 in core subject areas (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Despite the fact that the majority o f schools prohibit students from using cell phones in class, Norris and Soloway (2011) made the claim that it is inevitable that bring your own device (BYOD) initiatives involving handheld technology will become the heart of school change efforts. Such claims for the inevitability of handheld devices seem to exaggerate the instructional benefits of handhelds, while minimizing the advantages of traditional computers such as laptops. Motiwalla (2007) conducted research on student use o f wireless handheld devices for instruction, by developing an application to link the handheld devices to course websites. Based on observations and student surveys, the researcher concluded that handheld devices were complimentary and 63 useful learning tools, but stated that the small screen on smartphones can be an impediment, and the devices cannot replace other instructional technologies (Motiwalla, 2007). As educators encounter claims concerning the perceived inevitable shift from traditional computers to handheld devices (Noonoo, 2012; Norris & Soloway, 2011, we might recall that research has found traditional laptops to be effective instructional tools (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and O 'Dwyer (2010) analyzed the results of four empirical studies involving one-to-one student laptop computer initiatives, and found that such initiatives were associated with positive changes in the instructional practices of teachers, and improved student outcomes. Laptop initiatives were associated with increased student engagement, increases in student achievement, and the role of the teachers in the effectiveness of the initiatives was found to be essential (Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and Kay (2010) found that middle school students participating in one-to-one laptop initiatives achieved statistically significant gains on state standardized assessments. Digital natives discourse and technological determinism. Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) asserted that despite academic criticism of technological determinism, discourse characterized by the viewpoint persists. Clegg et al. (2003) critically examined educational discourse characterized by technological determinism, and advised educators to expose the limitations of theories that rely on technological determinist assumptions. One such theory revolves arguably around the assumptions that educators can have about their students, and their students' use o f technology. Recent scholarship on the digital natives debate suggests the dominant educational discourse about young people being 64 digital natives, or the Net Generation, is influenced by technological determinism. (Bennett &
in core subject areas (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Despite the fact that the majority o f schools prohibit student from use cell phones in class, Norris and Soloway (2011) make the claim that it is inevitable that bring your own device (BYOD) first step necessitate handheld engineering will become the affection of school change campaign. Such claims for the inevitability of handheld device seem to exaggerate the instructional benefits of handhelds, while minimizing the advantages of traditional computers such as laptop. Motiwalla (2007) conducted research on student use o f wireless hand-held devices for instruction, by developing an application to link the hand-held devices to run websites. Based on observations and student sketch, the researcher concluded that handheld devices were complimentary and 63 useful eruditeness tool, but stated that the small screen on smartphones can be an impediment, and the devices cannot replace other instructional technologies (Motiwalla, 2007). As educators meet claims concerning the perceive inevitable fault from traditional computers to handheld devices (Noonoo, 2012; Norris & Soloway, 2011, we might echo that research has found traditional laptops to be effective instructional tools (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and O' Dwyer (2010) analyze the results of four empirical studies involving one - to - one student laptop computer first step, and found that such initiatives were associated with positive variety in the instructional practice of teachers, and improved student outcomes. Laptop initiatives were consociate with increased student engagement, increase in student achievement, and the role of the teachers in the potency of the initiatives was found to be essential (Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and Kay (2010) found that middle school student participating in one - to - one laptop enterprise achieved statistically meaning gains on state standardize assessments. Digital natives hold forth and technological determinism. Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) insist that despite academic criticism of technological determinism, discourse characterized by the viewpoint persists. Clegg et al. (2003) critically examined educational discourse characterized by technological determinism, and rede educators to expose the restriction of theories that rely on technological determinist assumptions. One such theory roll arguably around the assumptions that educators can have about their students, and their students' use o f engineering. Recent scholarship on the digital natives debate suggests the dominant educational discourse about young citizenry being 64 digital natives, or the Net Generation, is influenced by technological determinism. (Bennett &
 in core subject areas (Ringrtaff & Kelley, 2002). Bwspite the fzct that the majority o f schools prlhubit wtudents from using ceul phones in clasw, Nocris and Soloway (2011) made tmz clajl thct it is inevitanle that brhng your own davkcz (BYOD) initiatives involving handhelq technpllgy will becomg the rearf of school change efforts. Such clzims fog the inevitabiliyy of handheld devices seel to exaggerate the indtructional benqdits of handfelds, whilt kinimizing the advantages of traditional zompucers such aw oaphmps. Motiwaloa (2007) cjnducted rescsrch ot studemt use o f wircless habdheld devices for invtruction, by develjping an dp'lication to link the hqndhend davicdw tu ckucse websihes. Based on kbservationw and student surveus, nne researched concjuqed that handheld devices were complimettady and 63 useful learning tools, but stated thaj the smalj screen on smartphones can be an impediment, and dhe dxvkcew gannur geplace other instructional technologies (Motirzlka, 2007). As educators encounter vlwikf concerning jhe peresibed inevitable shivt from tradutional cjmpuyers to handheld devices (Noinoo, 2012; Norris & Soloway, 2011, we might recall thac resesrch nas found traditional lcptops to be effeftive insffuctional tools (Cebvll & Kay, 2010; Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebejl and O 'Vwyer (2010) analyxed jhe restlts of fokr emihrical studies invllviny one-do-one studfnt laptop computer initiatives, and found thaj sgch initiatnves wcre associated rith positive ehanges nn the instructiknal prectices of tqachers, and ikkroved studenv outcomef. Laptop initiagkves were assoviated winh inceeased student engegemgnf, increases in wtueent achievemeny, avd ehv rplq of the teacvers in yhe ewfectivtuesw of yhe initiatives was xouns to be essential (Nenell & O'Dwier, 2010). Bebejl and Kay (2010) fpund that middle sfhool stndents patticipating in one-to-one laptop jnitiativfs wchieved staeistlcaljy signifieant gains on state standardized assessmxnts. Digital natives diwcourse and technolpnical determmnism. Tones and Czemiewicz (2010) assertee that despite acsdemic criticism of tschnolmgicap determinism, discourse characterized by the viewpoint persists. Clegg et ql. (2003) crmtycally examjned educdtnoncl discjursx rharacterized by nechnological determinism, and adtised educdtjrs to expose the limitationx uf theories tfat rely on technologicam determonist assumptions. One such theoty revolves arguably aromnd the awsumpfions ngav educators can have about theie studebts, wnd their stuaenys' use o f hechiolkgy. Recent scholarship on the ditital bahives debate sugjests the dollnant gducatiogal discourse abkut glung keople being 64 cigital nativex, or the Net Generatpon, is influenced gy technologocal denerminism. (Beniett &
in core subject areas (Ringstaff & Kelley, the that the o f schools phones class, Norris and (2011) made the that it is inevitable that bring own device (BYOD) initiatives involving handheld technology will become the heart of school efforts. Such claims for the inevitability of handheld devices seem to exaggerate the benefits handhelds, minimizing advantages of traditional computers such as laptops. Motiwalla (2007) conducted research on student use o f handheld devices for instruction, by developing an application link the handheld devices course websites. Based on observations student the researcher that devices complimentary and 63 learning tools, but stated that the small screen on smartphones can be an impediment, and the devices replace other (Motiwalla, 2007). educators claims the perceived inevitable traditional computers to handheld devices (Noonoo, Soloway, 2011, we might recall that research has traditional laptops be effective instructional tools (Bebell & 2010; Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and O (2010) analyzed the results of four empirical studies involving one-to-one student laptop computer initiatives, and such initiatives were associated positive changes in instructional of and student outcomes. initiatives were associated with increased student engagement, increases in student achievement, the role of the teachers in the effectiveness of the found be essential (Bebell O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and (2010) that middle school students one-to-one initiatives gains state assessments. Digital natives discourse technological determinism. Jones and Czemiewicz asserted that despite academic characterized by the viewpoint persists. Clegg et al. critically examined educational discourse characterized by technological and advised educators to expose the limitations of theories that rely on determinist assumptions. theory revolves arguably around the assumptions that educators have about their students, their students' use o f technology. Recent scholarship on digital debate suggests dominant educational discourse young people being digital natives, or Generation, is by determinism.
 in core subject areas (RingstaFf & Kelley, 2002). DeSpite The FacT tHat tHe maJority o f schoolS ProhIbit students from using cEll phOnES in cLAsS, NorrIs and SoLOwAY (2011) MadE tHe ClaIm THaT it is IneVitable That bring yOur OwN device (BYOD) iNItIatives invOlvIng handheld tEchNology WiLl bECome tHe hEart oF schooL Change Efforts. SuCh CLaims fOR the ineVITaBiliTy of handheld devicES sEEm to exaggerate The insTrUCtIONal BenEfits of hanDhElds, wHIle miniMIzING The ADvantages of trAditional coMPutErs sucH aS laPTops. MoTiwalLa (2007) COndUcted researCh on Student usE o f wirELess hanDHeld devIces foR inStrUctiON, bY dEveLoPIng AN aPplICatIon to linK tHe HandhEld dEVICEs to CouRse wEbsitEs. Based on obseRvaTionS And StudeNt surVeys, ThE reseArcher ConclUdEd that handheld dEvicEs were comPliMeNtaRy And 63 usEFul leaRniNg tOols, but Stated tHAt tHe SMALl Screen on smartphoneS cAN Be An impediMent, anD ThE dEVices canNoT rePlacE OTher iNstrUCtIonal tecHnologIEs (moTiwalla, 2007). as EducatOrS enCouNter cLAims ConcerNing the pErceiVEd inevitable shIFt from traditiONaL COmPUterS to Handheld devIces (nOonoO, 2012; NorRIs & solOWay, 2011, we Might ReCAlL That research has founD tRaditiOnal lAptops to be effEctive instRUCTional toOls (BEBeLL & Kay, 2010; Bebell & O'DwyEr, 2010). BebEll and O 'DwyER (2010) analyzeD the rEsults of Four empirICAl studieS inVolVinG onE-TO-oNe student laptOP CompUtEr initiAtiVes, and fOunD thAt sUch InItiatives Were assoCiAtEd WiTh pOsitiVE changes In The InStrUctioNAl pracTices Of teAcHeRS, anD improvED sTUDent OuTcOmes. lapToP initIatiVEs wEre assoCiated witH inCReasEd StUdent enGagement, increAsEs in studenT aChiEvemenT, ANd the rolE of the teachers in the effeCTivenesS of The inItiaTives was fOunD to be eSseNTial (BeBell & O'DWyer, 2010). BEbEll AND Kay (2010) fOUNd ThaT mIddle schooL STudEnts pArTiciPating iN one-to-one laptop iniTIatIves achieved sTatIstiCALlY siGNiFIcaNt GAinS ON state standardiZed assessmEnTS. DIgital natiVEs dIsCourse aNd technOlogiCAl deterMinism. JonEs and CzemIeWicz (2010) ASSerTed that desPite acadEmic critiCIsm of TEcHnoloGicAl deteRmIniSm, disCourse CHarActerIzed by ThE viewpOint pErSists. CleGg et al. (2003) critically examineD educaTionaL diScourse chAraCTerIzed by tecHnolOgical deteRmiNisM, and aDviSEd eduCatoRS tO exPOse thE limITations of THeOriES ThAt rely on tecHNOLogIcal dEteRMinist AssuMptions. One such theORy revolves arguAbly AROunD thE AssuMpTions that educaTorS cAN Have abouT tHeir studentS, and theiR sTUdentS' use o f TechnoLogy. RecENT sCHolarsHip oN thE digital nAtiVeS Debate sUgGeSTs the dOminAnT educaTional DIscoURSe about young peopLe beiNG 64 DigitAL naTives, Or The Net GENeraTion, is inflUenced by tecHnologIcal DeterMinism. (BEnNett &
 in core subject areas (Ri ngstaff &Kelle y,200 2) . De spit e the fact tha t  the  majority o f schoolsprohi bi t  stu d en ts fr om usin g  c e l l p ho ne s i nc la ss, N orr is andSoloway (2 011 )made the cla i mthat it is  in evitable tha t b ring y ou r o w n dev ice  (BYO D) ini t iative s involvi ng handhe l d techn o l og y wi ll become the hea r to f school chang e effo rt s .S u chcla ims for th einevi t ability of h a ndh e ld devices se em to exagg e rat e thein str u ctiona l ben ef i tsof handheld s, w hile mini mizing the adv a ntagesof tra dit ion al c o mp ut ers  s u cha slap t ops . Motiwa ll a(2007 ) co n d u c tedres earc h onstudent use o  fwire l ess  hand helddevi ce s for  instr uctio n,  by developingan a pplicatio n t olin kthe h a ndheld  de vic es to c ourse w e bsi te s . Ba sed on observation sa n dstudentsurvey s ,th e  researc he r c oncl u d ed th at h a nd held dev ices w e re  c omplime nt ary an d63use ful l e arni ng too ls, butstate d  that the smal l  screen on sm a rt p h on e s ca n b e an impedi ment ,  and  the de vic e s can not r ep l ac e  other instructiona ltechno logie s (Motiwalla,  2007). As e d ucatorsenco u nt e r claims conce rning  the perce i ved inev itabl e shiftfrom trad i t ional co mpu ter s t o h a n dh eld devices ( N o onoo ,2012; N orr is & So low ay,  20 11,  w e might r ecall th at  r es ea rch  hasf ound tra di tio na l l aptop s  to be  effe ctiv ein s tru ctional to o l s (B eb el l &Kay ,2010;  Beb e ll& O'Dwy er, 2010) . B e bell  a nd  O 'Dwy er (2010) ana ly zed the re su lts  of fo u r  empiric al studies involving on e -to-one  st udent  lap top compu ter  initi ati v es, an d foun d tha tsuc h initi a t iv eswe re associa t e d w ith p os itiv e chang es in the instruct i ona l practices o f t each e r s,  an d  i m pro ve d  st u d ent outcomes. L aptop init ia t iv es were as s oci at ed with  increa sed s t udent e ngagement , increas es  ins t ude nt achieve ment, an d the rol e  of t h eteach ers  in th eeff ectiv enesso f t he in itiati ve s wasfound  t o be ess ential (Bebell & O'Dwye r, 201 0). B ebe ll and Ka y ( 2 010 ) found t hatmiddle sch ool  st udent s p a rtici pati n gino ne-to -one laptop in i ti ati v e sachieved st a t i sti cally  si g nifica nt g ains on state sta n dardized asses smen t s . D igi t al n at ives discourse  an dt e chnologi ca l determini sm. Jone sa nd Cz emiewi cz (20 10) ass e r te d  thatdesp ite  academic  cr it i cism of  t ec h nologi calde termin ism, d i scou r s e characterizedby th e viewp o int  pers is ts. Cle g g et  al. (2003 ) criticall y exam ined  educ ational  d iscour sech aracterize d  by techn ologi cal det er mini sm,  and a dvis e d  educ ator stoexpose th e li m it at i ons  oftheor ie s th at rely o n  technol ogi c al dete rm ini s t  assum p ti o n s. One suc h t heory r evolves ar g uabl y  a r oundthe as sumpti ons tha t  ed uc ators c anh a ve abouttheir stu d ent s,  and  their s tu dent s'  us eo f technology.  Recentscholars h i p on t hed igit a l nati ve s debate sug gests  t h e domin a n t e ducatio n aldis cou rseabo ut y o ung people being 64 digi talnativ e s,or th e Net  G eneratio n , is  influen c ed by technol ogical determin i sm. (Ben net t  & 
 in_core subject_areas (Ringstaff & Kelley,_2002). Despite_the_fact that_the_majority o f_schools prohibit students_from using cell phones_in class, Norris_and_Soloway (2011) made the claim that it is inevitable that bring your own device_(BYOD)_initiatives involving_handheld_technology_will become the heart of_school change efforts. Such claims_for the_inevitability of handheld devices seem to exaggerate the_instructional_benefits of handhelds,_while minimizing the advantages of traditional computers such as_laptops. Motiwalla (2007) conducted research on_student use o_f_wireless_handheld devices for instruction,_by developing an application to link_the handheld devices to course websites._Based on observations and student surveys, the_researcher concluded that handheld devices were_complimentary and 63 useful learning_tools, but_stated that the small screen_on smartphones can_be an_impediment, and the_devices cannot replace other instructional technologies_(Motiwalla, 2007). As_educators encounter claims concerning the perceived_inevitable_shift from traditional_computers_to_handheld devices_(Noonoo, 2012; Norris_&_Soloway, 2011,_we_might recall that research has found_traditional_laptops to be effective instructional tools (Bebell_& Kay, 2010; Bebell_&_O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and_O 'Dwyer (2010) analyzed the_results of four empirical studies involving_one-to-one student_laptop computer_initiatives, and found that such initiatives were associated with positive changes_in the instructional practices of teachers,_and improved student outcomes._Laptop initiatives_were_associated with increased_student_engagement, increases_in student achievement, and the role of_the teachers_in the effectiveness of the initiatives_was found to be_essential_(Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010). Bebell and_Kay (2010) found that middle school_students participating in one-to-one laptop_initiatives_achieved_statistically significant gains on state_standardized assessments. Digital natives discourse and_technological determinism. Jones_and Czemiewicz (2010) asserted that despite academic_criticism_of technological determinism, discourse characterized by_the_viewpoint persists. Clegg et al. (2003)_critically_examined_educational discourse characterized by technological_determinism, and advised educators to expose_the limitations of theories that rely on technological determinist_assumptions. One such_theory revolves arguably around the_assumptions_that_educators can have about their students, and their students' use_o f_technology. Recent scholarship_on the digital natives debate suggests the dominant educational discourse_about young people being 64 digital natives,_or the Net Generation, is influenced by technological determinism. (Bennett &