Making the Case for Technology Integration Without Invoking the Digital Native Paradigm

(Preamble: In this post, when I refer to students, I am referring to middle school-aged students in a rural-suburban area of Western, MA that I teach but I suspect that others may relate to my experience with regard to students and tech. use. I submit that students are NOT as tech savvy as most ed. tech enthusiasts would have us believe. The Digital Native Argument is alive and well but in my experience it is erroneous. After spending 3 years of my life as an Educational Blogger blogging about the need to change how we teach to accommodate ‘digital natives’, I have had to stop in my tracks and retreat from my position based on the real students before me. Their lives, experiences and even their interests were not in sync with the Digital Native Argument-a very seductive argument, indeed. So, here's my first blog post from the other side of the fence so to speak. With apologies to Marc Prensky whom I greatly respect.)

How do you make the case for technology integration?

How do you make the case for technology integration? Is it because kids are incessantly using technology, including many multifunctional mobile devices and they ‘demand’ that our pedagogical choices match their ‘digital learning style’ ‘in the 21st Century’? Are they really wired differently?

Most of what I read (and view) on the web regarding the why’s of tech use in education makes this argument. I’ll call it the Digital Native Argument. Videos are put up (copycat versions of original videos) that star ‘wise’, ‘tech-savvy’ children confronting an (apparently) ignorant non-tech using teacher. The claims are that kids spend countless hours immersed in media, texting, 'surfing', etc. and if teachers aren’t allowing them to do the same at school, they are out of touch and, well, ‘bad teachers’. These videos would have us believe that all this time spent doing media is all good. Unstructured, undifferentiated time but time well spent! Hmm.

Here’s where I fight a serious case of cognitive dissonance. I want to believe this is true. It’s tempting to believe in the past 9 or so years that students have suddenly and spontaneously evolved new brains; that they are wired differently and we should teach them accordingly. There is something to this but making blanket claims that ALL kids experience this type of engagement with technology all the time is simply untrue. That the time they spend using media is all ‘good’, ‘productive’ and ‘educational’ is seriously misleading, too. I know this is NOT true because I actually teach real, live, students not 'actors' on You Tube Videos repeating words scripted for them by adults. I teach in a technology lab. In the last 5 years, in a class of 20 students, maybe 5 have what I would call basic technological competence. They do not know the difference between a file, a software program or folder let alone the myriad uses and learning potential of blogs, wikis, podcasts and social learning networks. They do not know how to change the volume on a computer and they do not know how to do a basic Google search, let alone fire up a web browser other than Internet Explorer (to get to Facebook). Most, however, have handheld gadgets like cell phones or ipods and/or ipod touches. So, many otherwise technologically illiterate students have the ability to open i-Tunes and use it to sync music to their players.

When students do use technology, what do they use it for?

The middle-schoolers I teach (as did middle-schoolers 20 years ago) have one over-powering objective: socialization and connection with fellow friends and classmates. So guess why they love their gadgets? SO. THEY. CAN.CONNECT. WITH. EACH. OTHER. Once connected, they can spread the rumor about the pool on the third floor or the story about how Mr. Jensen tripped over a dry erase marker 3rd period. Or make plans to play or ride bikes. In other words, the majority of tech use by the majority of students is decidedly low tech. They are simply using tech to do what they have always done offline: connect, cajole, connive, and sometimes create. (future blog post). Mostly, students text or talk into a device that could be considered a tech device. Texting, of course is just typed talking. (Tsup? Nthn. Gowin 2 the game? Na. K. Cya. l8ter).

What’s the other thing students use technology for? MUSIC. Consuming (and making) music. Teens and music have always gone hand in hand. Thanks to technology, they can bring ‘their’ music with them wherever they go and 'share' with friends digitally (remember the mixtape?). There is an element of education and learning going on with all the music downloading and sharing which is encouraging and provides a good starting point for tech use in the classroom. We can examine how students find, download, consume and share music and use that as a model for how they can find, identify, examine, synthesize and share information related to our subject matter. Skilled i-Tunes use, however, does not qualify a student as a Digital Native. But, interestingly, the reason they have become skilled at i-Tunes use despite being decidedly technologically illiterate is that they want access to music and learning the basics of surfing, finding, downloading and syncing with i-Tunes had to be learned to get at it and then have it (music) as their own. Kids are fully and enthusiastically engaged in these processes. There is more to this which deserves another blog post but it illustrates the point that tech use is just a tool for achieving what students want. It's not about technology use for it's own sake. That is a good thing. We can learn from this. We adults DO get to caught up with the technology itself. In an education setting, tech use should rarely be about itself but about the subject matter at hand and increasing engagement and learning objectives through it's use.

So, how do you make the case for technology integration? I submit that one can justify technology use in the classroom for these reasons:

1- Cultural Competence

Technology is here to stay-both gadgets and software. It has become embedded in our social and cultural norms. Businesses are using technologies routinely and require tech. competency in a global climate. Individuals rely on personal computers and devices to absorb, synthesize and transmit information. As educational institutions we should be the ones teaching how to use technology for the highest possible purposes of investigating, researching, creating, thinking, reflecting, writing, documenting, connecting, collaborating, and remixing and synthesizing. In short: learning.

2- Engagement.

It is becoming increasingly evident without the need for the Digital Native argument that young people are truly engaged when they are using technology. Student engagement is the number one priority of any educational institution. Sadly, of course, it is lacking in many classrooms which look and feel irrelevant and outdated to young people (whether or not they use technology). Well planned technology use appears to be a cure for disengaged, "bored" students since having a hands-on experience using technology suddenly feels like the "real world" to students.

3. Individuation and Differentiation

I have written before that there is no such thing as a "class". And if a teacher actually utters those dreaded words, "Now class...." they immediately become Charlie Brown's teacher. No student sits in a classroom and identifies with the notion that they are part of this nebulous thing called a class. They are Julie, or Michael, Cesar or Alycia. And they want nothing more than to engage in activities that they can do as an individual...even if they might ultimately contribute to a larger group. Technology, makes this a reality for students-especially in 1:1 environments where students can complete tasks (learning objectives) using a computer, laptop or tablet PC. Once students are working on their own (individuation), we as teachers have the ability to differentiate learning activities as well depending on student capacity. The possibilities for differentiation using technologies are enormous and not limited to one mode (students can read, write, consume and create stories and media among other things).

FINAL WORD: Flip the Digital Native Paradigm

Our curricula and learning objectives should always drive our efforts at tech integration. Not the other way around. But, as teachers, we need to know what is out there. What website, software or app would enhance/enrich a student’s experience with your subject? We must always be on the lookout. Always learning (RSS feeds, anyone!).

We can be the Digital Natives for Education. We should stay ahead of the curve and know what’s out there and how it can best be used in our classrooms to support already existent educational aims, content and objectives.

Students and Facebook: The Empowerment Factor

Adolescence 101:
There is a point at which a t(w)een doesn't care what you're saying. That point is reached if a student has the attention and approval of whomever s/he is trying to win the attention/approval of. If that means dissing you, consider yourself dissed.

It is SO crucial to have a balanced view of social networks today. Actually, let's narrow it down to Facebook: especially the Importance of Facebook in the lives of teens and how it changes kids' perceptions. I recently overheard a student say, "Facebook is everything!"

Teens crave one thing over all other things-acceptance and approval of their peers. Especially peers they deem to be 'popular' or 'cool'. In research I did 10 years ago middle-schoolers admitted to this in interviews. When pushed to describe what popular meant and who decided what or whom was popular, they hadn't a clue. See, it's not an intellectual thing for them. We adults, especially those in academia, tend to intellectualize stuff. I am seriously guilty of this but I keep trying to understand the reality from a teen perspective since I teach teens. If I find myself in a moment of frustration in a classroom with students it is usually because I have a goal, a plan, an objective and students just don't seem to be buying in on an intellectual level. It happens also (and primarily) because social connection trumps intellectual engagement.

Back to Facebook. Facebook was designed for exactly that: social connection. Connection to real people and the real things they are saying and doing. As simple as that seems, it was revolutionary when Mark Zuckerberg coded theFacebook from his Harvard dorm room. Incidentally, this makes social networking as we know it today to be only about 6 years old. Amazing, really (to extend our disbelief: not a single i-pod existed 9 years and one month ago-we just past the anniversary of it's launch).

When a t(w)een joins Facebook, they are looking for social connection(s). Lots of them. To them, that's a goal. They're into quantity not quality. Here's where student use and adult use of Facebook differs (well, to some, anyway). Students will accept someone as a "FRIEND" even if they have no real association with someone in real life. If they know them (as in, they go to the same school) that's good enough. This, however, can lead to trouble. Some teens have few barriers. Once accepted as friend, they take that as license to take the friendship offline even if it isn't desired. This partly demonstrates what I call the Empowerment Factor.

THE EMPOWERMENT FACTOR
Back in the day developers of products used to bolster the credibility of their products by advertising that it was "seen on TV!". As Seen On TV became somehow (?) synonymous with "famous" and therefore "popular" and therefore "trustworthy" even though it meant none of those things. It meant only one thing in reality-someone paid good money to get it on TV. That was traditional advertising. But because TV was only where famous actors "lived" it was considered a hallowed domain by a lethargic public gazing into the boob tube but realizing that, if they're lucky they might, once in their life experience Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame". Might as well buy the product that was seen on TV . Gives me a visceral relationship with what was seen "out there". Kind a of a voodoo thing, really.

Fast Forward to now. Our students do not live in a seen on TV world. They know that with the right tools they can be TV. They can achieve fame whenever they choose as long as they have eyes to witness them. Hence, the desirable Huge Friend List. A huge friend list is synonymous with popularity. A huge friend list has its privileges. Add controversial content (statements, photos, videos) to your Facebook account and watch yourself become FAMOUS (or You Tube account: see Fred Figglehorn who has achieved 1 million friends and 99 million page views!)

Famous is exactly what matters in a purely digital online realm. One of the highest paid NEW jobs today is the job SEO (Search Engine Optimization) Engineer or SEO Marketing Specialist. What this means is simple: make one's web site appear in the first page of a Google (or You Tube or Facebook) search. They ask: How many people stop in at a page and view it for at least a few minutes? How can I increase that number. This is how Google, seemingly without effort, makes zillions on advertising. In a Web2.0 world, the popularity of a singular social network page automatically optimizes that page! It's just how the Google algorhythms are written. No need for SEO if you have controversial or simply "a lot" of content and popularity which drives traffic to your site by word of mouth or other means such as "liking" on Facebook or sharing via e-mail. Fred will be a rich 20-something. He won't need to go to college. He rambled on in front of a camera repeatedly and kids started watching. He created a character and sold 'merchandise'. And now there's a DVD to be had.....as seen on You Tube!

Back to Facebook again: Students want to be popular. Once tons of online friends are established, there's an audience (for better or worse). Unfortunately, entertaining that audience sometimes becomes a priority for some students. This is where the Empowerment Factor goes bad. Students sometimes decide that one way to be popular is to video tape controversial things that will attract eyeballs. Here are some examples on You Tube:

Like classroom teachers
Or fights (note the laughter and provocation of the fight. Note also the 672,000 and counting views for this video)

Videos and media can just as easily be shared inside the "safe" world of Facebook where hundreds of "friends" can "LIKE" and therefore promote further bad behavior--such as provoking fights so that they can be videotaped.

This inside Social Network is largely closed to us and creates a potentially threatening, unseen force in the classroom. Students are bonded by unspoken 'wrongs'. It's a wink, wink kind of scenario. Once in class and proximal to a "Facebook Friend" in class, the normal socializing that would happen takes on epic proportions because of the Empowerment Factor. Even if one wasn't the creator of something controversial and popular inside a social network, it is important to t(w)eens to at least know about these things. How do you share that you know about something? You talk about it. In class.

Many of us feel that we're losing our student's attention these days. I posit that The Empowerment Factor of Facebook and other socio-digital means of connecting + t(w)een desire to be liked and popular may be adding much fuel to the fire of disconnection with school (teachers). Don't get me wrong. There's potential for much good. But leaving Media Literacy out of the curriculum of schools is a tragic 21st century mistake.

There is a point at which an adolescent doesn't care what you're saying. That point is reached if a student has the attention and approval of one's Facebook friends in class. They're looking for content to gossip about and upload. Who's next? What's next?