have corresponding hardware requirements for running the software packages. With a BYOD program, all of these courses would either need to be outfitted with all of their own equipment to support them, or the courses would have to be completely overhauled and redesigned. The potential cost of providing the hardware and software for select students in these courses who do not have the right kind of device, constitutes having a bank of school-owned machines, which is contrary to the aims of a BYOD program. So would the school's program and/or curriculum change instead? Another example involves specific software that all students need to use to connect with various pieces of science equipment and probes. With a BYOD program there would be a large segment of every grade who would need to frequently borrow a laptop just to get their lab work done. Having to keep banks of machines on hand for student use is not cost effective in the long run.

4) Purpose - What is the overall purpose of introducing or bringing in a new piece of technology into a classroom, department, team or school? How will it be used in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning? These are the questions that come up in my mind whenever a new piece of technology is proposed, and these questions still apply to a whole 1:1 laptop program initiative. If you want to simply allow technology into the classrooms and see what happens, without great cost to the school, then a BYOD program could be the way to get started. But if you want to move towards a model where technology is ubiquitous and fully integrated into the classroom, then a lot of time, energy, thought and research should be invested beforehand to see which model best fits where your school is now and where it wants to be in the future.

In summary, for international schools where the stakeholders pay a lot of money in tuition, I think that there is a strong expectation for these schools to be on the leading edge with technology and integration (no matter who is paying for it all). Can a BYOD program deliver all of this in an international setting? Not in the long run - the continual frustration of having a huge mixture of devices in the classroom weighs down the faculty and leads to the eventual change in model to either a student-owned or school-owned model. My previous school started out with a hybrid BYOD model and now has firmly moved to a model which is close to #2 above. My current school still has the school-owned model which it started out with about 6-7 years ago, but is now considering changing to some form of a student-owned model. Note that the administration wants to explore moving to a BYOD program, but it is the recommendation of the tech department that we fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

What am I in favour of? A student-owned model which gives them ownership and responsibility of their machine, and allows them to take it with them when they leave the school or graduate. A model which levels the playing field for the student body, placing the same machine with the same set up and software on it, in the hands of the students and the faculty. I am in favour of a laptop program which supports teaching and learning, without placing a huge onus on the faculty. And finally, I am for placing technology in the hands of students which is ubiquitous and transformative to their learning.

A Day in the Life of a Student - TechXcursion to 1984

So I have been thinking about hosting a "tech blackout" or "unplugged" day in the HS for some time now.  For some, hearing the Technology Coach & Coordinator talking about not using any technology for a day at school seems out of place, strange, or warped.  Our current generation of teenagers that I see every day at school are very tech savvy, engaged and wired all of the time.  My school is awash with iPhones, iPods, tablets of varying lineage and laptops galore.  As a 1:1 laptop school, I expect there to be an abundance of technology in the students hands, everyday.  But as a technology department, we have never prescribed that technology/laptops need to be used all of the time, 24/7.  Technology should be used only where and when appropriate, where it enhances teaching and learning.

The problem that I see in our hallways, classrooms and around campus is our students' preoccupation with their technology - at all times of the day.  We have students who feel the urge to be connected so strongly, that they have turned on their mobile notifications for their favourite social networking sites, so they receive a constant stream of buzzing text messages of updates from their thousands of "friends".  Being an international school, most of these "digital friends" are spread around the world - this must mean that the buzzing updates go on day and night.  How is this level of connectedness healthy or happy?  Do any of us really need to be online and networked all of the time?

Mindfulness is a new buzzword that is floating around our school right now.  In the spirit of being more mindful, and connecting to the cyber-citizenry section of the ISTE NETS-S standards (which we have adopted for our student body), I think an "unplugged" day challenge for faculty and students would be an interesting way for students to reflect on their connected lives.  In our Digital Footprint student seminar, when I talk with HS students about how they perceive themselves and how deeply their need to be connected is, most seem to downplay how dependent they really are.  They either do not want to admit their addictions to themselves, or they just do not see it at all (it's all normal to them).  So how to raise student awareness, mindfulness and self-reflection?  I propose going back to 1984 for a day in the life of a student.

Remember these?  Who still has one lurking at home in a drawer?

What I have been formulating is '84 on 8/4 - having a full day at school where the theme is 1984, on April 8th (Europe goes by D/M format for dates).  In keeping with the 1984 theme, we could restrict participants from using any technology that did not exist in '84.  This would mean no laptops, no mobile phones, no mp3 players, no digital projectors, no interactive whiteboards and no internet.  Students (and faculty) could still use a landline phone, could watch tv when they get home, listen to music on a Walkman (if they can find one ;-) or could actually have a face-to-face conversation with a real person/friend/teacher/family member or pick up a book to read.  There will always be a contingent of staff and students who will object to such an exercise - how to engage and involve them all?  Do we make this an optional "challenge" or try to impose it on the school?  I don't actually know, as this is a complex problem.  There will always be some who will argue that their use of technology that particular day is unavoidable and crucial to their teaching or learning.  Perhaps involving everyone goes into the "too hard box" for now.  Perhaps getting the first try at such an event off of the ground as a staff/student challenge would be the best way forward . . . start small and grow it from there.  And I think the theme aspect of it is important for students.  I'm already working with student council on the idea and it can be turned into a spirit dress-up day and/or be connected with curriculum as well - what high school doesn't study Orwell, right?

Have you ever hosted an "unplugged" day or something like it?  What were your motivations for staging such an event?  What was kind of pushback was there from staff and/or students?  How did it work out?  What were the good and bad outcomes from the day?  Most importantly, would you do it again?

Going on Walkabout - A TechXcursion in your own School

Classroom walkthroughs are a popular and current tool for administrators to gauge what is going on in their school, but I have found walkthroughs to be a simple alternative to observational meetings as a Tech Coach.  I have divided up the HS into four different areas or zones, and I am intending on conducting a Walkthrough/Check-in of each area about once a week.  I have always been interested in getting into more of the HS classrooms on a regular basis, other than when I am meeting with a teacher, perhaps observing their class on their request, co-teaching a class, or delivering some kind of tech-related lesson to students.  Getting into HS classes can be especially challenging due to the usual reasons of time (many teachers equate a classroom visit to an unwanted disruption, or they go the other way to "put on a special tech show" for that one class), compartmentalization in the HS (a few teachers have a "closed-door" policy and do not want to be disturbed, ever), and fear of observation (some teachers perceive classroom visits as part of the teacher evaluation process).

I have only done a few of these walkabouts to date, but I think I have cracked the nut - finally!  I am branding my school walkabouts as Walkthrough/Check-ins to make them informal, short, strictly observational if there is a lesson going on, and teacher focussed if they are in a prep period or if they can stop and talk for a minute while I am there.  By making this less about the observation of their class (and the use/integration of technology in their lesson) and more about checking-in with them for how things are going (with the use/integration of technology in their classes), I am seeing an openness and appreciation that I have not seen before.

The "closed-door" teacher became much more welcoming and open when I was simply checking-in with them, rather than observing them.  The simple act of going to them to see how things are going seemed to validate that whatever level the integration and use of technology in their class is currently at, that it's alright.  I was coming to see them, to see how I can make things better, how I can help them "just in time" with something that they are working on, or tease out that niggling problem or question which they have never bothered to ask before or have forgotten about.  To me, a short check-in visit in a teacher's own space really helped to build currency between us.

Early days in our HS 1:1 program

For the "do not disturb" and the "am I being evaluated?" teachers, the unscheduled, informal and brief nature of the Walkthrough/Check-in has served to relieve the anxiety of the more formal (and lengthy) classroom observation.  I got a more realistic view into what is going on in their classroom with technology, had a chance to talk with students about what they are doing, and took the opportunity (if it presented itself) to check-in with the teacher on how things are going.  I find that the informal nature of the walkthrough, combined with the teacher-centric focus of the check-in, has helped to reduce "evaluation anxiety".  A good friend and mentor once told me that what I am best at (as a tech person) is "keeping it real".  I think the Walkthrough/Check-in model does just that, and gets rid of the anxiety and facade of classroom observations.

By conducting a short walkthrough of a section of the school, I can cover 1/4 of the HS faculty in 30-60 minutes.  I take notes along the way, and typically find a number of issues/problems/questions to further investigate, follow-up with and hopefully resolve.  Walkthrough-Check-ins also allow me to talk with students and see firsthand how technology is being used to enhance their learning.  I frequently hear about projects that particular teachers are doing with particular grades or classes.  But what about the other classes?  What about when their class is not working on a big or special project?  How is technology enhancing teaching and learning during those times?  What about the class or the teacher that I do not typically hear about?  What is happening in their class?  If I can conduct these Walkthrough/Check-ins on a regular basis over the school year, I will hopefully get some concrete answers to these questions.

Have you ever thought about doing walkthroughs?  Maybe you should!  If you are already going on walkabout, then how has it helped with being a tech coach or integrator?

On Computing Karma

Have you ever thought about your karma with respect to technology? The CK part of SNiCK stands for Computing Karma. Just what was I thinking?! If you think about all of the computer/tech using people that you know (and there should be a lot of them), you can probably pick out a few who fall into 2 special categories: those who can break/freeze/crash a computer just by looking at it sideways, and those who seemingly can fix a problem just by their mere presence in the room. You know this second kind of person - they are the one that you call or go to when you have that problem that just will not go away, and the problems disappears as soon as you show it to them (often without even touching the machine ;-). You might also know of someone who always has a problem with their machine, no matter the time or place (and for a special few, the problems are not only confined to computers but spread to the tv, mobile phone and the gps in the car - anything that has lights and goes "bing"). A select few of these people seem to have a powerful "field of disruption" around them which can mess with various technologies from a distance. Do you know who I'm talking about?

Is your Computing Karma more Yin or Yang?
On/Off?  0/1?

To me, these two small groups of people represent the far ends of the Computing Karma spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in between, but most people know someone who falls into one of these groups. These two groups often have some almost magical qualities about them. I think the word karma aptly describes the magical/mystical aura that surrounds these people. As a tech coach, some people place me firmly on the "fixing/healing" end of the spectrum. I have often encountered situations where the tech problem at hand gets solved or fixed or just plain disappears, just by walking into a room. I quite like the challenge of these kind of problems, as trying to debug what is actually going on without any evidence makes it fun, but that's just the programmer geek part of me speaking.

Furthermore, as a tech coach, I often encounter faculty members who fall closer to the other end of the spectrum, in the break/freeze/crash technology group. Yes, they really do exist, sometimes in large numbers within schools. Working with these staff members is also challenging and fun, as the problems that they bring to me are always unique and complex. Contrary to popular belief, I do not resent working with these kind of people - I embrace it. As the person in charge of our 1:1 laptop program, learning systems and faculty tech PD, the people who have a knack for breaking things often inadvertently find major issues with systems or hardware that were previously undiscovered, or they magically get to the root of an underlying systems problem without even knowing it. In the programming world, they try to make systems and computer programs "bullet-proof" and hire people to test and break software before releasing it. So I have a built in testing group like this, who have an inherent knack for breaking things, to rely on to find the bugs and problems with any new system that we rollout.


Can you change your computing karma? Is it set for life? Personally, I think you can, or else your karma changes from device to device as you try new technologies. I have worked with who could never understand one device (say a particular brand or type of mobile phone), but once they found one that clicks with them, it transformed how they used and interacted with the device. So maybe their Computing Karma changed with the device. Maybe the device has its own Computing Karma and it all depends on how well the two intersect/collide/enmesh with one another like the polarities of two magnets placed alongside each other - attraction vs repulsion.

So what does this have to do with tech coaching? The faculty that I work with all have varying levels of attraction and repulsion with the technology tools and systems that are in their classroom, in their hands, and used within the school. When I am working with a faculty member, whether it is in some kind of prescribed tech training or in a more collaborative coaching role, getting a read on the staff member's comfort levels and affinity with the tech tool is an important clue in how to approach the training session, at what level to offers the training, and what the end goal of the session should be. Getting a quick measure of someone's current Computing Karma with respect to the tech tool or system on hand, can make a real difference in the success of a training session. Sometimes, it's more about finding the right tool for the job which matches the person, then it is about fitting the person to the tool.

Where do you think your Computing Karma falls on the spectrum? What tech tools/systems do you have an affinity for?

Why an EdTechBlog? And why SNiCK in the first place?

Why an EdTechBlog?

Well, this is a slightly complicated question for me to answer.  The first reason behind starting a blog is that my Tech Director (Bill MacKenty) really thinks it would be a good idea for me to increase my online presence and share what I have learned over the years with a wider audience.  I have never been one to stand up on a soapbox and tell people what they should do or what they should know.  I guess that I am just a little modest that way - perhaps it's the Canadian way, eh?  I can blame Bill for pushing/encouraging me to start blogging . . . so here I am . . . kicking and screaming?!?

Practising some self-reflection

The second reason comes from my readings about blogging and reflecting on my own professional practice. One tidbit of advice that I have read numerous times is that you should start a blog for yourself and not for others.  This started me thinking and reconsidering a number of times about whether I should start my own blog or not.  After a few starts and stops and starts all over again, here I am.  I am really writing this for myself as a reflection on my career in educational technology, what I have learned along the way, the things that I am currently working on at my school, and the things that I want to work on in the future.  If someone else chooses to read it and can learn something from me, well, that's the whole point about sharing isn't it?

As I write this, I am in the middle of my 23rd year as an educator, with the last 14 of them living and working overseas with my family in tow.  I started out teaching computer science and IT classes (with a few math classes thrown in) back in Vancouver, Canada.  After 9 years working in the same public high school, we decided to go overseas and teach internationally.  I never thought at the time that I would spend more time living/working overseas than I had already in Canada, but we are well past that point and intend "to stay out" for a lot longer as well.  Over the years, I have taught tech in one form or another from grades 6-12, within the Canadian, American, Turkish, IGCSE, IB MYP, IB DP and AP programs.  Nowadays, I no longer have any classes and instead have the challenging role of Tech Coach which means working with the entire HS faculty and student body as well as managing our 1:1 Laptop Program.  As I have had a leadership/coach/mentor/integrator role in some capacity at every school that I have worked in, Bill has been suggesting that I start a blog to write down my thoughts, ideas, suggestions, questions without answers, and other musings.  So I guess that this is for him in some way as well as for myself - thanks Bill for pushing me . . . over the cliff and into the Blogosphere!

And Why SNiCK?

Well, there's the obvious point that this is my name (my first initial is "S" where I go by my middle name Nick), and sadly, I could not use Nick.Kwan for my account as it was taken a long time ago.  So I went with SNick.Kwan for my account and everything else has followed suit.

So I got to thinking that I needed a catchy title for this blog and I could not come up with anything that really stuck in my mind.  Then I started playing with the letters in my name and how I could pull some kind of meaning out of them, which led to the formula shown above.  Being the geek that I am, I kinda like it . . . what do you think?

Addendum

I recently changed the name of this blog from SNiCK-EdTechBlog to what you see now . . . SNiCK-TechXcursion as I was never very comfortable with the EdTech part.  I wanted something catchier like Lucy Gray's "High Techpectations".  After searching around and finding numerous websites, blogs and  even companies who are using Techpectations, Techpedite, Techsploration and Techceptional, I finally settled on TechXcursions.  I think this merged-word describes my world travels in international schools, as well as my exploration and work in educational technology.  If you are reading this, I hope you find something enlightening, interesting or at least humorous . . . and remember this is all Bill's fault!