My thoughts about the iTouch essentially haven’t changed since I last posted about it in early November. While I recognize the teaching and learning capabilities—and certainly the entertainment value—of some of the apps—I don’t see it as such a great enhancement to the classroom experience that I would push for its use in school.
When I last blogged about this, I made two statements: that kids seem to see the iTouch as strictly entertainment—which also the Joan Ganz Cooney Center study pointed out—and that the iTouch seems an inadequate replacement for computers in the classroom. I’m still concerned that all kids want to do is play games, but perhaps their perception that handheld technology is fun is a good thing—in other words, if they viewed it as a chore, they would be less likely to pick it up for anything, let alone want to learn from it. I also still believe that the iTouch is an inadequate replacement for a computer. How much typing are kids going to be doing on the iTouch? Is the fact that districts are strapped for cash to maintain computers a sufficient argument for buying hundreds, if not thousands, of ITouches?
All that said, I read with interest the Cooney Center study, Learning: Is There an App for That? Not surprisingly, researchers found that young children like playing with the iTouch and iPhone. I appreciated that researchers posed questions/issues for app developers to consider when creating educational apps, because like they said in the report, handheld technology is here to stay, and since there is learning potential (I never disagreed with that) in the iTouch, app developers might as well do it right. (One example they pointed to was the need to take into account children’s varying levels of motor skills development, and I noticed that potential challenge with my Juanita buddy.) Now, as with any solid, professional study, researchers acknowledged their focus—children who play with handheld devices outside of school—and the issues that they could not delve into, given their focus: why parents and teachers don’t see handheld devices as educational, and not only what “institutional and policy barriers” to using handheld technology exist, but also how those barriers can and should be overcome. I don’t fault the researchers for not examining any of those issues, but those are legitimate questions that have to be tackled if we really are going to use handheld devices in the classroom, on a widespread, district-by-district basis.
I’m not really sad to pass on my iTouch to someone in cohort 15. Yes, I’ve enjoyed it, and I feel a little more nimble with the technology. (Considering the point at which I started, any step is a significant one.) My first-grader liked the apps. But did my life change because of the iTouch? No. Might I buy an iPhone in the future? Maybe. Would I buy my kid an iTouch or an iPhone? Not for a long time.
A few interesting arguments here... especially that our choices are between "hundreds or thousands" or no Touches at all... and that "life changing" is the criteria.
ReplyDeleteI'm honestly wondering where you see anyone suggesting that these would be replacements for computers? I was surprised to read that... I don't know any school that does that -- and we certainly aren't using them that way in the program, are we?
So I'm thinking that after just a few weeks with these things, some of your objections are to things that no one is really proposing?
And it's completely good to ask whether anything we do in school is good for kids and supports learning.
It's fair to ask: Did any of the thousands of worksheets that you did as a child change your life? Or any of the pages of problems that you did in very expensive math books?
We know that those things don't support learning in very substantive ways.
We have way more than one study to show that.
So you won't be using those either? :)
It's legitimate to approach the "new" skeptically but teachers can't stop there... because there's that pesky problem of how what we're now doing is not working for many kids and teachers are really responsible for figuring out how to reach all those kids.
Here's one of the challenges that all teachers face: You'll be teaching in the most diverse classrooms ever, and you'll be responsible for bringing all children to higher levels of achievement than ever before.
I accept that for you, Touches didn't seem like a way to differentiate instruction or to accommodate ELL kids or special needs kids (and apps are only a small part of the capacity of these devices).
And in your job interviews and then in your evaluations as a teacher, you'll be asked over and over about your skills at reaching all children, regardless of the wide differences in their achievement and their backgrounds and their engagement with traditional sorts of assignments.
How are you beginning to think about answering those questions?
Many districts are seeing tech as a major way to differentiate. There are lots of districts (some are linked on the tech website) that have already worked out the institutional and policy barriers of handhelds and love the effects that they're seeing and the ways in which children are learning new things and learning them well.
Those questions really are already being tackled...
So keep thinking about how you'll answer those interview questions about reaching all kids.
If having a powerful piece of technology in one's hand -- that can translate science terms into my home language or turn my words into text (because I do have motor skill issues)for first drafts of my writing, or where I can listen over and over to the social studies lesson because I'm not a strong auditory learner and used to miss half of what I was taught -- isn't part of reaching all kids,
What is, for you? How will you provide that sort of differentiation?
See you next quarter!