A Device Free Lunch Break program: An experiment to promote a balanced used of electronic devices in Middle Secondary International schools.

Three years prior to the current study, the school had introduced a ‘bring your own device’ programme. It was decided to mandate one type of device for all early MYP students, so that training could be best focused and planning would be easier for teachers (Erbes, Lesky, & Myers, 2016; Young 2016). Students attending years 4 and 5 do the MYP programme, and DP students were required to bring a compatible laptop device. The emphasis regarding the use of the iPads in the BYOD programme was solely on the purpose of supporting learning. Mindful of the need to provide additional support for academic staff, MYP teachers were also provided with an iPad each and in addition enrolled in training programmes to ensure familiarity with the devices, which would support the classroom learning imparted by them (Fabian, Topping, & Barron, 2018; Fenton, 2017; Howlett et al., 2019; Kontkanen et al., 2017). The BYOD programme was also supported by employing an Ed. Tech Coordinator and by providing time to personnel from each faculty in order to offer training and subject specific insight into the use of the devices in the classroom.

Despite the planning and support, the introduction of these devices in schools has resulted in numerous debates about how students can achieve a balanced approach to using their device at school, thus resulting in a healthy classroom environment that would be conducive to their optimal learning productivity, see McCoy (2013; 2016), Retalis et al, (2018), Kirkpatrick et al (2018), Langford, Narayan, and Von Glahn (2016); Howlett and Waemusa, (2019) and Fabian, Topping, and Barron (2018). These concerns led to the leadership of the school to plan the introduction of a DFLB programme in August 2017. As in the implementation of any innovative programme, there was a degree of consumer resistance, see Ram and Sheth (2015), and so it was decided to adopt a DFLB programme in order to evaluate the plan. We applied a marketing approach to introduce the DFLB programme to the various stakeholders of a school community: students, parents/guardians and staff. This managerial approach was also used in the study of teacher efficacy in private schools, see Soto and Rojas (2019).

The implementation of the DFLB pilot programme was introduced at the start of the school year in September 2017 in the Middle Years section of a large International School. The implementation methodology that we employed was supported by a market research approach (Garcia, 2014; Levin and Rubin, 1998; Ram and Sheth, 1989), which is typically used when promoting a new product to a wide range of stakeholders. In this case, we included students, parents/guardians and teaching staff. It was hoped that by getting feedback from each of these groups, the programme could be implemented most effectively. It was decided that there would be a pilot phase of the ‘product’ (the DFLB programme) lasting for 2 months. The team developed a questionnaire, and gathered the perceptions of the stakeholders (‘consumers’, including students, staff and parents/guardians) before and after the ‘pilot’ phase using the same questionnaire (a Google Form completed anonymously), which consisted of several items based on ‘statements’ (see Table 1), where the perceptions of the consumers for each statement were recorded using a Likert Scale of 1 (strongly against) to 5 (strongly in favour).

In order to evaluate whether or not the introduction of the DFLB programme was successful, both the pre- and post-questionnaires were made identical so that a comparison of the responses would provide evidence of any impact the implementation of the pilot might have had upon the opinions of the various stakeholder groups. The average values for individual statements were collected from each questionnaire before and after the pilot phase. The questionnaires also included open-ended questions to ensure that recipients had the opportunity to provide additional ideas and suggestions for the DFLB programme.

The questionnaire was divided into three main categories that are summarised in Table 1. In the first category, we had identified a number of activities that the students engaged in during lunch using their mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets or laptops. Those activities are: school work, games with friends or on their own, watching videos and using social media. In the second category, we considered the potential benefits to the students that are expected to arise from having a device free lunch, such as: to speak with classmates, more enjoyable lunch, physical activity, relaxing lunch, better balance in device use, taking part in other activities or just be outside on the fresh air. Finally, the questionnaire included items on possible negative effects that students having a device free lunch may have to be face, such as: being bored, not keeping in contact with friends online, not keeping levels in games, not having fun playing with devices and only doing school work in designated areas. The restriction of device use during lunch break was especially important to the students who recognised that since the implementation of the BYOD programme in the school there had been an increase in the need for students to complete digital elements of work, usually on their iPads. Therefore, the students would often use their iPad to complete their class work and additional home-learning tasks.

At the time of the study, during the school year 2017–2018, there were approximately 1,200 students, 180 secondary teachers and 450 families. In this study, only stakeholders connected with the specific year groups were provided with questionnaires that were 545, and their 450 families. The students bring their own iPad, and each staff member who is teaching in their class has an iPad supplied by the school institution. Students forming part of our school community hail from more than 100 different nationalities. The majority of our students were familiar with the use of an iPad in lessons before joining the school.

The student respondents completed the online Google form under staff supervision during mentor periods at school. Technical issues did prevent some students from completing the form. Teaching staff received the Google form via their school email. Support staff were not included as respondents in this study. The Google form questionnaire was also sent to the main email addresses of the respective families of the relevant students, assuming that only one family member might be expected to answer it.

The numbers and response rates before and after the pilot phase of the DFL project were as follows: Students 545: 455 (84%) before and 465 (85%) after; staff 180: 100 (55%) before and 75 (42%) after; parents/guardians: 450: 221 (49%) before and 175 (35%) after.

It was evident from the overwhelmingly positive responses to the open-ended part of the questionnaire from parents/guardians and staff that the introduction of a pilot test of the DFLB programme was widely welcomed. The introduction of the DFLB programme was also widely supported by students.

The methodology that was adopted for a statistical analysis of the results involved two tools used in marketing research: the ‘snake map’ (Garcia, 2014) seen in Figure 1 and a paired t-test at a level of significance of 5% (Table 5) (Levin and Rubin, 1998).

Figure 1

Figure 1 presents a comparison of the average values for staff, parents/guardians and students before and after the pilot phase of the DFLB programme. In the first column, the various statements included in the Likert items from the questionnaire are shown. In columns 2, 3 and 4 are the results for parents and guardians, teaching staff and students, respectively. The responses from before the DFLB programme are plotted with a blue line whilst the responses collected after the implementation of the DFLB programme are plotted with a red line. These graphs represent the average values for opinions of each stakeholder group before and after the pilot phase of the DFLB programme. The questionnaire explored three areas of interest. First, the perceived importance of how devices were used during lunch time; second, the potential benefits that introducing a device free lunch would provide; and third, the potential negative effects of introducing a DFLB programme.

Table 5 shows the results of a statistical exploration of the effects of the pilot phase of the DFLB programme on the opinions of the staff, parents/guardians and students by using a paired t-test at a level of significance of 5% (Levin and Rubin, 1998). It can be seen that the pilot phase of the DFLB programme did not have any statistically significant impact on the responses of each group of respondents obtained before and after the pilot phase was implemented. In other words, the pilot phase of the programme had no influence upon the nature of the responses of each group in the initial and follow up surveys. This finding may be due to the relatively short duration of the pilot phase of the DFLB programme, which was too short to result in significant change of the opinions of each of the respondent groups.

Table 6 shows the instances where the t-paired test showed a significant change for each of the three stakeholders in responses gathered before and after the pilot phase of the DFLB programme. These differences were evident in each of the questionnaire sections but varied between the respondent groups.

The results presented in Figure 1 from parents and guardians show the differences in the perceived importance of the use of the electronic devices before and after the pilot phase. Column 2 shows that, among parents, these differences were particularly evident in relation to the use of devices for gaming with friends, watching videos and using social media. Column 3 shows that among teachers, it was identified that using the device for school work would be an important activity for the students, and that the post introduction questionnaire showed this type of activity was perceived as important by a larger group of respondents. In Column 4, student responses also showed an increase in the opinion that the use of the iPad for school work was important.

The snake map indicates that the parents and guardians perceive the iPad as mainly a device the students use for leisure activities such as watching videos or using social media, and that that perception had increased in importance after the introduction of the DFLB. It is interesting that these perceptions contrasted with those of the students and teachers, for whom the perceived importance of iPad use was more focused upon using the iPad in supporting school work. However, the graphs show that there are few changes in the perceived positive or negative effects of the DFLB programme before and after the pilot phase. The perceptions of teaching staff respondents were not shown to be influenced by the pilot phase of the DFLB programme. For the students, there are changes in terms of the impact upon school work (not enough time to do them) and upon face-to-face social contacts (more time to have social contacts) as a result of the introduction of the pilot phase of the DFLB programme. These findings align with those presented by Carvalho and Ferreira (2015), in terms of the discrepancies between the perceptions of the use of technology in secondary schools among students and adults (whereas in our case, similar discrepancies were observed between the opinions of students’ parents/guardians and their teachers).

The visual analysis of Figure 1 is supported here by statistical analysis of the results, which shows, in each case, that where a visual difference was evident there a statistically significant variation was also evident. We can be more confident, then, in asserting that the implementation of the DFLB programme resulted in differences between groups with regard to the effect on the opinions of each respondent group. Table 6 shows that teachers and students identified the importance of the iPad as a tool for doing their school work (Erbes, Lesky, & Myers, 2016; Howlett and Waemusa, 2019; Retalis et al., 2018) whilst parents and guardians identified the iPad as a device used mainly to play games and watch videos and for social media. This result indicates the parental misconception that the device is only used for social or leisure pursuits. Actually, the device is a tool which supports the learning of the students, and the teachers and students recognised that the introduction of a DFLB programme reduces student access to that important learning tool. It also highlighted that for many students, the lunch break is an additional opportunity to catch-up on classroom or home-learning activities.

With regard to the potential benefits of the introduction of the DFLB programme, in Figure 1, Columns 2 and 3 show negligible differences in the opinions of parents and guardians and teacher respondents before and after the DFLB programme implementation. However, Column 3 shows that among students there were observable differences in the potential benefit of a device free lunch in terms of an increased opportunity to speak with classmates. The authors were pleased that the students recognised this enhanced opportunity that the implementation of a device free lunch would provide, and further analysis showed that there was a statistical significance to this variance. This finding reinforces the importance for students to have a balanced approach in their school days when they are potentially exposed to various multitasking activities with associated negative effects, as presented by van der Schuur, Baumgartner, Sumter and Valkenburg (2016).

Table 6 indicates that among the students, another potential benefit of the introduction of the DFLB programme was the opportunity to engage more in face-to-face conversations with other students. This is an activity that the school has emphasised with the students since the introduction of the BYOD iPad programme, as it is considered by the school community to be part of a healthy and balanced approach to the use of technology. It is a very positive outcome that students recognise the introduction of the DFLB programme as an opportunity for these face-to-face interactions to occur. In terms of the potentially negative consequences of the DFLB programme, the teaching staff worried that the students might become bored. The results from the surveys support further the discrepancies observed between adult and student perceptions of the role of digital technology at school (Flanigan and Babchuk, 2015) Indeed, the staff considered that the introduction of the DFLB programme would merely result in the student not maintaining levels in their games or having less fun with their devices.

Parent and guardian opinions of the potential negative effects of the implementation of the DFLB programme remained relatively unchanged before and after the DFLB programme implementation. There is a slight increase in the perceived chance of boredom among the students once the iPads were no longer available during their lunch break. Among teacher respondents, we see a change in the items relating to ‘not keeping levels in their game’ and ‘not having fun playing with their devices’. The students, however, were more focused upon the negative effect of having more work to do at home as the DFLB programme displaced this activity from school. As a result of this feedback, the students were provided with additional spaces in school where the use of the device is permitted for doing school work.

From these observable differences it can be seen that the various respondent groups had very different perceptions of the way in which iPads were being used at school and about the potential effects that the introduction of a DFLB programme would have. Parents and guardians focused upon the use of the device as a tool for gaming, watching videos and using social networking, and largely harboured the opinion that the introduction of a DFLB programme would lead to boredom among the students. Teachers and student respondents were more focused upon the use of the device as a tool for school work, with the potential negative effect highlighted by this category of respondents being that students would have less time at school to engage with school work. While parents and guardians identified boredom as a result of introducing the DFLB programme, students recognised that the DFLB programme would provide them with more time to talk to their friends.

Based on the overall analysis of the pilot phase of the DFLB programme, the school management made the decision to continue the DFLB programme till the end of the school year 2017–2018; and since then, it has been adopted as a permanent element at school. From this study, we learned that the students provided a useful, balanced and positive view of device use at school. This was contrasted by the perception of parent respondents, who tended to be less positive about the use of the devices and how they are used. This negative view may serve as one of the influencing factors in a school management's decision in determining how the devices should be managed within the school.

The approach to the introduction of a DFLB described here applies a market research approach in which views from a wide range of ‘consumers’ were collected. The approach has helped to reinforce a positive view of the benefits of technology in learning, and has explained how technology can continue to have a positive impact on the ways in which students learn, as pointed out by Langford, Narayan, and Von Glahn (2016), Flannigan et al. (2015) and Howlett and Waemusa (2019).

The limitation of this case study is that the data are based almost entirely on collecting stakeholder perceptions of the benefits and detriments of technology use in a school. The qualitative data could be further supported by quantitative data gained perhaps as and how the students used their devices. Although this approach was considered, it was decided that the ethical consequence resulting from monitoring the use of a device owned by the students was too great. Even if electronic monitoring of device use was desirable, it would not be easy to test the reliability of the measurements, especially during use outside of school. The authors consider that it would be useful to extend this line of study in future researches by introducing a device free approach to other school breaks or even extending it to students of the Junior and Senior years.