The Powerful Potential of Flipped Learning

         Image: nasa.gov

My final topic for this course was about the Powerful Potential of Flipped Learning. After this course, I see it in a new light, and I wanted to explore it more. I ended up spending more time than I ought on the video itself, but that's the fun of using these tools; having an excuse to play with them. I used Screencastomatic as my recording tool. With another 12 hours, I could have really done something cool, but I don't think it turned out too bad.

So, here's my final presentation:

It's still processing as I post this, so I'm hoping it'll be up and running by the time anyone gets to watching it. :-)

I realized that I forgot to put the credits for my images at the end. I'll make some revisions later to incorporate it, but now, you can find them here: http://goo.gl/6sHoyo.

...and here is the Flipboard magazine I put together on the topic. 

View my Flipboard Magazine.

I'd welcome any thoughts or feedback!

Playing to Learn?

Video games make good teachers. Sometimes.

My six-year-old recently explained to me the need for certain species to adapt to their environments in order to survive. He gave me a detailed explanation of how sometimes creatures will have parts that don't work well in an environment and they'll die, and other times, they'll have parts that help them and they'll live and reproduce. He went on to speculate about how a bird we saw flying by the car (this is what brought on the train of thought) probably adapted to live in our desert. While his imaginings were clearly those of a six-year-old's creativity, I couldn't help but be impressed by his knowledge of how species eventually evolve. I asked him if he learned about it in his kindergarten class. His response? "No, I learned about it in Spore."

A video game.

Apparently, he had a species he created die because it wasn't well-suited to its environment, and another one become successful and evolve into higher species. He also understood a fair amount about the food web, ecosystems, and the benefits of societal connections.

All because of a video game. And let's not get me started on what he explained to me about how to build things in Minecraft and all that was implied in that explanation. Or his detailed description of physics concepts, courtesy of Portal. (He's a rather stream-of-consciousness conversationalist...)

I've been following the idea of gamification in the classroom for several years now, and I've read a lot along the way. Although I've yet to come to a solid conclusion about the topic, my six-year-old's surprising understanding of fairly complex ideas made me realize that games just might be a way to help teach our students.

Gamification has its fans and its detractors (and its pros and cons), but at the end of the day, I think it's like pretty much everything else in education: use it as a tool, and use it with purpose, and it has the potential to benefit a classroom greatly; use it without a clear purpose or in place of solid instructional practices, it becomes just another thing that doesn't work (or doesn't work for long).

There are two basic models of gamification: simulation games and structure games. Simulation games require students to learn or apply content knowledge to "win;" structure games turn the classroom environment itself into a game. Check out this blog for a more in-depth description, as well as a discussion of Classcraft, which is a type of structure game.

One of the earliest articles I read on gamification revolved around Classcraft, but before it was available as a product (it was under development at the time). Unfortunately, I can't seem to dig that article up, but the essence of it spoke to me. The creator of Classcraft started out in his own classroom. He enjoyed World of Warcraft (those less in touch with the gaming world can read about it here), and he was also a fan of Dungeons & Dragons. He decided to take some of the features he liked about the game and translate them into class. He used his own class to figure out some of the perks and pitfalls of the process, and eventually he decided to turn it into a game other teachers could use. This article provides more of the back story, but also sounds a little like an advertisement for the game. It's definitely not the article I read originally, but it does explain a bit about the game and how it came to be.

Classcraft is a gaming platform that teachers can use to turn their own classrooms into gaming environments. While Classcraft is just one of many possible choices (in addition to creating an original game), it serves well as an example to discuss. Here's my take on the idea of this particular version of gamifying the classroom:

• Pros:
• Classcraft has students working in teams. It requires collaboration and accountability in order to make progress. The real-world benefits and consequences for classroom performance should help students make the connection between virtual teamwork and real-world teamwork, and hopefully help them become better prepared for life after school (when communication and collaboration are valuable life skills).
• Classcraft capitalizes on the natural tendency of people to want to learn and explore. If a teacher uses Classcraft as a tool to help motivate students to explore content (rather than just as a way to monitor whether a kid did his/her homework), it becomes an opportunity to see/earn a reward for learning. If the game is used in conjunction with compelling lessons and quests for knowledge, the process of learning is something that is enjoyable and fun, whether or not there's a reward at the end. The badge/level up/reward is just an outward symbol of completing something that was fun to do.
• Used intelligently, this game (or systems like it) has the potential to make students' grades more real to them. The vast majority of today's students play at least some games; they all seem to understand the value of leveling up, earning badges, completing quests, etc. While some students might not care whether they earn an A or a C in a class (or truly understand the difference between the two), they all seem to understand making progress in a game. If progress in the game is equated with grades, students in this environment have a much better chance of understanding how they earned the grade they receive at the end of a course.
• Cons:
• Because students are required to work in teams, a class with a high number of unmotivated students could sink the experience for everyone. I suspect in most cases, the unmotivated students would respond to pressure from classmates to perform better so they can make progress; however, with the wrong balance of motivated and unmotivated students in the class, this could become an exercise in frustration for the motivated students, and they may eventually give up, lose interest, or --even worse-- stop working themselves, because they can't make progress. A teacher really has to know his or her class and be able to connect with them to be able to use this sort of tool effectively.
• Some students are only going to participate for the opportunity to win badges/prizes/points, and not really make the connection with what they're learning. If they're only working to complete the quests for the prizes, they're not building up the habits that will make them lifelong learners. It is possible that those students who start with the extrinsic motivation may eventually become accustomed to searching for knowledge and eventually become intrinsically motivated (that's the beauty of what a well-designed assignment can do in this setting), but it isn't necessarily going to be the case. I do suspect the those motivated by the prizes are probably the most likely to not do to work in a non-gamified classroom, so in some cases, just giving them a reason to complete the work should be considered a win for education.
• I suppose this is less of a con than a point to consider. Using a game like this in the classroom really requires thoughtful lesson planning. If this is used as an add-on to a standard "sage on the stage" classroom, it might work to engage kids a little more in what they're doing. Its real power to make a difference, though, is in a classroom where the teacher has taken the time to move away from lecture/test/repeat to a project- or problem- focused class that invites students to uncover important information as they find a solution to a carefully crafted problem/project. Teachers without the time or motivation to make a move to a student-centered learning environment might find this type of gamification to have little to no impact on learning in the long run. Platforms like Classcraft invite teachers to more carefully craft their classes.

While Classcraft is available for any teacher to access, some teachers still prefer to develop their own versions of classroom games, and they will still experience many of the same pros and cons I just discussed. Scott Haselwood wrote a pretty thorough piece about how he decided to try gamification, how he set it up, and what he's learned so far from the experience. His reflection on the process is consistent with both pros and cons of a gamified classroom.

Regardless of the type of game or platform, gamification provides the opportunity for teachers to engage their students in learning in a way that is familiar to the students. Like any opportunity in education, it is the responsibility of the teacher to figure out the best way to use it and whether it's appropriate for a particular teaching assignment. While gamification may be a perfect fit for one class or teacher, it might end in disaster for another. Teachers interested in gamifying their classes have to be willing to do what their students do every time they play: risk failure.

Perhaps gamifying the classroom is a game in itself.

Holding the Universe in Your Hands

                                      Image via: http://thisisnthappiness.com/image/104185526234

The way I see flipped learning is complicated. So much so, in fact, that I find that the universe itself makes a good metaphor for it. Flipped learning is big. It's dynamic. It is ever-expanding (let's not get into the scientific debate over the topic at the moment- just roll with me for now). Flipped learning has the power to make or destroy a child's education, and we, as educators, must be careful in how we wield its power (I'm not saying teachers are deities, but again, just roll with me). In short, using the flipped classroom model in your classroom is a bit like holding a piece of the universe in your hands. 

It sees as though I'll be turning this into a bit of a metaphor for teacher as creator, too. Didn't see that one coming when I started.

As a teacher using the flipped classroom, you have the power to create new opportunities from existing knowledge. You can manipulate content so that it is available everywhere, all the time, to all learners. You have a tool of endless potential-- the internet-- that you can use to shape the learning experiences you want your students to have. You just have to decide how to shape it.

That's a lot of power. But with great power comes great responsibility (thank you Spiderman, for giving me a line to remember that actually has utility). It's up to the teacher in charge to make sure that he or she has developed a model of flipped learning that provides a quality educational experience for all students, and that is where things get tricky. There are a ton of questions to consider: Do you make your own videos or use those of others? Do all students have sufficient access to technology to be able to complete the video-watching to prepare for class? Do your students really know how to learn from videos? Besides the practical questions, there are some philosophical questions that bear thinking about, too. Will the flipped-learning model open the way to getting rid of teachers who are masters of their subject and allow us to be replaced by a core of videos and reasonably knowledgeable (but not expert) tutors? Does the flipped model place an excessive burden on students who struggle to access technology, and is it fair for all students? 

If you check out the #flipclass hashtag on Twitter, you come face-to-face with a wall of resources for any teacher considering flipping. 

Jon Bergmann is one of my favorite resources. He is largely credited as one of the pioneers of the flipped classroom, and he is an incredibly valuable resource to anyone considering flipping. In addition to following him on Twitter and benefiting from his own ongoing learning and philosophical discussions, you can go to YouTube and watch videos like this one, where he talks about flipping the classroom.

One of my favorite things about Jon Bergmann is that by spending some time looking at his resources, particularly YouTube videos about the flipped classroom (you can also find his chemistry lectures), you can see the evolution of his own flipped classroom. You can watch it progress from a good idea for improving student:teacher time to a system that invites mastery. While he may not go about explaining every step of the process, I think the public availability of his process is valuable for one very important reason: it demonstrates that flipping the classroom and finding a model that works is a process, and it requires a thoughtful practitioner who is willing always see a better way to do things.

I had the benefit of sitting in a small-group session with Jon at conference that my own school district put on, and the time to pick his brain and listen to the way he responded to the questions of teachers who want to challenge flipped learning was incredible. I was already a fan of his videos about flipping before I attended our conference, but I had a whole new level of respect for his process afterward.

While Jon Bergmann is a well-known name at this point, it has taken him quite a few years to see flipped learning really take off. There are many other teachers, working hard and learning as they go, who are willing to share their experiences (whether or not they end up making a name for themselves in the process).

Cara Johnson is another teacher sharing her experiences on Twitter. She is an anatomy teacher, and it's easy to tell that she has a fun and engaging class. You can read about her flipped classroom experiences in a number of places, including here, and watch her reflections about the process over several years of implementation. She has participated in PDs, she has written papers, and she has allowed her name and experience to be a learning tool for anyone who stumble upon her name. One of the things I really appreciate about her is that she is helping other teachers learn how to make videos that are both relevant and engaging to learners (as opposed to using the videos of others).

...which brings me to a final thought on flipping.

I work in a school where several teachers have adopted a flipped class model. All have adopted the "watch it at home, then come to class and work on it" model. Some have opted to use videos made by others, sometimes made by other subject-matter teachers who are flipping, and other times from resources like Khan Academy. Others have opted to make a limited number of their own videos, largely through recording traditional lectures in one year, then putting them online for review and use in other years.

I have noticed through observations, discussions with students, and by overhearing comments from students (let's be honest-- the overheard comments are the most honest about student experiences) that students with teachers who use the videos of others are having a harder time "getting it" than students who are watching videos made my their own teachers. There seems to be a disconnect, even when the videos are high-quality videos like the Khan Academy provides.

Although I'm still working on understanding the source of the disconnect, I can speculate about a couple of reasons:

• When teachers create their own videos, they know exactly the content they want to cover, and they can custom-tailor their video to their own approach to teaching that particular topic. Pre-made videos are made through the lens and experiences of other teachers, and the video version of instruction may not quite line up with the classroom experiences, and this seems to leave students somewhat confused.
• Videos made by the teacher in the classroom continue the student/teacher relationship outside of the classroom and provide a sense that the teacher is with them, even at home. I read somewhere early in my research on flipping that making your face visible in the videos is an essential element in flipped class videos (I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure it was Jon Bergmann). This makes sense, since students develop relationships with their teachers and they trust them, so they are open to learning from them. Videos made by someone else may be good with content, but they lack the personal touch of seeing your own teacher talking to you about class.

So, after careful thought and consideration, I'd say this about flipping the classroom. If you're going to do it, prepare to invest yourself in the process. Do research and learn from others. Figure out how your students will benefit from it in your own classroom, and work to meet that objective with every class. Understand that it is a process that will be ever-changing and evolving (back to the universe metaphor), and you will never be "done." Finally, prepare to invest the time in making your own videos. Your students will appreciate hearing your voice and seeing your face as you teach them what you want them to know (even if it makes you cringe, like it does me).

I'd love to hear about anyone else's experiences in flipping classrooms, making occasional flipped videos, or testing out a blended classroom (the approach I'm experimenting with myself).

Sneaking in Change, One Chromebook at a Time

Image credit: www.gizmodo.co.uk

I've had an interest in implementing 1:1 technology in my district for several years. Along the way, I have done a lot of research into types of devices, pros and cons of each, and what needs to go into a successful 1:1 implementation. Nobody has ever asked me to do any of this research, but I have done it anyway, because ed tech excites me, and if anyone ever asks me what I think, or better yet, if I ever have a chance to develop a program myself, I want to have an idea of where I want to go with it.

The high school district I work in consists of eight comprehensive high schools, with a total student population of approximately 16,000 students. The sheer volume of students serviced in this district makes the implementation of a 1:1 program on a district-wide scale a daunting and expensive proposition. We have two small (200 students) campuses with 1:1 iPads, as well as several classrooms that provide various types of technology (iPads, Chromebooks, laptops, and both Windows and Android tablets) to students while they are in class, although those students do not continue to have access to those devices at home. Any efforts to deploy a full 1:1 program will need to be founded on as much research as possible and subjected to smaller-scale testing and refinement prior to a district-wide rollout.

Given a chance to offer my opinion, I would propose a single-site test group with 1:1 Chromebooks to test this solution as a possible district-wide program. The school I have selected has approximately 2,800 students. The socioeconomic profile of the school could best be described as service-job/retail oriented, with a large number of families living at or just above the poverty level. Most of our students have had limited experience with computers at school, and approximately 50% of students have computers at home that are less than six years old. The school itself has four full computer labs available to all teachers, as well as several classrooms with computers in them full-time. Outside of the few elective classes with full-time computers in the classrooms, computer time on campus is limited to going to a computer lab with a class, which happens anywhere from once a year in some classes to once a week in others. Students who do not have computers at home are not going to get the experience with computers they will need to be productive in a 21st Century workplace if we do not improve the student to computer ratio, so this school would be an ideal testing ground.

Setting the stage for change

We have had a BYOD policy in place for several years, but its primary benefit has been to start breaking down the anti-technology attitudes that were prevalent in many of our staff at that point. Over the last several years, most teachers have changed classroom policies to allow students to use technology at least some of the time. Unfortunately, the low socioeconomic status of many of our students means that not all students have access to smart phones, and many of those who do have older, outdated devices that are slow and sometimes won't work with popular apps. This lack of consistent access has led to only minimal benefits from the BYOD policy, as many teachers cite lack of student access as a reason to avoid using technology regularly and more meaningfully in the learning process.

Device chosen

For this 1:1 program, I have selected the Acer Chromebook. The specs of the Chromebook will depend on what is available from our vendor at the time of purchase. According to Zach Mercier, an administrator and Google Certified Educator who has been working closely with one of the groups of teachers who have been testing Chromebooks in our district, the Acer Chromebook has provided better and more consistent performance and internet speed than a set of Samsung Chromebooks that were purchased slightly earlier than the Acers. 

Rationale

I decided on Chromebooks over any of the other devices that are being tested on a small scale for several reasons. First was the desire to make sure that whatever device students used regularly would have a keyboard. Since literacy is a component in all subjects now that the Common Core State Standards are being implemented, I wanted a device that would make all components of literacy relatively easily accessible, including writing. My own classroom experience has shown me that although students who are accustomed to using smartphones prefer to write on them for short assignments, most will opt to use a computer with a keyboard when given a choice for longer assignments, a sentiment noted in this blog discussing a similar topic. Next was the desire to capitalize on our district's already-existing use of Google Apps for Education, which can be a tricky proposition when working on iPads, a sentiment echoed in this blog from edSurge, Finally, cost did come into consideration. Chromebooks can be purchased and loaded with basic equipment for less than $300 each. Compared to the $600-$800 price point of the iPads our district has purchased, and the $800-$1,000 that full laptops run, we would spend half or less on the same number of Chromebooks.

Implementation plan

I would implement this program  over several years. I would start by issuing the Chromebooks to an incoming ninth grade class. The Chromebooks would be used in all grade-level specific classes, which is similar to what the Saint Helena Unified School District did in their Device Pilot Program. In fact, I would follow several of the recommendations made by the SHUSD in their Device Pilot Program Report. As a part of the implementation plan, I would follow process similar to the one used by Leyden Community High School District 212, possibly borrowing their parent and student procedures as a model. Over the next three years, I would continue to add devices for the incoming ninth grade classes, until all students, 9-12. had a Chromebook to use.

Professional Development

Professional development for this program would be in phases. Prior to distributing devices, I would want staff members to go through Leading Edge Certification, as I would want a focus on blended learning in the classroom (again, this is similar to the Saint Helena pilot). Leading Edge would provide a solid foundation upon which teachers could build their own approach to teaching in a 1:1 environment. Once the preliminary training was complete, there would be an introduction to the device where teachers would be introduced to their devices and receive basic training on how to use them, along with time for guided exploration of the devices capabilities and some of the more common apps teachers may use. Once teachers had the devices, professional development would be focused on creating a student-centered learning environment, project-based learning, and and other strategies that improve student outcomes and engagement, regardless of whether technology is part of the program. I would also start on online community within the teachers to share resources and support, hopefully getting as full and rich over time as Kathy Schrock's.

Anticipated outcomes for success

I anticipate that this program will yield positive results on several fronts. I believe student writing will improve as teachers and students find new ways to share ideas through the written word. If teachers can capitalize on the 1:1 devices to help students find an authentic audience, those students will write because they have an audience, and that practice at writing will help students improve writing skills over time. I also anticipate improvement in student engagement and a decrease in behavior issues, as both of the benefits have been cited in several students examining the results of 1:1 programs. Most importantly, I anticipate a change in teaching styles that starts to transform the learning experience from teacher-centered to student-centered.

Possible problems

Possible problems I anticipate (other than funding) would be the possibility of lost or damaged devices, parental objections or concerns, teacher resistance, and periodic internet access issues. Over time, another concern would be the need to replace devices and the costs associated with that need.

Concerns about lost or damaged devices could be remedied with an optional insurance program that would replace devices if they were lost or damaged beyond repair. Parental objections or concerns could largely be dealt with through informational meetings, parent training on the devices, and responses that were based on other, specific concerns. The concern about replacement over time could be remedied in a number of ways. One way that I favor is offering parents the option of leasing devices (which at least one district I read about is doing) over the course of a student's high school career, then offering them the option of purchasing them for a small amount of money when a student graduates. That solution would allow money to continue coming, help defray the cost of device replacement over time, and provide a way to effectively get rid of aging technology without having to send it to a recycling program.

The sneaky bit

Although we need to have technology in the hands of every student, it's not the technology itself that generates the most excitement in me when I think about a 1:1 program: it's the fact that teachers will need to adapt the way they teach when they teach with technology. Technology invites, indeed, almost requires, teachers to rethink what they're doing and why they're doing it. The beauty of a 1:1 program is that it will ultimately push even reticent teachers to start changing the way they teach. Even the sticklers for the old ways will eventually either give up and join the crowd or end up nudged into a corner in obscurity, where their objections will largely go unheard, which will free up those who want to try new things to actually do so.

Ultimately, a 1:1 technology initiative provides so much more than just technology in the hands of students. It provides a key for unlocking the potential of change in education.

Resources... and hopefully an interview... will be coming soon!

Information Overload!

                                                      (Image credit: www.clickz.com)

The above image pretty much explains how I feel after this week's explorations. There is an awful lot of information out there, and there are an awful lot of ways to keep track of that information. I've always known that there was a lot of information out there, but I've never bothered to spend large quantities of time perusing it, unless I had a specific need. The nature of my life dictates that I do what I need to do when I need to do it, but I don't have much time for exploring just for the sake of exploring. The thought of using a source to compile resources I might be interested in reading never occurred to me, since I don't really have much time to stop and read. Now that I've been introduced to some of these tools, I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed.

It's not as though I'm living in a world cut off from information; quite the contrary. I've just developed habits and routines that worked quite well for me and some of the tools I've been introduced to this week are a bit more than I'm accustomed to. I've been using Diigo for the past year to bookmark and annotate articles that I find that interest me. I've even introduced it to my students as a tool to use when they're working on research projects, since they have a tendency to forget where they found information, and this gives them a tool for documenting and annotating in one place, plus the ability to form groups and share their research with classmates who may be working on similar assignments. 

In addition to Diigo, I've discovered that I quite like Feedly, as it presents information in a list-style format that appeals to my sensibilities. Perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit this next part, but I also use Facebook as a source of information. Through Facebook, I follow a number of education-oriented blogs and websites, such as Mindshift, ASCD, and Edutopia. In general, I find the work they publish thought-provoking and insightful. Although I don't always agree with the work they publish, I find that it allows me to get a more fully-rounded picture of issues in education. I think finding the points I disagree with is sometimes better at helping me develop my own philosophies and ideas than reading articles where I agree with the author. Outside of the pages I follow on Facebook, a great number of my friends on Facebook are in education. They often share links to articles they have found thought-provoking, and I find that reading those articles also helps round out my views on the world of education. I have quite a long list of articles I've bookmarked in Facebook, either because I read them and found them worthwhile, or because they were on a topic that I am interested in, but I didn't have time to read the article at that moment.

I've now decided to try moving a little out of my comfort zone of list-style feeds and give Flipboard a try. I need more time to work with it to decide how much I like it, but I do like the idea of a more visual approach to curating sources. Since I do tend to prefer lists such as those I can compile in Diigo or Facebook, or even Feedly, I definitely feel out of sorts as I am starting to work with Flipboard. I want to give it a try because I think it will be a useful tool for compiling sources that I may want to share with a variety of audiences, and I know that most of my audiences (students and fellow teachers) prefer more visuals and less immediate text when looking at a list of articles. If I can manage to come to terms with the format, I think it will be quite effective at helping me reach my audiences. 

As I consider the types of sources I seek, I realize that favor the thoughts of educators over the work of academics who are not practicing educators. I tend to prefer sources that are produced by practitioners, but informed by research. If I find a piece that references research and puts it into context within an educator's own experience, I tend to think of the discussion as relevant, whether or not I end up agreeing with the writer's take on it. I also tend to look to some of the Big Names, such as Alan November, and Sir Ken Robinson, as well as some people whose names may be less-known, but who have contributed significantly to the practice of using technology to better education, such as Jonathan Bergmann. I do admit that I have a bias against anything I read that sounds as though it was written exclusively by academics, rather than practitioners. I tend to feel that those who write about education, but do not actually teach, do not have much to offer me. This is, perhaps, a shortcoming that I will need to consider as I conduct research on topics I find important. Although I value information that has been vetted by the people "in the trenches" in education, I also realize that the material that will win support at the highest levels seems to need to come primarily from academia.

As I progress with research, I will make sure that I read materials from a variety of sources, including my usual go-tos, but I'll also make sure I seek out sources that are more academic in nature, and I may even look for articles about education that are written by people outside of education entirely, such as something one would find in Time Magazine or other similar sources. Perhaps the widening field of view will allow me to look at issues through a multitude of lenses and produce work that thoughtfully addresses a variety of issues surrounding a topic, rather than considering an issue primarily through the lens of the educator in the trenches.

Here's a look at some of the articles I've put together so far in Flipboard.

To Tech or Not to Tech: That is the Question. But What's the Answer?

When it comes to parenting, nearly everything stirs up the opportunity for controversy. Practices that were accepted for years, from vaccinating to spanking your children, are called into question on a nearly daily basis, and leave parents with plenty to worry about when making decisions about child-rearing.

When it comes to more recent additions to our world of Things to Worry About, there seems to be a consensus that it makes sense to limit screen time for children, for a variety of reasons; however, there are differing opinions (and conflicting research) out there in the attempt to determine whether using mobile devices, such as iPads or smartphones, should be a part of that equation and what, if any, benefit or detriment these devices have on children.

A recent article in The Washington Post had the tantalizing headline, "Researchers: Using an iPad or smartphone can harm a toddler’s learning and social skills."

Whoa! Does that mean my five-year-old is going to have a hard time in school, or be a social outcast because I let him play with my iPad when he was a toddler?

As I read on, I discovered that the article really didn't live up to its tantalizing title. It recapped some recent research about the potential downsides of young children using mobile devices, which pretty much boiled down to the following message: if kids use mobile devices by themselves (without parental supervision or guidance) exclusively for entertainment that is not in any way educational, it's not likely to do much for them and might leave them with gaps in social skills and possible learning deficits.

OK...

This is not particularly groundbreaking news. Mindless entertainment has never done much to help develop individuals of any age, regardless of the format in which it's delivered. I don't see how this message is much different from the one that advises parents not to let kids spend too much time with the TV as a babysitter, especially if it's not educational programming.

An article published in The Guardian not long after, criticized the aforementioned article, first latching onto the fact that the title didn't match the contents of the article, then pointing out that the article in question wasn't actually citing research, but rather guidelines that had recently published based on research. The Article with the Tantalizing Title had not cited the research behind the guidelines, but instead provided selected quotes from the article under discussion that had been published in a press release about it. It made it sound like someone at The Washington Post forgot to do his homework. The Guardian's article, however, went on to elaborate on the topic, point out the conflicting results of studies on the topic, and provide a reasonably well-rounded discussion of the issue.

The titles of the articles make it sound like this is the debate of the minute: "Researchers: Using an iPad or smartphone can harm a toddler’s learning and social skills" vs. "No, research does not say that ‘iPads and smartphones may damage toddlers’ brains." In reality, both articles point to a body of research that is, at best, inconclusive and invites those perspectives to coexist. While each writer decided to take a different approach to the issue, neither one provided sufficient evidence to persuade this reader that he "got it right." A quick look at the research cited in the articles, as well as the articles themselves, points to the idea that there is no "right answer" right now.

The scientific and academic community is doing research, collecting evidence, analyzing results, and discovering how the results fit within the other research that has already been done on the topic. This is all part of the scientific process, but there isn't much of a body of research to apply new findings to just yet. The field is not yet saturated enough with research to be able to reliably predict where a study will go based on previous results, and technology is changing too fast for formal research to be able to keep up with its effects and report data within a meaningful time frame. I read those articles, which were based on research that was conducted around the time my child was a toddler. Oops! If I messed up, it's a little too late to undo it now.

For the time being, parents (and educators who follow similar studies) will need to rely, more than anything else, on common sense to make determinations about using mobile devices with their children. Keeping abreast of guidelines and recommendations based on research as it emerges is another chapter we have now added to the book of Being a Good Parent. We need to be researchers ourselves; we need to read about the topic, and we need to read with a critical eye. We need to think about who published what we're reading, and what biases they may have brought to their discussion with them. We need to be wary of the Trick of the Tantalizing Title and not let the title itself substitute for the content of the article. And we need to stop and ask if what we're reading makes sense. By taking the time to use our own common sense and apply what we learn to what we know and observe, I have every confidence that responsible parents will be able to make decisions that allow their children to thrive -- mobile device in-hand, or not -- in an ever-changing world devoid of absolute guidelines.

And in case you're wondering, my five-year-old is doing just fine. He's bored at school because he already knows what they're teaching him (we can discuss my concerns about differentiation, or lack thereof, in another post), and he's one of the most social and empathetic children in his class. I guess that time with the iPad wasn't so harmful, after all.

Whew! I was worried there for a minute!



Resources:
Etchells, P. (2015). No, research does not say that ‘iPads and smartphones may damage toddlers’ brains’. The Guardian.  Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/02/no-research-does-not-say-that-ipads-and-smartphones-may-damage-toddlers-brains.

McCoy, T. (2015). Researchers: Using an iPad or smartphone can harm a toddler’s learning and social skills. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/02/no-research-does-not-say-that-ipads-and-smartphones-may-damage-toddlers-brains.

Introduction

Hello! 

My name is Megan Andrews, and I am a technology addict.

Just kidding! I do, however, enjoy using technology immensely. In fact, incorporating technology in education is a passion of mine, and I am constantly looking for new and better ways to do so. 

I am currently in my tenth year of teaching high school English in Palmdale, CA. I happen to teach all seniors this year, but I have spent most of my previous years of teaching with a combination of 10th and 12th grade students. I enjoy the (almost) mature seniors, but sophomores offer a special kind of insanity that I find kind of fun.

Regardless of the grade level I teach, I include technology in my classroom. My school is in the process of integrating technology into our teaching, and we have staff and students at wildly differing ability levels. We live in an area that is relatively low-income, and where the elementary schools have had computer labs shuttered for the last five years; with our students being the "iPod Generation" (as we call them around here), it is not uncommon for a student entering the ninth grade to have had only a handful of experiences working on an actual computer. Because of this, and because we do have such a wide range of experiences, incorporating technology in lessons takes some work. We have to not only plan how we use the technology in our lesson, but we also have to plan time teaching our students how to use the technology we want them using.

Since I teach English, and a very particular course at that, my need to seek outside teaching resources is minimal. The course I teach was designed by our state university system to prepare incoming freshmen for the rigors of college-level reading and writing, Because of that, I am required to teach a very specific set of units. I do have room to customize how I approach teaching those units, and that is where I use technology as a tool. In my explorations of other teaching resources, I have found much that I like on websites like EDSITEment. One resource I've recently discovered, thanks to my district's district-wide purchase of licenses, is Shmoop. What I love about Shmoop is that it is geared toward students, so it tackles some high-level content, but in a way that is easy and engaging for students. Shmoop offers everything from test prep, to teachers' units and lesson plans, to full online courses. This year alone, I have used Shmoop to remediate struggling students, help students prepare for tests, and even better understand Hamlet.

In addition to teaching, I spend part of my day as in instructional coach with a focus area of digital literacy and technology integration. I wear several other hats, too, but those are stories for another time.

It is in my role as an instructional coach that I spend time doing a lot of research. It does have the added benefit of being research that I can use personally, as I use it to inspire what I do in my own classroom, even as I am thinking of ways it can be used in other classes. In the last three years, I have done a lot of exploring to find ideas, emerging best practices, and places to follow the ongoing conversation that is educational technology. I have definitely developed some favorites along the way. Edutopia is one of my go-tos, because it is easy to navigate and always has relevant and thoughtful content. While I do not always agree with what I read there, it keeps me abreast of issues and research. Another one of my favorites is MindShift. I appreciate their format, in that the blog posts are thoughtful and thought-provoking, but they are nearly always accompanied by a piece of research that inspired the post to begin with. With Edutopia and MindShift as two of my mainstays, I have regular exposure to current thinking in the world of ed tech; however, sometimes I need something more formally written, and that is when I venture over to the ASCD website for some serious reading. When I need research to support an idea, ASCD is my go-to resource, and I have used what I found there to effectively argue for more than one initiative on my campus.

Some of the challenges I face as both a teacher and an instructional coach have to do with change. Neither staff nor students are really quite ready to embrace the change that widespread use of technology in our classrooms will entail.

Students who have been raised in the NCLB "there are four possible answers to any given question" era find the increased critical thinking required with the effective use of technology intimidating at first. In general, I find that they are initially resistant to lessons that require critical thinking or even using technology in a new way. I remember one student who was so uncomfortable using tools to annotate a digital text (Foxit Reader) that she begged me for paper copies of the text. I ended up compromising and easing her into the process by alternating paper and digital texts, and she eventually became more comfortable with it, but this example illustrates a larger issue: our students are not accustomed to working outside of established parameters, and they usually need some coaxing (and sometimes a solid push) to start taking the intellectual risks involved adapting to new ways of learning.

And just as students tend to balk at change, so do staff, even if they take a slightly different approach. Staff members like to point out the problem I mentioned earlier in this post: that many of our students really have no idea how to effectively use a computer even though they are digital natives. They will also point out that our students have inequality of access: Not every student has a mobile device, not every student has a computer home, and we have some students that don't have access to either.

While the problems I just mentioned are being used as excuses primarily from teachers who are resistant to finding ways to incorporate technology into their teaching, the heart of the problem is very real. At this time, we have some teachers who are using this as a shield to keep from using technology, but we have others who have adopted the "they will find a way" attitude.

We are finding that our students are finding ways to complete technology-based assignments, but it is at a cost to the students. I am hearing more and more reports from students that they stay at the computer lab at school as late as it is open, but the don't always finish their work. Our administration has talked about extending computer lab hours, but that will only partially address the problem.

I find myself wondering: Is it reasonable to ask a student to spend an additional four or five hours at school to complete homework? We live in a community where a large percentage of our students are needed at home to take care of younger siblings and run a household while Mom and Dad are at work, and some have to go to work themselves. As more and more teachers require students to use technology to complete assignments, are we placing an unfair burden on those families who do not have access to technology at home and can least afford to have an older child gone for extended periods of time to complete school work? In order to address this issue, I am trying to start a conversation at our school, suggesting we consider starting a program that would provide technology to students who do not have any access, whether mobile or at home. While that approach would spare us the tremendous expense of implementing 1:1 devices across the school, it would have the same net effect, but at a much lower cost. I think such a solution will provide at least three immediate benefits:

1. The "not everyone has access" excuse would be gone, 
2. Students would no longer struggle to simply have access to the technology necessary to complete work, and
3. Both students and teachers can set aside worries about access and get into the really important part of integrating technology into education: improving the way students learn.

I love to hear some of your thoughts on any of what I've discussed here.