TechTalk

following one hyperlink to another. Across the nation,

85% of young adults, 18-29 years of age, own a

smartphone (Pew, 2015). In short, they have an

organic, communal approach to learning that is often

facilitated by PEDs. The aim of our EDvolution®

initiative, then, was to build upon the way in which

students were already learning instead of continuing

to ask them to leave their usual learning habits at the

classroom door.

External expectations.

Institutions do

not exist in a vacuum. Investors, regulators, and

customers are among the external parties that

regularly exert pressure on institutions. In our case,

we were most influenced by the potential employers

of our graduates and the bodies that accredit our

programs.

Potential Employers.

In recent years, the

demand that colleges and universities ensure that

graduates are prepared to successfully transition into

the workforce upon graduation has increased

(Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). School districts

want to hire teachers who are “first-day ready” (NEA,

2013), and a piece of earning that designation is the

ability to use the available technology. Moreover,

administrators are looking for employees who have

skills that are not necessarily dependent upon

technology but that can be enhanced by the use of

PEDs in an educational environment. These include

the ability to work in a team and problem-solving skills

(National Association of Colleges and Employers,

2014). In our own region, several school districts had

already begun one-to-one initiatives, or were

planning for them, when we started discussing the

possibility of doing so ourselves. Not only did these

districts desire teachers who could immediately be

successful in such a wired environment, they wanted

young educators who could provide professional

development to veteran peers who had honed their

skills in the days of paper and pencil.

Accreditors.

Colleges and universities also

have to meet standards set by accreditors, both

institutionally and programmatically. In our case,

the institutional accreditor is the Higher Learning

Commission (HLC). HLC accreditation Criterion 3 cites

technological infrastructure as one of the resources

that an effective institution needs to provide. More

specific to our initiative is the Criterion 5 expectation

that “institutional planning anticipates emerging

factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and

globalization” (Higher Learning Commission, 2015).

At the program level, the relevant accreditor is the

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

(CAEP). CAEP’s standards include the requirement

that “providers ensure that completers model

and apply technology standards as they design,

implement and assess learning experiences to

engage students and improve learning; and enrich

professional practice (Provider Responsibilities

1.5). Fully integrating the use of personal electronic

devices into the curriculum and instruction of the

college seemed a reasonable step toward meeting

this standard.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish,” states an old

axiom, and our goal was to achieve something more

substantial than a wish. We began to identify the

major decisions that would need to be addressed.

Two of the most important centered on choosing a

device and funding the initiative.

Device

One of the most important choices in planning for a

one-to-one initiative is, of course, the decision about

the device that will be used. We considered a variety

of factors in regard to this question, including whether

or not we should limit ourselves to a single device.

Our goal was not to prepare teacher candidates to

teach with any particular device, but, instead, to

empower them to exploit the capabilities of electronic

technologies, generally, in order to increase P-12

student learning. One option, then, was to employ a

“Bring Your Own Device” model, often simply referred

to as BYOD (Microsoft, 2009). Allowing teacher

candidates to interact using whatever devices they

had at their disposal would have reduced the costs

for both the candidates and the university, and it

would have encouraged everyone involved to focus

on activities that could be accomplished on multiple

devices and platforms. However, we also needed to

consider daily use requirements, screen size, storage

capacity, platform (e.g. Apple OS, Android, Windows),

security, capability to interact with the university’s

learning management system, availability of apps,

e-text options, vendor support, and cost. A team that

included end-users, IT personnel, and both college

and university administration ultimately chose a one-

device approach, with Apple’s’ iPad as the device of

choice.

ATTENTION TO KEY DECISIONS

Funding

While cost was a piece of the device discussion,

the method by which the project would be funded

was also a decision unto itself. Not only did we

need to devise a plan for funding the initial expense

of the project, but we also had to consider long-

term sustainability. For example, a large grant to

cover the cost of several hundred iPads would not

have sustained the initiative for more than a few

years. Many institutions make initial investments in

technology without consideration for upgrades, lost

devices, or the need to train new faculty (Mitchell,

2011).

The fact that we planned to provide iPads to the

faculty was of particular relevance to the discussion

of funding. We believed that this was necessary to

encourage greater faculty investment in the project

and to keep from placing an “unfunded mandate”

upon them. Doing so, however, added significantly

to the cost of the project. In addition, ensuring that

faculty devices kept pace with changes in technology

required us to plan for future upgrades. We wanted to

avoid a situation in which faculty were using devices

with less instructional capacity than those in the

hands of student users.

From a cost perspective, the BYOD model was

enticing. However, in addition to providing less

consistency than one-device plans, BYOD also did

not provide any of the financial structure necessary

to maintain the program. In the end, we decided on

a rental program that would allow us to capture the

cost of faculty devices and infrastructure expenses

from a pool created by student rental fees. The cost

to students participating in PED rental plans varies

widely between universities. For example, Winona

State University requires a $485 per semester fee in

exchange for both a tablet and a laptop (Winona State

University, 2015) while Arkansas State University’s

institution-wide one-to-one model requires only a $50

rental fee per semester (Arkansas State University,

2014). At Southeast Missouri State University, iPad

rental costs $200 per semester, which includes

access to college-purchased apps, replacement

insurance, an upgrade every two years, and the

opportunity to purchase the device outright at

graduation for a nominal cost (Southeast Missouri

State University, 2015).

A threat to any change initiative is a reliance on

people who either do not fully understand the

initiative or who have not been adequately prepared

to successfully participate in it. From the start,

EDvolution® had the support of a small core of

enthusiastic individuals; however, such a large

project, involving hundreds of students and faculty,

required a network of support from a variety of

stakeholders.

University Administration

Central administration support was paramount

from the early stages of discussion. The potential

launch was first shared with the president’s

executive council. Justification was based on the

issues cited earlier in this paper. The feedback of

external constituents, such as local school district

administrators, was also key in validating the program

internally. Buy-in was also required by the faculty

senate as our program was being mandated across

multiple units within the institution. There were some

initial questions regarding infringement on academic

freedom by mandating iPad use. Executive staff

support also ensured that the resources of time and

effort would be committed from IT to support the

program.

Faculty

The foundation of faculty investment in this project

was the fact that it grew out of legitimate concerns

generated by that body. As noted above, a substantial

proportion of the faculty cited the integration of

new technology as a college priority. Even so, we

realized that faculty belief in the project would need

to be nurtured. A faculty technology committee was

convened that included both early adopters and

well as new users of educational technology. This

group helped assess potential devices and user

expectations across the varying programs in teacher

education, providing opportunities for faculty input on

DEVELOPMENT OF STAKEHOLDER INVESTMENT