Running head: WEBIBLIOGRAPHY: CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 1

Webibliography: Cloud Computing in Education

Jason D. Lauer

Liberty University
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 2

Webibliography: Cloud Computing in Education

Summary

Technology and the digital age is ever growing. Advancements in digital content have

led to larger file sizes and storage issues. To help battle the concerns of consumers, companies

have created cloud-based storage systems (Arpaci, 2016). These cloud-based storage systems

are designed to ease consumer concerns about storage limit, and ease of access (Arpaci, 2016).

In this research article, Arpaci (2016) looks to create a framework based on the Technology

Acceptance Model to measure the attitudes of students using cloud storage services.

The sample for research consisted of 262 undergraduate students selected using the

convenience sampling method (Arpaci, 2016). Students in the sampling ranged from the age of

17 to 32 (Arpaci, 2016). Of those aged students, 93.4% were in the 18-23 age range (Arpaci,

2016). Further breaking down the sample students, 59.2% were female, and 40.8% were

male(Arpaci, 2016).

The research design used in the study was based off of the Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM) (Arpaci, 2016). This form of model is widely accepted when determining the acceptance

of new technology (Arpaci, 2016). The study also utilized Fishbein and Ajzens Theory of

Reasoned Action (TRA) for theoretical basis (Arpaci, 2016). This theory basically has two

beliefs, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Arpaci, 2016).

Results of the study demonstrated the participant's attitudes toward mobile cloud storage

services were affected by perceived usefulness, trust, and subjective norm as indicated by TRA

(Arpaci, 2016). The research conducted in the article further supported existing literature about

cloud services (Arpaci, 2016). Two major components in the success or failure of mobile could

storage services are enhanced security, and user privacy (Arpaci, 2016). Research implications
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 3

stated by Arpaci (2016) show the research model created for the study better explains the

variance of the dependent variable when compared to the TAM. The conducted research model

includes social variables and situation-specific factors in which the TAM does not.

Critique

This article dives deep into the understanding and reasoning behind students intentions

when using mobile cloud storage services. Although the research is thorough and well put

together, does it really cover the topic of the article? During the conclusion of the research does

Arpaci (2016) have all the answers they were looking for?

In the introduction Arpaci (2016) does a good job describing the various cloud computing

uses and the three different levels. This information is important to distinguish the results at the

end of the article. Personally, when thinking about cloud storage, the basics come to mind first.

Programs such as google drive, Microsoft one drive, icloud, all the big names. These are merely

one part of what is a bigger picture in the cloud computing system. The three important areas of

cloud computing consist of infrastructure of service, platform as service, and software of service

(Arpaci, 2016). Arpaci (2016) continues later in the introduction to get specific about mobile

cloud computing. In these paragraphs, the information is well portrayed to identify the many

uses of mobile cloud computing by the main players listed earlier such as Google Drive.

The research model and hypotheses conducted by Arpaci (2016) is very impressive. Out

of all the articles researched for this project, Arpaci was the most detailed. Arpaci (2016) created

a research framework based on another widely-accepted model known as Technology

Acceptance Model. This was a smart move for Arpaci to base this study off of a well-known,

respected model. Since the Technology Acceptance Model covers some of the basis of what
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 4

Arpaci is looking for in the study, the Technology Acceptance Model serves as a strong backbone

for the study.

Further strengthening the validity of the study by Arpaci (2016), the research implications

are well put together. Arpaci (2016) starts off the research implications portion with strong

evidence supporting the study. The research model used for the study covered a greater amount

of information including dependent, and social variables (Arpaci, 2016). This bit of information

describes the validity of the study over the well-known Technology Acceptance Model,

therefore, proving the importance of the findings.

Adding a very important part to the study, Arpaci (2016) includes the practical

implications of the findings of the research. This is a useful paragraph nicely summarizing the

findings of the study and clearing demonstration how they can be used in a practical manner.

Ending this much-needed paragraph is a bit of advice for universities, or even any other

educational institution to be sure and have policy guidelines in place when students are using

these cloud based systems (Arpaci, 2016).

Reference

Arpaci, I. (2016). Understanding and predicting students intention to use mobile cloud storage
services. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 150157.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.067
Summary
Security is a major concern with the world of technology. Many adults who are not

familiar with the technology, or did not grow up with it, are afraid to use it. These adults most

likely are scared to use technology because of the possibilities of items not being secure. The

same goes for educational systems such as universities and public or private schools, they are

fearful of security and try and hold tight to the technology implementation in their give spaces
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 5

(Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010). The purpose of this book is to initiate conversations about

security and what specific measures teachers need to take insure security when implementing

technology into their lessons (Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010).

Technology has many different avenues in which it can be utilized in an inappropriate

manner. Brown, Green, & Robinson (2010) break the chapters down into nine specific areas of

focus. Chapter 2 starts things off with the discussion of inappropriate content. An alarming rate

of students between the ages of nine and nineteen have seen inappropriate content on the internet

(Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010). Chapters three further discuss such topics as predators, and

instances when young people can be in danger (Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010). The fourth

chapter of the book rounds up the portions focused mainly on children in which it discusses

missuses of mobile communication and devices for cyberbullying (Brown, Green, & Robinson,

2010).

The final chapters of five through nine put the focus on the school systems or universities

(Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010). The book goes on to discuss the uses of the network,

copyright infringement, data and identity theft and professional responsibility (Brown, Green, &

Robinson, 2010). While it appears the first four chapters focus on mainly the students, the final

five chapters dig a little deeper into some of the responsibilities of the adults and teachers

(Brown, Green, & Robinson, 2010).

Critique

Although this book is somewhat dated with being published back in 2010, it still has

some relevant information. All the threats mentioned in the book are still very many threats here

in 2017. With the advancements in technology come new security threats. With the
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 6

advancements in security individuals which want to do harm are coming up with new ways to do

so. It is a never-ending cycle in which the good has a difficult time keeping on top of the bad.

Focusing on chapter two, the threat of inappropriate content, Brown, Green, & Robinson

do a good job describing the various forms of inappropriate content. First thought of

inappropriate content is most likely pornography. While this is a major part of the inappropriate

content discussed in the book, there are also graphic pictures and guides to build harmful devices

(Brown et al., 2010). Within many of the chapters, the book is useful in describing the realities

of some of these threats (Brown et al., 2010). The media of the world, television, the internet,

etc. will hype up certain situations to try and gain more interest from the audience (Brown et al.,

2010). This book does a good job of making sure the topics discussed are seen in truthful

realities. The book is not just another source of media outlet, but truthfully breaks down the

threats and puts them into real perspective.

Chapter five includes an interesting section dedicated to monitoring student use.

Although it is the responsibility of the educator to monitor the students, the districts sometimes

monitor the teachers. Brown et al., (2010) makes a very interesting point in stating they do not

advocate for surveillance of teachers and staff. They feel this does not display professionalism

and trust of the teachers and staff of the specific district (Brown et al., 2010). This is a

fascinating point showing how serious it is to treat your teachers and staff in a professional

manner, not only when it comes to privacy and trust on the provided network, but should be

implemented in all parts of the educational process.

As stated earlier, this book is a fantastic resource for years to come. The threats

discussed in this book are going to be threats for years to come. The methods for fighting these

threats may change to some degree, but the basics will remain the same. Districts need to trust
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 7

their teachers and treat them as professionals, and teachers need to monitor students whenever

they can.

Reference

Brown, A.H., Green, T.D., and Robinson, L.K. (2010). Security vs. access. Oregon: ISTE.
ISBN 9781564842640. (K-12)

Summary

Maker spaces are becoming a major part of the educational setting. Many libraries are

being transformed into media spaces in which some are including maker spaces. Maker spaces

are areas in which students can create knowledge and content (Moorefield-Lang, 2015). The

purpose of this paper further discusses maker spaces and the movement to make them mobile

(Moorefield-Lang, 2015). Six different librarians and educators were interviewed to describe

their maker spaces and how the ability for them to be mobile has been useful in their educational

setting (Moorefield-Lang, 2015). Findings during the course of the interviews were

demonstrating the usefulness of a mobile maker space to reach more students (Moorefield-Lang,

2015). Students who do not have access to the maker spaces located in a specific brick and

motor location, now have access to maker spaces via these mobile setups (Moorefield-Lang,

2015). The implications of this study demonstrate the lack of research in the field of maker

spaces (Moorefield-Lang, 2015).

Critique

Working closely with a librarian, it has been seen the importance libraries still hold in the

educational setting. Libraries still have a great value, the materials in which they can provide are

just changing. One clear question of this article is the concrete evidence of the usefulness of

mobile maker spaces. The maker space being able to move from one location to another does

demonstrate some usefulness in the ability to reach other students. The main concern and focus
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 8

in many schools today is test scores. Are these maker spaces helping students learn the material

they need?

Maybe the purpose of the article is not to demonstrate student learning is happening due

to maker spaces, but to demonstrate there are alternative methods to teaching certain content.

Moorefield-Lang (2015) does do a good job providing numerous resources as far as different

locations through the world with mobile maker spaces. These various maker spaces seem to be

having a positive impact on students and schools in general. Even if direct learning is not

happening with the maker spaces, the thought of showing students pieces such as a 3D printer,

and coding may impact them in a way test scores can not.

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) are a big push these days.

Although this article may not answer all the questions about the validity of maker spaces, it

demonstrates the drive in the school system to incorporate STEM principals whenever possible.

With the lack of interest in STEM and many jobs which are becoming available, the maker space

movement and especially the mobile maker space may have a more positive impact than we

know. Therefore the information shared by Moorefield-Lang (2015) is useful in its own right.

References

Moorefield-Lang, H. M. (2015). When maker spaces go mobile: case studies of transportable

maker locations. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 462471. http://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0
061
Summary
Google apps for education is a major player in the educational world these days. Within

the school one to one initiative, you will most likely see two major companies, Apple or Google.

When one to one initiatives first began Apple was one of the first to be introduced in schools.

Many schools thought the introduction of the iPad was going to be the technology everyone
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 9

needed. As good as IPads are for certain situations, it was being found the cost of purchasing,

repairing, or replacing was not worth the initial investment. Google most likely saw this

situation from a long distance and knew they could do it better. Google later on down the line

introduced the Chromebook. Chromebooks come preinstalled with all the Google applications

which need to be used. The introduction of the Chromebook into schools brought about Google

apps for education (GAFE). While these applications were to be widely used in the educational

setting, schools were not always aware of the privacy settings associated with Google.

This is where Lindh and Nolin (2016) come in. They conducted a study to analysis the

surveillance and privacy when implementing Google apps for education (Lindh & Nolin, 2016).

Approximately 30 Swedish school within an educational organization were used for the sample

(Lindh & Nolin, 2016). The research design created used a rhetorical analysis of Googles policy

documents during an interview with the Swedish educational organization (Lindh & Nolin,

2016). The results of the study demonstrated the Swedish organization felt GAFE was useful but

they failed to understand the privacy issues associated with using the programs (Lindh & Nolin,

2016). Implications of the study demonstrate due to the lack of concern for privacy issues during

the use of GAFE, the students of the Swedish organization were forced to use a product which

may be unsafe (Lindh & Nolin, 2016).

Critique

Privacy issue with programs has always been an issue in the world. With Google being

such a big company, many people have wondered what Google does with all the information

they are ultimately collecting. Any user of the Google play store, and android applications will

understand the advancements they have made in privacy situations with apps. Android devices,
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 10

in particular, will ask what permissions the application will be allowed to have on your device

before it is even fully installed.

Lindh and Nolin (2016) do a fantastic job diving into the many layers which make up

Google and their privacy issues. Google is smart, and they do a good job of covering up as much

of the fine print as possible to make it look like your data is secure (Lindh & Nolin, 2016).

When discussing Google apps for education, in particular, it is portrayed by Google the data of

the school system will be theirs and theirs alone (Lindh & Nolin, 2016). The article does a good

job of describing what Google is actually saying about the data which is stored on any given

device using GAFE (Lindh & Nolin, 2016). The article goes on to explain the data within the

documents created is kept secure and not shared, but basically, the process of creating the

document is recorded and make into an algorithm used by Google to make a profit off of (Lindh

& Nolin, 2016).

As stated earlier, Lindh and Nolin (2016) do a good job in this article in breaking down

all the various pieces of Google as a company. Within this breakdown, they clearly and

concisely demonstrate how Google is a business and will use whatever means they can to get the

information they ultimately make money on (Lindh & Nolin, 2016). With the inclusion of the

Swedish educational system, it would have been more helpful if the article could have included

more instances of educational setting using GAFE and their thoughts on the various privacy

policies which come with it.

Reference

Lindh, M., & Nolin, J. (2016). Information We Collect: Surveillance and Privacy in the
Implementation of Google Apps for Education. European Educational Research Journal,
15(6),
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 11

644663. http://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116654917

Summary

Google is a big part of the educational system. The introduction of Chromebooks and

Google apps for education has improved the technology integration of many school systems

throughout the world. A big part of the Google suite utilized by many is Google Drive. The

introduction of Google drive initially was just for a cloud-based area to store files. Drive was a

separate application for a long while when it was introduced. The same was said for Googles

office suite consisting of Docs, Slides, and Sheets. They were all individual application which

did not have many ties to each other when first introduced. Somewhere along the line, Google

decided to incorporate all of the office suite pieces into Google Drive. This allowed the creation

of these documents and a cloud-based storage area to keep them in.

With the continued growth and changes to Google Drive, Rowe, Bozalek, and Frantz

(2013) did a study to demonstrate the usefulness of Google Drive in facilitating a blended

approach to authentic learning. In 2012 at the University of Western Cape, located in South

Africa the study was conducted in a physiotherapy department (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013).

The study was initiated due to final-year students not demonstrating reasoning and critical

thinking during their final exams (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013). This data spark the

university to change the model of teaching which was being conducted (Rowe, Bozalek &

Frantz, 2013). The classes changed from a traditional lecture style class to case-based learning

with the integration of technology for communication (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013). Google

drive was a major player in this revamping due to its ability for students to collaborate with each

other and shared documents in a meaningful way (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013). Basic results
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 12

from the study demonstrated the students were happy with how the class changed, and the role

they now had in collaborating with each other (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013).

Critique

This article is one of the more difficult articles to agree with. The information seems to

be legitimate and well put together, but the focus just being on Google drive is hard to

understand. All the pieces which make of Google drive are important in the collaboration

process. As stated earlier, Google docs, sheets, and slides are all key components to the

effectiveness of Google Drive. Without the inclusion and breakdown of these important pieces it

is difficult to believe the information being shared by Rowe, Bozalek and Frantz (2013).

The data collection piece of the study does not seem very strong. The study created a

couple focus groups to discuss the creation of meaningful sharing. This does not seem like a

very valid setup to collect data. Hopefully future research on this topic will include some more

concrete evidence of the usefulness of Google Drive as a collaboration tool.

The last section which is not very strong is the results of the study. This is merely a small

paragraph stating the responses gained from the study were in support of the themes during the

content (Rowe, Bozalek & Frantz, 2013). Yes, self learning is great, but this article lacks the

concrete data proving student learning is occuring with the use of Google Drive.

The move in education towards student driven assignments is great. Google drive and all

the Google applications are a big player in the movement due to their ability to collaborate so

easily. This article could have done a better job deomstrating all the various tools in the Google

suite which can be used to grown student learning and create a sense of collaboration.

References

Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach
CLOUD COMPUTING IN EDUCATION 13

to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594606.

http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063