This week’s discussion on the cell phone ban policy in schools across some provinces in Canada really got me thinking. The use of mobile technology has become very common among school students, prompting widespread integration into K–12 education. As a result, schools have implemented technology policies that vary from full integration or bring your own device (BYOD) to limited use within specific times and locations and even a complete ban on students’ use of mobile technology, as recently observed in schools across some Canadian provinces.

Image copied from Linkdeln

For instance, the Government of British Columbia enacted a policy banning the use of personal digital devices (cell phones) in schools in August 2024. The policy aims to reduce distractions in classrooms, support focused learning environments, foster online safety, and promote provincial consistency. Similarly, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan implemented bans on cell phones and personal devices at the beginning of the 2024/25 school year. While some schools allow students to use phones during break periods, others only allow students in senior grades to use their devices either before school, during lunch, or after school. This limited access is often extended to spare periods for high school students.

My first question will be, “Why should phones be trending among students in school? I never had access to a phone when growing up until I entered my 2nd/3rd year at the university. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the current generation of students that we have. While I acknowledge that phones can connect individuals to the world and offer valuable learning opportunities when used appropriately, using a phone in the classroom is a NO..NO…NO.. for me. I remembered a situation where a teacher was teaching and writing notes on the board, and a particular learner was busy recording some content in the classroom without the teacher’s consent. It was his laughter and that of those sitting next to him that alerted the teacher to this misconduct.

I have also seen cases of students watching inappropriate adult content in class while teaching is going on. Gone are those days where students, even children, engaged in physical play with one another. The students of today have become so addicted to technology, even at home, and this is causing a lot of mental stress, isolation, anxiousness, and sometimes a feeling of being left out among their peers. I am sometimes of the view that there are many rude, mean, and disrespectful students in schools today because they have access to the same information and opportunities as their teachers, if not even better, leading them to perceive themselves as equals. This, in my opinion, could be influenced by the social content, such as videos and music, that they consume through personal devices.

Image obtained from giffy.com

I know many schools want to integrate technology in their classrooms but lack the resources. I think schools that are adequately equipped with educational technology could have little justifications in place for students to bring personal devices. On the other hand, schools that lack sufficient educational technology resources need to have clear guidelines, policies, and strategies in place regarding the use of personal technology. Is it truly effective to ban students use of phones in classrooms while permitting it during breaks? Considering that students utilize their phones extensively outside of school, an outright ban in classrooms may not be the most effective approach. In fact, it could inadvertently create more challenges for our education system. Students may not receive adequate guidance on the appropriate and effective use of these devices and their applications. I believe a balanced approach is necessary to address this issue

HyFlex Learning represents an educational model that integrates both hybrid and flexible methodologies. The hybrid component pertains to instruction delivered either in-person or through online platforms, whereas the flexible aspect pertains to the autonomy granted to students in determining their mode of attendance, whether virtually or physically. In other words, HyFlex learning is distinguished by its hybrid and flexible methodology, which empowers students to select between attending in-person or engaging online within the same course. According to the Ideal Consortium, this structure offers learners three distinct avenues for participation in the course:

• in-person attendance
• virtual engagement during synchronous sessions using a web conferencing application, or
• the completion of asynchronous activities.

Each mode of instruction remains consistently accessible, except in situations when in-person classes are necessitated to be cancelled due to adverse weather conditions or other emergencies. According to Beatty, this instructional model is “an approach to serving fully online students without abandoning current classroom students,” and it aspires to cultivate a flexible educational environment that caters to the varied needs and preferences of students (choosing what is best for them on a weekly or daily basis).

In his work, Beatty explained that the HyFlex approach shares similar characteristics with other instructional formats used in higher education institutions around the world, like Mode-Neutral, Multi Access Learning, Flex Learning, Converged Learning, Peirce Fit, Multi Options, Flexibly Accessible Learning Environment (FALE), Blendflex, Comodal, Flexible Hybrid, Synchronous Learning in Distributed Environments (SLIDE), gxLearning, Blendsync, and Remote Live Participation (RLP).

HyFlex learning offers a flexible learning model that allows students to choose between in-person and online attendance, accommodating individual schedules and preferences (Cumming et al., 2024). This model supports accelerated course delivery, aligning with students’ desires for speed and convenience (Dickinson et al., 2024), while also catering to diverse student needs and enhancing participation and retention rates (Dickinson et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024). It increases access to courses (e.g., when in-person attendance is problematic or when desired classes are scheduled concurrently), students tend to have greater control over their daily schedules, and the flexibility to choose the most effective learning methods to meet their individual needs and preferences (Beatty, 2019).

The work of Beatty also explains how the HyFlex model provides opportunities for faculty to develop online teaching skills without sacrificing in-person instruction, provide a built-in alternative for students facing scheduling conflicts, and serve more students with existing resources.According to Dickinson et al. (2024), the model supports varied learning styles and can accelerate course delivery, aligning with students’ preferences for convenience and efficiency. This aligns with the work of Beatty, which explains how faculty valued the HyFlex model due to its increased capacity to support diverse learning needs through this flexible model and providing opportunities to conduct pedagogical research on their own teaching practices and potentially publish their findings within their academic discipline.

While HyFlex learning presents innovative solutions for modern education, it also raises concerns in several areas. For instance, Tulekova et al. (2023) claim that the HyFlex model can restrict meaningful interactions, as students may not engage as fully in discussions or collaborative activities when participating online. Moreover, the online component of this model requires substantial time management skills (Beatty). Studies suggest that remote learning can sometimes lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection from peers, potentially impacting student engagement and academic performance (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004; Gillis & Szabo, 2024). Nevertheless, it is believed that implementing the HyFlex model will require significant investments in technology and faculty training, which may present a challenge for some institutions. This could also extend to students, as argued in the work of Beatty, where he indicated that students could lack the personal and technical resources most commonly required: hardware, network access, the ability to engage with online learning platforms, and the ability to learn through mediated experiences. These resources are essential for successful participation in the online version of the course. I also think that giving students autonomy to choose how they want to attend instructions could compromise the depth of learning for some students who may prioritize convenience over active engagement.

Reflecting on the above discussion and aligning it with the evolving educational landscape characterized by the use of emerging technologies, particularly those that emerged during the health crisis, there is clear indication that the HyFlex model presents a promising future for education due to its flexibility and adaptability. However, I believe teachers utilizing this approach require ongoing training and professional development on strategies that effectively integrate various learning modalities, with a particular emphasis on assessment and student engagement. Furthermore, while student autonomy in lesson participation is valuable, it may need to be carefully guided or controlled to prevent situations where courses devolve entirely into online learning. In such classrooms, clear expectations for both online and in-person participation must be established and consistently communicated to students.

Social media basically has to do with the use of various web-based tools and platforms for connecting, interacting, communicating, and sharing information with people around the world. So, it is more like a public space for sharing all kinds of things, from pictures, videos, jobs, education content, business, and even fake information.

Social media platforms https://mediafy.ca/which-social-media-platform-is-best-for-my-business/

Reflecting on my journey with the use of social media, I see myself as a frequent user of social media. Moreover, my visit on social media is limited to Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Telegram. In the article “What is your relationship with Social Media?’, Marie-Christine claimed that people invest an average of 2 hours every day on social media, which she tagged as something that does not yield any returns. Using social media has benefited me in both positive and negative ways.

Personally, it has helped me to remain connected with my friends and families back in my home country and across the world. I have also used platforms like Facebook Market for buying goods and to find online communities that share information about what interests me. For instance, when I was looking for a daycare for my younger son, I got connected to an online community on Facebook that shared information on openings around Regina. In addition, YouTube has always been my go-to social media for learning new things.

Professionally, I have always used LinkedIn for showcasing my job and also networking with professionals in my field. I sometimes use LinkedIn for learning as well as for gathering information.

I think the negative side of social media for me is that even though some platforms are for personal relations, I just have to maintain an online presence that is professional; I can’t just post anything and everything because I have to keep the reputation of my employer, career and profession as an educator (role model)

Artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI, are significantly changing numerous aspects of human life, including education and content creation. In the digital age, the integration of generative AI tools into academic writing and content generation is fundamentally changing the way students learn, teachers educate, and researchers approach their work (Kim et al., 2024; Wang, 2024). While these tools offer numerous benefits, it is crucial to understand how they are being used in education. As a result, this post explored the perspectives of students on the use of AI and Generative AI for academic purposes and content creation.

Image created by AI

This blog post is my EC&I 832 final research project, which explores the perspectives of students on the use of GenAI for academic purposes and reflects on its implications for ethical digital citizenship. Using a qualitative approach embedded within the interpretive paradigm, a one-on-one semi-structured interview was conveniently conducted with two high school students and four undergraduate students. The generated data were coded, categorized, and analyzed using content analysis.

Participants’ perceptions on the use of generative AI for academic purposes and content creation are discussed based on elements of Ribble’s digital citizenship framework (Ribble, 2023) and the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). The Technology Acceptance Model by Davis (1989) posits that specific beliefs related to technology use, such as perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, influence users’ attitudes toward technology and their behavioural intention to use it.

Perceived usefulness (PU) refers to the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance their job performance (Or, 2024; Akbarini, 2024); whereas perceived ease of use (PEU) indicates how easy technology is to use (Or, 2024), indicating that PEU significantly influences actual technology use, sometimes even bypassing intention (Or, 2024; Ampo et al., 2024). The use of TAM in this study helps to shed more light on the processes underpinning students’ acceptance of generative AI for academic writing and content creation. On the other hand, Heick (2021) described digital citizenship as ‘self-monitored habits that sustain and improve the digital communities we enjoy or depend on’. The digital citizenship framework, according to Ribble (2023), outlines nine essential characteristics that guide individuals in their digital interactions, promoting ethical and informed use of technology. However, many of the responses tend to overlap when interpreted through the lens of the digital citizenship framework.

Results of the study revealed that participants perceived generative AI to be useful and easy to use. In terms of its usefulness, participants noted that generative AI tools help streamline their academic work, assist in brainstorming, and improve writing clarity. For instance, Judah, an undergraduate student, indicated that generative AI helps in the provision of answers to questions with detailed explanations and assistance in test preparations by generating academic practice questions. In addition to his response, other participants also recognized the usefulness of AI in enhancing learning and productivity, as shown in the excerpts below.

“I use generative AI tools to explain schoolwork… I basically use ChatGPT to research information and sometimes break down ideas, and then I use Google to confirm if that information is correct” (Isaiah, Grade 9). This indicates that he finds AI useful for understanding and completing schoolwork.

“Generative AI is capable of generating new images, texts, and videos based on information or data that is given or entered into the tool/system” (Geraalda, undergraduate). This highlights the perceived usefulness of AI in creating diverse content for academic purposes.

“AI is a technology that can be used to answer most problems, reflecting her belief in the usefulness of AI in problem-solving” (Mariah, undergraduate).

These responses indicate a positive perception of the usefulness of AI in enhancing their education. Thus, it is assumed that educators can focus on demonstrating the practical applications and benefits of these tools in academic settings, thereby enhancing students’ perceived usefulness of generative AI. Regarding the ease of use of generative AI, some participants mentioned that using AI tools made tasks easier and faster, suggesting that they find these technologies user-friendly. However, they also raised concerns about over-reliance on AI, which could indicate a need for better training or support to ensure that students can use these tools effectively without compromising their learning. For instance, Vashti, a grade 11 student, indicated that AI makes her work easier by simply telling it to do something, like giving it instructions. She went further to explain, “………I just provided what I wanted my poster to look like, and the app generated a poster for me in school, making the whole work faster” (Vashti). Supporting Vashti’s response, Judah indicated, “I personally use AI tools to facilitate my study, like generating questions for me to work on and their solutions. I also find it easy to use Meta AI for making quick references and clarifications on ideas.” This suggests that he finds AI easy to use and accessible. However, he mentioned that sometimes one needs to provide detailed input to achieve the necessary desired results. He said, “Like when I want to generate images, I have to provide every detail of what and how I want it; if not, I will not get the result I desire.”.

Probing further into students’ perceptions regarding the use of generative AI for academic purposes revealed that participants highlighted the importance of using AI responsibly and ethically, emphasizing the need for students to engage with AI tools in a way that respects academic integrity and originality. This reflects the element of digital etiquette, which encourages respectful and responsible behavior online. Participants also expressed concerns about the ethical implications of using AI, including issues of dependency and authenticity. The following are excerpts from participants:

“My concern is majorly the fact that Gen AI can’t be trusted blindly as it can make mistakes… students tend to be lazy when they know there is software that can help them do what they’re supposed to do” (Isaiah, Grade 9 student). This reflects a concern about over-reliance on AI and its impact on critical thinking.

“Using AI at a younger age is not good because you become reliant on it, and such people might end up not knowing anything” (Belshaba, undergraduate student). This highlights the potential negative consequences of depending on AI.

“I think people could become too dependent on these tools, which can lead to plagiarism; it does not help students think on their own” (Gaalda, undergraduate student). This emphasizes the ethical concern regarding academic integrity and the importance of maintaining critical thinking skills.

Gaalda’s response could also be aligned with the need for digital literacy, where students need to learn how to critically evaluate AI-generated content and understand its limitations. The issue of digital fluency and literacy is also portrayed in Isaiah’s response, where he said:

“Sometimes you have to enter detailed information when asking AI input questions. For example, when I want to generate images, I have to provide every detail of what I want and how I want it; if not, I will not get the desired result. ChatGPT makes a lot of mistakes. Sometimes, when I use it to do math, it does give correct answers, but on some occasions, I figure out the answers are wrong, and that is a big challenge. As a result, I sometimes don’t trust what ChatGPT generates because it’s not fully correct.”

When asked about privacy concerns around the use of GenAI, one of the participants said, “ChatGPT tells its users not to input sensitive or private information. Gen AI has done its part concerning privacy. It’s left to its users” (Judah, undergraduate). Furthermore, participants emphasised the importance of maintaining academic integrity and properly citing AI-generated content. This relates to the rights and responsibilities aspect of digital citizenship, where students must understand their obligations when using digital tools. This was noted when Gaalda indicated that students can use these tools responsibly by limiting how they use AI and not allowing AI to do all their work for them. This statement was also supported by Mariah when she said, “WhatsApp and Facebook have Meta AI, which I sometimes use to generate images but like ChatGPT, I do not use it because most of my schoolwork does not support students to use AI. Nevertheless, I sometimes make use of the MetaAI to help me understand some things.” These statements reflects an understanding of digital responsibility.

The analysis of student perspectives on AI reveals a complex interplay of perceived usefulness, ease of use, ethical considerations, and responsible digital citizenship. While students recognise the potential benefits of AI in enhancing their learning experiences, they also express valid concerns about dependency, authenticity, and the ethical implications of its use. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential for educators and policymakers to consider these perspectives to foster an environment that encourages responsible and effective use of emerging technologies in education. By addressing these concerns, we can ensure that AI serves as a valuable tool for learning rather than a crutch that undermines critical thinking and creativity.

It is therefore important to encourage educators, students, and technology developers  to engage in discussions about the role of AI in education.  It is believed that sharing experiences, concerns, and best practices can help create a more informed and responsible approach to integrating AI into learning environments. Thus, all school stakeholders need to work together to harness the power of AI while promoting ethical and responsible use in the education system.

I enrolled for this course (EC&I 832) with some experience in technology, but I had never considered how my use of technology relates to fostering digital citizenship and literacy among students. Learning in this course has been an incredible experience, starting with insightful presentations by various guest speakers and engaging discussions with colleagues. While some guest presentations were challenging to grasp initially, just because I could not figure my head around the discussion, I was able to focus on the concepts that resonated with me.

I really enjoyed the dynamic interaction, collaborative discussions, and moments of conceptual clarity. The interaction around the actual meaning of literacy was something I had to think over and over to help me contextualize the word.

Anyway, all that was discussed in this course made me realize that we live in a world where technology shapes every aspect of our lives, yet many people remain unaware of how it works (looking at issues around deep fakes, our digital footprint, and how we lead with the use of technology). This highlights the urgent need for education that empowers individuals, including our students, to become informed citizens who are aware of their rights and responsibilities not just in society but also in the digital space. For students to navigate this evolving landscape of technology, the role of educators becomes very essential in fostering responsible digital citizenship (one of my takeaways is how to achieve this using Ribble’s elements of digital citizenship). Exploring how schools and other education stakeholders can adapt to these changes could unveil fascinating insights into preparing students for the future. Here is a summary of my learning.

This has been an incredible journey, and I want to express my sincere gratitude to Dean Shareski for sharing his knowledge, time, and network with us.