Shifting Focus

In order to move our classrooms from the traditional teacher led dissemination of information to a more student focused, student centered model that incorporates technology as a critical vehicle there are two major obstacles to overcome. The first is getting students to accept the technology and assimilate it as naturally as those of my generation did pencil and paper. Secondly, teachers need to acknowledge that we need to give students the flexibility and support to find ways to explore both established and non-established methods to show mastery.

We are at a place in our society where technology is changing quicker than any one person can keep up with. A major change for me is being able to accept that if students are exploring, they are likely to find things of which I was unaware. The converse is true where the teacher can and will find new technological avenues for the students to explore. How do we allow this exploration while at the same time leading instruction?

Perhaps the answer is to give the students the time to explore outside of guided instruction. When calculators were first introduced, we (then students) spent a lot of time playing on them just to see what they could and would do in addition (see what I did there?) to discovering what words we could create by turning the device upside down! Granted, we got to a place where play had exhausted pretty quickly compared to what is available today but eventually we used the calculator for the use that it was intended. One of our readings recommends giving free time to explore on the computer. At first, this didn't mesh with my vision of a classroom but then I recalled something from Google. Google gives its employees what is called 20% time. That is they have 20 percent of their work time to devote to their own projects. Some of these projects go nowhere but some (like Gmail) have turned into some of the most successful Google initiatives. Perhaps this method can be adapted to fit into the school setting. 20 percent, or one day a week, might be too much time to give up but 10 percent might work. It would require some parameters be set so that the students are on task. Google requires progress reports and if creators determine the project is going nowhere they are free to terminate and start on another. An initiative like this in a classroom could expand what the students discover while at the same time making both the offerings of the device and the familiarity of using the device a commonplace experience.

Getting teachers to buy into alternative ways of showing mastery is a more complicated issue. On one hand the research is pretty convincing that kids can do innovative and exciting things when given the opportunity. On the other hand teachers are held to predetermined standards and standardized methods of assessment. Frankly, I don't see an obvious answer to this impasse. If students are going to show us what they are capable of then they need to have the latitude to do so. Teachers will need to be flexible enough to create broad rubrics to evaluate and administrators need to be flexible enough (and trusting enough) to acknowledge the difference the teacher  being flexible and being lazy. School boards and state legislatures would need to be open enough to allow time for new methods to gain traction in schools. No step in this process is going to be easy or clean.

Maybe the genesis of this kind of paradigm shift will come from those class offerings that aren't currently tested via the state test. While all courses have standards, in Indiana the subjects like math and language arts are the ones that get the scrutiny of standardized testing. If those other courses could begin initiatives as described above AND find some success then it might make the implementation in the "tested" classes a little easier. This is certainly not going to be a cut and dried process and will no doubt be messy. Only school environments where a trust is present among all stakeholders will be able to work through the messiness and get to a place that the achievement can be seen.

Technology and Classroom Management

Determining what method of the three described in the article is dominant in my class is relatively easy. Determining if and how to get to the third level is a little more involved. At the outset, I have to disagree with at least one assumption in the article. Specifically, the statement that educational apps be "engaging enough that students, choose them over other video games or activities". For my students, the lure of games is the lack of responsibility to the product. If they lose a game they simply start over and try again and the goal is to find the "work arounds" in the game to get as far as possible. They aren't trying to acquire a skill or necessarily get better at the game but just find the option that gets them through with the least amount of effort. It's the same idea as wanting numerous tries on a multiple choice question in order to get the right answer by the process of elimination. They want the grade, but not quite enough to really study. I believe that we can't compete on this level but instead need to get kids involved in the subject enough that learning is more satisfying than playing games.

Having said that, I have to say that my classroom is very definitely in the control by authority category to a large extent. There is a concrete reason for this. Pestalozzi, in his philosophy of teaching advocated letting the students experience things in order to learn but had one caveat. When tools were involved, he would show the students the proper way to use the tools before letting them explore. In a Digital Citizenship class I am essentially teaching them to use the tool so that they can properly explore which naturally lends itself to the first level of control, at least until the students are able to properly use the "tool" (which is another discussion all together).

The question of whether and how we can reach the third level should be preceded by analyzing the level of exposure that students have when they enter your class. In classes where all of the students have computers in the home and understand the basics of using them, getting them to a point that they will understand the uses outside of games and therefore to a point of self control will be easier. If kids don't have that exposure at home then more focus will be necessary to get kids to be able to use computers easily before they can exhibit self control.

Now, for schools that are already in the 1:1 environment, the issue will be more about exposure than learning how to use the equipment. Once kids learn how to use the hardware, it is up to the teachers to expose them to WHAT they can access outside of games. The beauty and wonder in the world is much more powerful than playing a game. Just recently, I took a chance and showed my students some Youtube videos involving physics. You can see it here. Even though the class didn't have anything to do with physics, it launched some great discussion and an opportunity for the kids to use some web searching techniques to find information. If we can show them the rich content of the internet outside of games, they will be quicker to get on board with controlling themselves.

So, in order for my classes to get to the third level there would need to be a number of things happen. First, the economic level of the area would need to get to the point that a higher percentage of students have computers in the home so that they have good examples at an early age. Second, having the software to monitor and control access to work through the second level will help guide the students to richer content. Finally, going 1:1 will allow the kids to learn how to control the technology, get their fill of games (on their own time) and allow for seeing the device as a tool rather than a game.