Bridging the Divide
A buzzword in education only a few short years ago was the “Digital Divide”, a research backed reality reflecting the fact that communities, districts, schools, and students were in a category of “haves”, “have nots”, or somewhere in between in regards to equitable access to technological devices at home and/or at school. As a result of these findings, billions of dollars were spent across the continent outfitting classrooms with infrastructure and devices.
I was one of the first 1:1 pilot teachers in my district, at a school with 100% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The first half of the school year there was nearly no technology for student use. At the beginning of the year, I brought in an old personal laptop I rarely used at home and begged IT to configure it for use on the district network. As I began to shift my instruction to a learner-centric model click here to read the story), students asked for additional technological devices. As pictured below, I allowed students to use my teacher laptop and even my teacher iPad.
The 1:1 Difference: My Initial Experience
In January, iPads arrived and each student had access to a device throughout the day. As a teacher, I immediately saw improvements in student motivation and engagement. Student writing improved as I instituted a daily, standards-based writing prompt using Edmodo (Google Classroom had yet to be invented) through which learners constructed responses, viewed peers’ writing, and then learned to give each other feedback based on a rubric. Students accessed the internet to conduct research that would bolster their arguments for a class debate, they searched for YouTube videos that demonstrated their learning of pathos, logos, and ethos, and they synthesized their understanding of content in various forms of digital note-taking.
As I left the classroom at the end of that school year for a coaching role, I vowed to do all in my power to provide digital opportunities like these to as many students as I was able. I made it my moral imperative to promote equitable student access to technology to anyone that would listen.
Reality Hits: Access Is Not Synonymous with Opportunity
It has been a few years since my experience as a 1:1 pilot teacher. In this time, I have been to countless classrooms across my county. I have spoken with educators, administrators, and tech coaches from across the globe. I have learned that access alone does not necessarily bring opportunity. 1:1 is NOT a silver bullet. Consider the image below.
While each student has access to chromebooks on a 1:1 basis in every classroom across the district, the devices collect dust on a counter. This is not to say that mere student use of devices ensures equity. Sadly, student technology use in a 1:1 environment can disempower rather than empower learners when not grounded in sound pedagogy. When technology replaces student discourse with teachers and peers, when it prevents students from engaging in collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking, well-meaning leaders sometimes begin to blame the devices. This proves counterproductive to our cause of empowering students through technology use.
What was once seen as a silver bullet becomes a scapegoat for poor pedagogical practice. What do you notice about the image below? 100% of students are using technology in the image. But as The Innovator’s Mindset author George Couros reminds us, students must be not merely engaged, but empowered. The students in the image below appear to be “on-task”. But is the task building their resilience? Their soft skills? Is it preparing them for the future?
Where is the communication? The collaboration? The creativity? The critical thinking? How are students learning to work together, to create project timelines, to curate and create content? Where is the preparation for the creative economy of the now?
Technology as a Resource, Not a Requirement
What is our goal as educators? Universal Design for Learning calls upon educators to create “expert learners”, students who learn to select appropriate digital tools and evaluate their effectiveness for the task at hand. We must empower students to select the proper tool for the proper task, which may or may not involve the use of a technological device. Contrast the images in the collage below to the image in the section above.
Consider the examples above. Technology enhances but does not drive the learning experience. We must coach educators to lead with learning, never with tech. If we plan with the 4 Cs in mind, the tech will take care of itself. In the image on the left of the collage, students recreate historical events using legos, toys, and any other resources available to them.
Technology is a resource that is available but not required. In the middle image in the collage, students take the learning they have gained from the technology (via exploration of resources from a Google Site), and share what they notice and wonder on white boards on the wall. They are free to explore the resources again using the technology if so desired. However, the students are not chained to the device. The technology is used as a tool, as are the collaborative whiteboards. Students use the tool appropriate for the task, whether high or low tech. In the image on the right of the collage, students engage in a STEM design challenge. During the challenge, an instructor takes pictures of student work using his phone, and then uses the Google Slides app to instantly insert the image onto a shared slidedeck for all students to see. This enables students to view the slides when they are struggling, thereby allowing them to learn from their peers. The technology can be accessed as a resource.
Empower students. Allow them to use technology but do not require it. 1:1 is not inherently damaging, but it is also not the answer. The answer lies in solid pedagogy, in guiding students to use technology to curate and/or create resources. It’s not about the tech! Accessibility is a start, but it is not the end.