1 Introduction

In 2007 Kevin Rudd, the soon to be elected Australian prime minister, boldly called for a Digital Education Revolution that would equip students with the ‘basic skills’ to be able to participate effectively in the classroom and the real world of the 21st Century (Rudd et al., 2007, p. 4). The then government invested AU$2.1 billion to assist schools in adopting laptop or other digital device programs, such as ‘Bring Your Own Device’ (BYOD), to ensure that students would be prepared for an ‘information-based knowledge economy…requiring new kinds of literacy’ (Alexander et al., 2013, p. 5; 20). BYOD and other similar programs are valued for the access they provide to online information and opportunities for developing these new literacy skills (Adhikari et al., 2021; Lee, 2020; Selwyn et al., 2017; Song, 2014). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, close to 40% of Australian students attended a school with a BYOD policy (Jones, 2020).

In New South Wales, history is a subject that is well-suited to investigate the way that BYODs are being employed in classroom practice because the NSW History K-12 syllabus explicitly calls for students to develop both the research skills of finding relevant historical information using ICT, as well as the capacity to critically analyse the information they find (NESA, 2021). However, there is a dearth of scholarly literature that focuses on the use of BYOD within history classrooms. Case studies have provided a rich insight into attitudes about BYODs and the way that they are being used in primary, secondary and tertiary classrooms, but typically, these focus on subjects other than History (see for example: Adhikari et al., 2016; Cheng, 2022; Cheng et al., 2016; Gkamas et al., 2019; Kay & Schellenberg, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2022; Maher & Twining, 2017; Page Jeffery, 2022; Song, 2014). This study will address several identified gaps by exploring, in rich detail, the ways that BYOD is being used by History teachers and students at one site—and their attitudes towards it. The study will also highlight the way that the integration of BYOD has enhanced teachers’ pre-existing attitudes and approach to teaching history. The present study builds on existing scholarship by asking the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    What are students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using BYOD devices in history lessons?

  2. 2.

    How is the presence of BYOD in history classrooms shaping teachers’ pedagogical approach?

This paper explores teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of BYOD in their history classes. Furthermore, this paper examines the way that BYOD is shaping history teacher’s pedagogical approach and student’s historical thinking.

2 Literature review

2.1 The real wo rld of the 21st century

Students in the 21st Century, born after the internet became mainstream, are often perceived as having natural technological abilities that separate them from their elders, so much so, that they are frequently referred to as Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001); they are surrounded by an increasing range of technologies both at home and at school (Selwyn, 2009). However, as scholars are starting to point out, Digital Natives are not naturally good at using technology for their learning (Bower, 2017; Breakstone et al., 2021; Bulfin et al., 2016; Wagner, 2019). Nevertheless, the integration of ICT into teaching and learning, through programs like BYOD, is seen by many as essential to prepare students for future employment (Alexander et al., 2013; Keane & Keane, 2022; Keane et al., 2016; Maher & Twining, 2017; Ortiz et al., 2011; Rudd et al., 2007). The need for ICT skills in future workers is felt so acutely, that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) list ICT Capability as the third general capability for Australian school students, behind Literacy and Numeracy; ahead of Critical and Creative Thinking, Personal and Social Capability, Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding (ACARA, 2024). As teachers have rapidly adapted to the evolving technological landscape, much research has focused on helping teachers, providing useful how-to advice and examples of best-case use of technology (see for example: Cheng, 2022; Chou et al., 2012; Gkamas et al., 2019; Kay & Schellenberg, 2017; Santos, 2013). These studies have often been characterised by assumptions that adoption of new technologies for teaching and learning is both inherently positive, as well as inevitable (Kay et al., 2011; McClanahan & Stojke, 2013; Mu’alimin et al., 2022). There is a need for further research that moves beyond determinist assumptions to cast a critical lens on how teachers and students are using various technologies on the ground (Bower, 2017; Parsons & Adhikari, 2016; Selwyn, 2015; Tsui & Mok, 2019).

2.2 Student-centred learning?

The effective integration of ICT can be a powerful enabler of student-centred learning (Keane et al., 2016). When coupled with good pedagogy, BYOD and other internet enabled devices have been observed to have a positive impact on student engagement in course content in both secondary and tertiary settings (Kay et al., 2011; Kay & Schellenberg, 2017; Livson et al., 2021; MacLeod, 2015; Santos, 2013). Inquiry-based learning, that involves students in constructing meaning through asking questions and finding answers to those questions has been shown to be effective. In a small study of Geography fieldwork in Korea, Lee (2020) found that students more frequently engaged in positive learning behaviours such as self-management and gathering information. Other studies that have examined the use of internet-enabled tablet computers to enhance or substitute for regular classroom activities have also shown an increase in student engagement (Chou et al., 2012; Maher & Twining, 2017; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005). However, the incorporation of BYOD and other mobile devices has not all been positive—the reality of what is happening in classrooms is more nuanced (Selwyn et al., 2020).

Distraction is a concern frequently cited by both tertiary students and parents of secondary students, who find managing their child’s use of a device at home, for schoolwork, very challenging (Adhikari et al., 2016; Keane & Keane, 2018; Miller Griffith & Roberts, 2013; Page Jeffery, 2022; Zilka, 2021). To mitigate this distraction, teachers often create highly structured learning activities, where students proceed in lockstep with each other through the lesson (Hosek & Handsfield, 2019; Selwyn et al., 2020). A small study conducted by Sana et al. (2013), found that in a sample of tertiary students (n = 40), the distraction created by laptops had a negative effect on student achievement. This was not just for the student using the laptop, but also students sitting close by. However, other studies have shown that using a BYOD has had either a negligible or positive impact on student achievement in tertiary courses (Elliott-Dorans, 2018; Livson et al., 2021). It is noteworthy in Elliot-Dorans’ (2018) study that despite students reporting a laptop ban was helpful for their learning, it did not actually translate to better course performance.

Despite being hailed as revolutionary and transformative, (Page Jeffery, 2022; Rudd et al., 2007; Selwyn et al., 2017, 2020), the integration of BYOD programs has not necessarily transformed teachers’ existing pedagogical practices, but rather enhanced and amplified them (Maher & Twining, 2017). An important study conducted by Bulfin et al. (2016), sheds a nuanced light on the integration of BYOD in Australian secondary schools. Drawing on data collected through a questionnaire conducted with 1174 participants from three different Australian secondary schools—all of them coeducational, government-run schools in the state of Victoria, the authors make the important observation that despite their increased prevalence, BYOD programmes have not resulted in students being let loose in the digital environment because these programmes still occur within the cultural context of a tightly governed school, where student behaviour is highly regulated (Bulfin et al., 2016). Bulfin’s et al. (2016) study captured a range of student perspectives about their use of BYOD, most prominently, 32% of student respondents were very critical of the restricted nature of the technology use at school (Bulfin et al., 2016). In a similarly negative vein, the study highlighted that many students felt their school needed to improve its technological capabilities, in both infrastructure and pedagogy (Bulfin et al., 2016). Despite this complaint, 28.4% of students wanted the school to take a more active lead in student use of technology, providing explicit instruction and support for students to develop their technological capabilities (Bulfin et al., 2016).

2.3 The research gap and the present study

Much research relating to BYOD has occurred in a tertiary context and not necessarily in Australia. This is an important distinction, as tertiary environments are a different sociocultural space to secondary schools, where student behaviour and learning is much more tightly managed (Bulfin et al., 2016). Furthermore, BYOD research has focused primarily on access, stake-holder attitudes, and advice on how to adopt best practice (Adhikari et al., 2016; Cheng, 2022; Chou et al., 2012; Kay & Schellenberg, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2018; Miller Griffith & Roberts, 2013; Page Jeffery, 2022; Parsons & Adhikari, 2016). There are some notable examples that focus on use within the classroom within a secondary context in Australia (see for example: Bulfin et al., 2016; Selwyn et al., 2017; Selwyn et al., 2020), but these are generalised studies, that focus on the ways that BYOD has been integrated into school life more broadly. These studies highlight a potential lack of understanding between teachers and students, perhaps because teachers make assumptions about their students’ technological abilities (Bulfin et al., 2016; Wagner, 2019; Walraven et al., 2013). There is an opportunity to explore history teachers’ attitudes—so far absent in the literature—in this regard further. There is also an opportunity to gather more up-to-date research pertaining to the ways that BYOD is shaping secondary history pedagogy. Case studies have focused on BYOD in English as a second language (Cheng, 2022); mathematics, science and personal development, health and physical education (PDHPE) (Adhikari et al., 2016); and English (Kay & Schellenberg, 2017), but the subject of history has not been a major focus thus far. In NSW, the subject of history, which focuses on the use of ICT for research and critical literacy, is particularly well positioned to explore as a case study for how BYOD is being adopted at the classroom level. There is a clear alignment between the national aims to increase general ICT Capability (ACARA, 2024); the unparalleled access to the online world that BYOD affords students (Adhikari et al., 2021; Lee, 2020; Selwyn et al., 2017; Song, 2014); and the NSW history course’s aims to increase students’ online research skills and critical literacy (NESA, 2021).

3 Theoretical and conceptual Framework

The research design for this study has been informed by a broadly critical realist ontology, where there is a true world that exists outside human experience, but that our meaning making about that world is heavily contingent on context (Pilgrim, 2019; Terry et al., 2017). Despite the epistemological relativism associated with this—that both researcher and participants are imbued with subjectivity and influence the construction of meaning—it is still possible to make rational judgements about truths and likelihoods based on an understanding of both the researchers’ and the participants’ contexts (Madill et al., 2000). While different interpretations will be valid, some will be stronger than others (Pilgrim, 2019).

The use of BYOD for teaching and learning is well-suited to be examined through a constructivist theoretical lens. Constructivism is interpreted in many ways, but each has the common thread of meaning being constructed within the mind of the learner (Harlow et al., 2007; Hohn, 2005; Jonassen, 1991; Kamii & Ewing, 1996; Phillips, 1995; Tobias & Duffy, 2009; von Glasersfeld, 1995). Constructivist approaches to learning place the learner at the centre; students engage in real-world tasks, considering multiple perspectives, often through inquiry-based learning, with a teacher as guide or coach of the process (Adams, 2006; Bruner, 1961; Hohn, 2005; Jonassen, 1991; Sullivan, 2009). BYOD programs broadly aim to prepare students for engagement with the real world (Alexander et al., 2013). Pedagogy that utilises BYOD allows ample opportunity for students to engage with multiple perspectives and engage in real-world activities as they construct meaning.

4 Methodology

4.1 Research design

The research seeks to understand and explore students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using BYOD devices in history lessons. Drawing on our critical realist ontology, the researchers designed a case study of students and teachers engaging in typical learning activities through a real lesson. In conjunction with the participating teachers, the researchers designed two separate scaffolded historical inquiry lessons for students to complete using their BYOD. Each lesson reflected the students’ current content focus: the origins of the Cold War and the Australian Freedom Rides and the NSW Stage 5 syllabus outcomes and skills related to the analysis and use of sources and ICT enabled research (NESA, 2021).Footnote 1 Data was drawn from student work samples and a reflective questionnaire completed as part of the lessons. The questionnaire invited students to reflect on the way that their knowledge had been constructed through the lesson. Teachers’ perspectives were recorded through pre-lesson questionnaires and post-lesson semi-structured interviews. The case study approach that has been adopted is the most appropriate because of its ability to capture the rich detail and complexity of this phenomenon as it occurs within specific, real-time, classroom contexts. Rather than trying to understand broad trends, this study is trying to interpret the thick description of rich and nuanced detail of what is occurring in a particular instance (Guetterman & Fetters, 2018; Schreier, 2018).

4.2 Participants

4.2.1 The participating school

The participating school is located in metropolitan New South Wales, Australia. The school is a non-government, single-sex, boys’ school. According to the 2022 data obtained from the My School website (ACARA, 2023a), the school has approximately 2000 students, from Years K-12. 56% of the students have a language background other than English; there are no Indigenous students. Each year, students from Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 participate in the standardised National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). These tests produce nationally comparable data about students’ achievements in both literacy and numeracy (ACARA, 2023b). In 2022 (data for the 2023 participating students is not available at the time of writing), Year 9 students (ages approx. 13–15) at the participating school were ‘well above’ the national average in all areas of the NAPLAN assessments, except for Writing, where students were ‘above’ the national average (ACARA, 2023a). The school was recruited based on convenience and accessibility. One of the authors has an existing relationship with the school and the school has a BYOD program. Students at the school are required to bring a laptop-style device which includes a physical keyboard, a recommended screen size between 12”-14” and running either Microsoft Windows 10 or Apple Mac OSX10.12. Students’ devices must also be capable of joining the school’s Wi-Fi network and have a battery lasting longer than six hours.

4.2.2 Participating teachers

Two teachers were recruited from the participating school. Information about the study was circulated to History teachers by the Head of the History Department and prospective participants had the opportunity to ask questions about the study by email or phone. All History teachers at the participating school were invited to participate based on convenience and that they were currently teaching Year 9 History. Both teacher participants gave informed, written consent to participate in the Ethics approved (ID: 13072) study.

Teacher A trained as a History, Geography and Christian Studies teacher. They hold a bachelor’s degree in education, as well as a Master of Arts in Theology, a Master of Education in School Administration, a Master of Religious Education and a Diploma of Biblical Studies. They began teaching in 1983 and has worked at the participating school for twenty-four years. Teacher B initially trained and worked as a Chartered Accountant, holding a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Commerce. Having worked in corporate accounting for twenty years, they retrained and has been teaching at the participating school for twenty years. Teacher B has predominantly taught Economics, Business Studies and Commerce, but has, more recently (past 8 years), been teaching junior Geography and History.

4.2.3 Participating students

To recruit students, one of the authors attended one of each teacher’s timetabled classes. They provided verbal and written information about the study and students had the opportunity to ask questions. Students’ parents also had the opportunity to ask questions by email. All students in the participating teachers’ Year 9 History classes were invited to take part in the study (n = 51). Ten students accepted the invitation to participate (n = 6 in Teacher A’s class and n = 4 in Teacher B’s class). Both the participating Year 9 Students and their parents/guardians gave informed, written consent to participate in this ethics approved study. Teacher A’s class is identified as an Honours class, where approximately the top quartile of students at the school, based on their Year 8 English, Science, History and Mathematics results are streamed by ability. Teacher B’s class is a mixed-ability class. Teacher B’s class is shared with another teacher who teaches them for half of their allocated periods. Teacher B taught the class for lessons related to this research study.

4.3 Materials

This case study was designed to have minimal disruption from the regular teaching and learning program and to capture a snapshot of students doing typical work in a history classroom. In consultation with the participating teachers, two lessons were developed, each comprising a scaffolded historical inquiry task and reflection on learning questionnaire that would be completed by all students using their BYOD in their timetabled lessons. In the scaffolded critical historical inquiry, students were prompted to visit three separate history websites and answer a series of questions designed to support students through the historical inquiry process (see Appendix 1). Questions began with comprehension: ‘List Four historical facts from each website’ and ‘identify the creator of each website’. Questions gradually became more critical asking students to identify the purpose of each website and judge the websites’ reliability. Each of the questions were typical of questions that would be asked during Stage 5 historical inquiry lessons.

The reflection on learning questionnaire asked students about both the processes used during the activity, as well as questions more targeted to their use of BYOD in history classes (See Appendix 2). Questionnaire’s such as the one in this study are regularly used by teachers at this site. Questionnaires were completed using Google Forms. Google Forms, as opposed to a more secure survey platform, was used because it was the participating school’s survey instrument of choice; connected with their Learning Management System and reflected a typical student activity.

Our study design differs from other research that has sought to capture participants’ thinking using ‘think aloud’ protocols, where the researchers ask participants to say out loud all thought processes as they work (see for example: Breakstone, 2014; Crocco et al., 2017; Goulding, 2021; Shanahan et al., 2011; Wineburg & McGrew, 2019; Wineburg, 1991). The study design depends on capturing real-time learning behaviours. Therefore, a study design that mimicked typical classroom learning activities was most appropriate.

Teachers’ perspectives were recorded through pre-lesson questionnaires (see Appendix 3) and post-lesson semi-structured interviews. The purpose of the interviews was to draw a comparison with the self-reported data from the students and provide further context for the students’ completion of the activity. Three of the interviews were conducted face to face and recorded. Interview 2 with Teacher B was conducted via videoconference and recorded. Transcripts were generated automatically by OtterAI and MS Teams and checked for accuracy.

4.4 Procedures

4.4.1 Reflexive Thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2022)

Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2022) was adopted to analyse the data for two main reasons. First, the theoretical flexibility afforded by RTA meant that the development of themes could be generated inductively—interpreting the semantic meaning within the data—before interpreting more latent meaning, informed by our own experience teaching History; the literature reviewed for the study (see for example: Bower, 2017; Breakstone et al., 2021; Bulfin et al., 2016; Maher & Twining, 2017; Selwyn, 2015; Wagner, 2019) and a constructivist theoretical lens. Second, RTA allowed us to consider our own position in the collection and analysis of the data. During the interviews, participants’ comments were interpreted through the researcher’s lens of experienced history teacher, which shaped subsequent questions, almost as a collegial discussion, or what Roulston and Choi (2018) describe as an hermeneutic interview—where the dialogue contains reflections of both the participant and the researcher, who both contribute to meaning-making within the interview. For example, in Interview 1, Teacher B, invited the interviewer to reflect on their own experience teaching Year 9 history students and their use of BYOD, thus prompting them to reflect on their personal history teaching practice as they interpreted what each of the teachers was saying. Throughout the analysis, reflecting on our own teaching experience has shaped our interpretation.

4.4.2 Data analysis

A six-phase RTA was conducted to explore the patterns of meaning across the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022; Terry et al., 2017). While each of the phases was distinct, we found ourselves moving forwards and backwards between phases, or that perhaps, the boundaries between them were blurred.

Phase 1: Data familiarisation

During the Data Familiarisation stage, Researcher 1 skimmed through the student worksheets submitted prior to conducting the interviews to get an overall sense of how students had responded, making brief notes on which websites students were choosing as the most—and least—reliable, as well as the rationale for their choices. Questionnaire responses were aggregated in table form. At this point Researcher 1 noted down initial observations and questions pertaining to the data set. They also realised how strongly their background as a history teacher, was starting to influence the way they were interpreting meaning across the dataset. All researchers reviewed the data from the questionnaire responses and the first round of teacher interviews.

Phase 2: Coding

Conversation between researchers helped us to be conscious of our own positions in relation to the research and resist the urge to fit the analysis to any pre-conceived ideas as we entered the more rigorous phase of coding (Braun & Clarke, 2022). During this phase Researcher 1 re-read each data item much more slowly, electronically annotating potential codes. Codes were revised to interpret meaning more clearly as a result of dialogue between the researchers.

Phase 3: Generating initial themes

We discussed the initial themes which were reviewed and refined in multiple rounds—with each round forming a clearer and more cohesive interpretation of the data.

Phase 4: Developing and reviewing themes

Revising themes involved using physical code labels and arranging these on a table (Trainor & Bundon, 2021). This helped to form points of connection across the data set and show where the data did not really support the initial themes.

Phase 5: Refining, defining and naming themes

A final revision of the themes, in light of the research questions, helped to clarify the overarching meaning and narrative through which the data could be reported. Data items were collated against these themes to further test them. This process of revision and defining the themes continued throughout the write-up of the analysis presented in this paper.

Phase 6: Writing up

The present paper was revised and reworked through multiple drafts. At each stage the authors sought to express the process and findings of the study more clearly. In response to peer-review, the paper was redrafted prior to publication. At this last stage, the themes were revisited to more closely illustrate the way that constructivist theory informed the interpretation of the data.

5 Findings and discussion

In this section, the overarching theme, ‘Embracing the real world with BYOD in history classrooms’, will be discussed. Teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of BYOD—that it is a part of life, and so naturally, and ubiquitously, incorporated into History lessons—will be explored. Participating teachers regularly spoke to the way that the effective use of BYODs in their history classrooms helped to achieve the historical inquiry outcomes of the History K-10 syllabus (NESA, 2021) in a natural alignment with the national goals to boost ICT capabilities (ACARA, 2024). Two subthemes: ‘Access to student-centred historical inquiry’; and ‘Increased Productivity’ will develop the main theme further, demonstrating how the presence of BYOD has enhanced or magnified teachers’ pre-existing attitudes and approaches to history pedagogy. These attitudes largely reflect a constructivist mindset, where students are at the centre, engaging in historical inquiry of multiple perspectives in order to construct meaning.

5.1 Embracing the real world with BYOD in history classrooms

Within the bounds of this case study, teachers enthusiastically integrate BYOD into their history classroom practice as part of engagement with the real world where ‘laptops are the norm’ (Teacher A, Interview 1). Teacher A notes that: ‘using the devices are a fact of life… They’re going to be using it all the time [in work and tertiary study].’ (Interview 2). Likewise, Teacher B thinks that BYOD is ‘a fabulous thing it’s very worthwhile… because it’s going to be part of our makeup’ (Interview 1). Both teachers clearly view the general ICT capabilities that students can develop through the effective use of BYOD in their history classes as important for students’ future participation in the real world beyond school. Students also have a positive attitude towards the use of BYOD in their history classes, with all but two (n = 8) indicating that they like using their BYOD device on their questionnaires.

In addition to general ICT capabilities, Teacher A highlights their perception that students learn transferable skills in their history classes such as ‘source analysis skills… research and writing skills’ (Interview 2) and that ‘the use of devices is crucial’ (Interview 2) for these skills. Likewise, Teacher B highlights the ‘marry-up… [of learning historical] research on their devices’ (Interview 1). These comments suggest that the teachers see a clear and natural alignment, of teaching the general ICT capabilities with historical inquiry skills. These positive attitudes lead to a reported almost constant use of BYOD in history lessons at this site. Teachers use Canvas (the school’s learning management software) for ‘each lesson… assignments… announcements [and] marks’ (Teacher A, Interview 1). The teachers’ high enthusiasm for using BYODs in their everyday history lessons indicates a strong belief in the benefits of using BYOD to help students develop their historical understanding. However, in the snapshot of learning captured through the worksheets, students did not show strong research and source-analysis skills, suggesting that teachers’ positive attitudes are, perhaps, misaligned with what students demonstrated in this particular activity.

5.1.1 Access to student centred historical inquiry

Historical inquiry has always been an important part of the participating teachers’ pedagogy and teachers value the way that BYOD enables access to deepen historical inquiry. Formerly, students’ research was ‘limited by the resources in the school library…[or] compendiums of appropriate articles that would challenge them; get them thinking from the perspectives’ (Teacher A, Interview 2). Senior students would be encouraged to broaden their inquiry through a ‘trip to your local university library’ (Teacher A, Interview 2). The approach that Teacher A describes here aligns neatly with constructivist principles, where students engage with a range of real-world perspectives in order to construct their own understanding of the past. BYOD, which is now ‘crucial as far as research is concerned’ (Teacher A, Interview 2) is valued for its ability to both break down the physical constraints of historical research, presented by a trip to the library, as well as providing access to innumerably more sources of historical information. During planned historical inquiry, Teacher A indicates that BYOD helps students to surpass some of the traditional constraints of school-based historical inquiry by providing ‘wider access to available Sources from Universities and JStor’ (Questionnaire 1). In these instances, Teachers use Canvas as a ‘handy scaffold’ (Teacher B, Interview 2) to support student centred inquiry. Teacher B views this approach as superior to teacher centred strategies, such as lecturing where in their estimate, only ‘40%’ (Interview 1) of the students are engaged. During student-centred inquiry, Teacher B gives individual feedback to students, estimating that by doing so, ‘100%’ (Interview 1) of the students are actively learning. Students are not set loose in the digital environment to construct meaning completely independent of their teachers. Rather, the participating teachers’ history pedagogy reflects a constructivist approach advocated by Jonassen (1991), Tobias and Duffy (2009), and Sullivan (2009) where through providing a structure, teachers assist students to engage with multiple real-world perspectives to construct knowledge.

Teachers and students also value the access that BYOD affords for unplanned inquiry. Where traditional computer labs or class sets of laptops might be too burdensome, BYOD enables teachers to harness student interest as it arises in class. ‘Things like population boom in the Baby Boom…It’s like ‘bang’ at their fingertips’ (Teacher B, Interview 1). Teacher B’s example here clearly indicates the new layer that quick access to historical information brings into their pedagogy, helping to harness students’ interest effectively. As scholars often note, (see for example: Bruner, 1961; Hohn, 2005; Sullivan, 2009; Terwel, 1999; Tobias & Duffy, 2009)constructivist approaches to pedagogy typically supports learners as they inquire after their own interests and construct their own meaning. Teacher B’s integration of BYOD in history classes clearly reflects this constructivist approach.

However, as the online environment becomes increasingly complex (Brante & Strømsø, 2018; Metzger, 2007; Nokes & De La Paz, 2023), and students can ‘get lost in it’ (Teacher B, Interview 2), teachers’ instruction in historical research narrows to focus on finding correct historical information. To teach students how to effectively research, using their BYOD, teachers provide explicit instruction on the important skill of finding relevant information. Teacher A instructs students to: ‘get as much out of [a web search] as possible, [by using] inverted commas’ and ‘the word ‘A N D’ in capitals’ (Interview 2). Likewise, Teacher B gives students clear ‘direction… ‘so [students are] not wasting their time’ (Interview 1). It is clear here that teachers’ focus is on relevant information. The concerns with getting as ‘much out of [web searches] as possible’ or students ‘wasting’ time on irrelevant information suggests that the priority is getting a large quantity of relevant information in as little time as possible. Locating information is an important historical skill, but such a strong focus on retrieving information seems to prompt students to construct narratives of facts rather than deep historical understanding. Scholars note that historical understanding is typically constructed by engaging in historical method, using skills such as sourcing, contextualisation and corroboration to build knowledge (De La Paz & Nokes, 2020; Monte-Sano, 2011; Nokes, 2022; Reisman, 2012). As Teacher A notes the time needed to learn to navigate the overwhelming abundance on online information, makes it difficult to teach students to ‘research the historian and understand them’ (Interview 2), i.e., — the skills of historical sourcing.

Students also deeply valued the presence of BYOD for historical inquiry, but their responses to the questionnaires and worksheets suggest that their BYOD prompts them to engage at a superficial level, focused on quickly collating relevant facts about the past. When asked how their BYOD helps to evaluate historical information online, student responses sometimes referred to corroboration through ‘cross referencing’ (Student 2, Questionnaire 1) or ‘backing up some information’ (Student 10, Questionnaire 1), but mainly referred to quick access to ‘info to help construct my response’ (Student 1, Questionnaire 1); ‘vast amounts of information. This allows me to double check but also to find what I need quickly.’ (Student 8, Questionnaire 2). Students use BYOD to locate historical information quickly, particularly using the ‘search within document function’ (Student 4, Questionnaire 2) to locate the pertinent fact. Students’ work samples suggest that the value is more on the speed, rather than the ability to corroborate. In evaluating each web page, no student demonstrated that they had engaged in corroboration. Instead, students tended to make hasty judgements based on websites’ aesthetics or prior reputation.

BYOD, in the present study, appeared to exacerbate a mindset that limited historical understanding to facts about the past, rather than an active construction of historical meaning based on an interaction between the student and historical evidence. Historical research conducted on BYOD is approached as a quest to find relevant information, from reputable sources. This is latently evident in comments from both teachers and students. When asked about how their BYOD helps them to evaluate historical information, students mostly focus on the ability to find more information. For example, Student 8 writes: ‘[BYOD] helps me find a variety of sources quickly which allows for better cross referencing. This also helps me to find more information whilst still remaining quick and efficient. (Questionnaire 1). This information focus is echoed by Student 6 who values a BYOD because: ‘I can access it and decipher information myself leading me to understand the content more’ (Questionnaire 1). BYOD certainly helps students to access ‘a lot of information…quick[ly]’ (Student 10, Questionnaire 1). However, BYOD has not increased students’ propensity to construct their own meaning by engaging in historical method. If anything, these comments suggest that using their BYOD prompts students to read more superficially, using electronic shortcuts to quickly cherry-pick relevant facts that are not read within the context of broader arguments, leading to a more limited understanding of how the narrative of the past is constructed and communicated.

Despite valuing the speed and access that BYOD offers for historical inquiry, both teachers and students seem to underestimate the way that BYOD is heightening students’ apparently narrow view of history as being information about the past. Despite the scaffolded worksheet activity prompting students to gradually construct meaning by considering each website’s author, message and purpose, students rarely considered these factors in judging websites’ reliability. Rather than engage in the critical thinking involved with constructing meaning through historical method, students remain at the superficial level of using ‘their ICT capability to access a range of digital sources of information’ and have not demonstrated, on this occasion, the ability to ‘critically analyse evidence’ (ACARA, 2024). BYOD is greatly valued by students and teachers for the speed and ease of access that it allows for engagement in historical inquiry. However, BYOD also seems to encourage speed—not just facilitate it—prompting students to complete learning tasks more superficially.

5.1.2 Increased productivity

Superficial and quick completion of tasks is linked to the way that teachers and students value BYOD as a labour-saving device. This attitude seemingly reflects real world economic concerns with productivity. In addition to ‘not carrying all these textbooks around anymore’ (Teacher A, Interview 2), BYOD means that Teacher A ‘can have the lesson set up exactly how I want it’ (Interview 1) with links to resources that scaffold student inquiry—especially when the class is being covered by another teacher. This comment highlights the way that Teacher A is very positive about the way that BYOD saves the labour of printing and transporting various teaching resources. Furthermore, Teacher A is positive about the increased control that BYOD offers in lesson planning, particularly in the way that BYOD brings clarity to the communication between Teacher A, hypothetical covering teachers, and students.

The high value placed on BYOD as a perceived labour-saver both reflects and extends an underlying cultural attitude that focuses on the product of student learning, rather than the process through which students develop a deep historical understanding. The opportunity to save on labour through quick access to information and minimise reading by using the Find tool discussed above seems to prompt students to quickly produce a product rather than develop their historical understanding. This attitude was reflected in student questionnaires, where they expressed their appreciation of BYOD offering a ‘faster experience’ (Student 9, Questionnaire 1) that is ‘quick and efficient’ (Student 10, Questionnaire 1).

This value on efficiency was also seen implicitly through the apparent collaboration between Students 2 and 9 who submitted identical worksheets in both of the lessons. The presence of BYOD has enabled students to economise their efforts in this way. According to Teacher A, students regularly divided worksheets up using Google Docs to share their work. Students value being able to construct historical narratives quickly, without concern that they have, perhaps, not constructed as deep a meaning through their engagement with lesson materials. The value on the expediency offered by BYOD was also reflected in teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards Wikipedia. Despite students commenting critically on its unreliability, the expediency of Wikipedia is highly valued. Students are taught not to ‘use it for academic purposes…[but] if you want a fast intro, it’s okay to use it. But never quoted in essays’ (Teacher A, Interview 2). It is interesting here, that Teacher A’s focus remains on a final product that appears to demonstrate deep historical understanding, rather than the process that has led to students constructing their historical understanding. It would be interesting to tease out further, the deeper meaning—beyond historical understanding—that students are constructing through their engagement with historical inquiry through their BYOD, but unfortunately, that is beyond the scope of the present study.

6 Limitations, implications and conclusion

6.1 Limitations

As a case-study with a small sample of participants, the findings of this study are not generalisable. However, as Braun and Clarke (2022) point out, the rich depth of detail in the present study will enable readers to reflect on the research and the extent to which findings might be applied in their context, similar to other small case studies examining BYOD in schools (see for example Adhikari et al., 2016; Cheng, 2022; Cheng et al., 2016; Gkamas et al., 2019, Kay & Schellenberg, 2017; Keane & Keane, 2022; Maher & Twining, 2017; Page Jeffery, 2022; Song, 2014). By focusing on a particular age group, this study is unable to capture a sense of how students develop the skills of web evaluation over time and cannot test the participating teachers’ speculation that the ability to use BYOD effectively is linked to students’ age and academic ability. Rather, the method used in this study aimed to fulfil the research intention by capturing a snapshot of students and teachers engaging in typical classroom activities at a particular point in time. However, several comments from the teachers suggested that students did not approach the worksheets with their typical levels of effort because they knew that the worksheets were being used for the research study and did not contribute to their marks for school. Having said that, this study adds to the body of knowledge about students and teachers attitudes to BYOD (Bulfin et al., 2016; Selwyn et al., 2017, 2020; Adhikari et al., 2016; Keane & Keane, 2022; Maher & Twining, 2017; Page Jeffery, 2022). Furthermore, this study adds to the rich knowledge reported in case studies that focus on the use of BYOD in other subjects (Cheng, 2022; Adhikari et al., 2016; Kay & Schellenberg, 2017) by exploring how BYOD is being used in History classes.

6.2 Implications

There are several important implications stemming from this study. At first inspection, the tool of the school’s BYOD program, ties in well with the participating teachers’ constructivist approach to history pedagogy, as well as allowing a neat alignment of History syllabus and national ICT aims. However, in this small case-study BYOD seems to push students to work efficiently, with an emphasis on task-completion and speed—which in turn, leads to more superficial reading and analysis of websites, and not the construction of deep historical knowledge. The implication being that students potentially fall short of achieving the critical ICT literacy (ACARA, 2024) and historical inquiry skills (NESA, 2021) that teachers are aiming for. A second, significant implication for history curriculum is recognising the time needed to teach students to use their BYOD well for historical research, and planning for this time to be built in along with other teaching foci. Rather than saving on labour, the presence of BYOD in the participants’ history classrooms has actually introduced much more work. Finally, there are implications for the various stakeholders in this study. The students may not have developed the level of historical understanding that they had thought, but may also not be realising the way that BYOD is shaping their study habits. History teachers could do well to be more cognisant of the costs of using BYOD in their pedagogy and planning on ways to mitigate these costs.

6.3 Conclusion

Participating students and teachers have a very positive attitude towards the use of BYOD in history lessons. This attitude largely stem from the perception that BYOD helps to put students at the centre of the historical inquiry, so that they can engage with multiple perspectives and actively construct their own understanding of the past. Furthermore, the use of BYOD is viewed by the participating teachers as imperative in order to prepare students for future study and work. Teachers and students are also very positive about the perception of BYOD as a labour-saving device. However, both teachers and students do not seem to fully consider the ways that BYOD is shaping history teachers’ pedagogical approach. The opportunity-cost of teaching students to use their devices effectively has reduced the time that teachers used to use to teach other important historical thinking skills. Furthermore, the presence of BYOD in the participating history classes seemed to encourage students to construct a more superficial understanding of the past, rather than deep historical understanding. More research is needed to develop a complete picture of the way that BYODs are being used in history classrooms in other contexts. A consideration of students of different age, gender and socio-educational status will help build a more comprehensive picture.