Marc Prensky set out in 2001 to decisively answer this question in his article “Digital Natives Digital Immigrants.” He makes a convincing argument that children who are growing up in a time when the explosion of technology has impacted every facet of our lives actually have different brain functions than those of us who are older.  Many educators and experts in education feel strongly that today’s learners are significantly different from those of thirty years ago, so is Prensky correct?  Jamie McKenzie (2007) wholeheartedly disagrees with this notion and cites multiple inconsistencies and research fabrications within Prensky’s work. While McKenzie does a great job convincing her reader that Prensky was misleading within his findings, her data is over a decade old and does not seem to be accurate for today’s student.

This is my daughter in the mid- 90’s. A “digital native” by Prensky’s definition, but is she different than the elementary student of today?

As an educator with over 20 years in the classroom, I can tell you that the children I am teaching today are certainly different than those I taught in the 90’s. I have noted the most dramatic differences in just the past five years. Some of these changes are characteristics that would be considered desirable in the classroom and others have caused us to totally revamp our instructional design.  

Today’s students often lack patience and persistence. They are typically more physically active and need regular movement in order to concentrate for a longer period of time. They are more comfortable sharing their opinions and less concerned with completing assignments on a timely basis. They are risk takers and innovators in areas they feel comfortable but do not often exhibit these same traits in new settings.  Most are very comfortable with technology.  

Are these changes due to growing up in the digital age or are other factors at play?

When Amy and I did a recent poll of our 4th and 5th grade students, less than 20% did routine chores at home; however, over 50% had nightly activities (sports, clubs, church, etc.) outside of the home which they were expected to attend. In addition to their own activities, most were attending sibling activities as well. This gave most of our students few, if any, nights off per week just to play. All of our students have at least one personal electronic device (computer, cell phone, tablet, etc.) and many have two or more.  Over half of our students have access to social networking sites.  This leads us to wonder, are children acting differently at school because they are overscheduled  at home? Have children of today not ever needed to fill their own playtime and therefore become bored easily when not continually stimulated?  

So, how are teachers to effectively instruct the digital native?  Do we cast aside our traditional teaching methods and embrace the learners of today, or do we make school a place where students are free from the distractions of technology that they are exposed to outside of our classrooms? One method does not need to be mutually exclusive of the other. Most children today act, perform, and collaborate differently than children of the past.  I personally do not think WHY digital natives learn differently is important, what is important is that we have a responsibility to meet children where they are and grow them to their fullest potential. Teachers should use whatever tool they have at their disposal to engage, personalize, and maximize learning for every child.

References:

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants – Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

McKenzie, J. (2007). Digital nativism: Digital delusions and digital deprivation. From Now On, 17(2). Retrieved from http://fno.org/nov07/nativism.html

 

BY JAKE LEGROS

Working everyday in a school district filled with inspiring children and supportive staff keeps me devoted to my profession, and pushes me to continually grow in my professional and personal life goals.  That is why I have made a considerable effort to incorporate best practices of blended learning in my teaching repertoire.

As one of our district’s instructional technology chairs, and my background in Ed Tech, I have strived to help with the training & P.D. sessions for staff members, both building and district wide.  I have always remained hopeful, yet a bit reluctant to help train my fellow colleagues and promote change.  It is my opinion that adult learners, much like a child learner, will often rely on previous experiences of concepts and strategies to build a perception of their learning outcome.  Since adults have overall more experiences than children, this can be a blessing or a curse to help them develop appropriate learning behaviors and be in the right “mind-set” to learn new things.  There is a large majority of our teaching population that has had bad experiences with using technology successfully within their classroom.  This alone could make the training sessions difficult, not to mention perceiving this change as mandatory from our building principal and district administration.

Faculty members are often not comfortable admitting that their knowledge with technology is outmatched by their students, and by habitually resort back to common teaching methods that they are comfortable with.  After all, if the research isn’t overwhelmingly in favor of blended learning, then why is it imperative to apply it to our current curricular practices (Gecer, A., & Dag, F., 2012; Fish, W., & Giss, P., 2009; Lim, et al., 2008; Tshabalala, M., et al., 2014).

Knowing these challenges, my goal as a trainer is to address the restraining forces and concerns of my colleagues when implementing this new change, and reduce frustration by allowing more tangible resources of laptops, ipads, and a stronger building bandwidth, as well as providing ample time to learn the new program.  Most importantly, I would very much like to maintain a sense of urgency to improve:  help my colleagues see the positive implications of using technology effectively within the classroom, seeing the “light bulb” turn on as they see its user-friendliness and begin to envision the possibilities within their classroom. And build relationships that result in positive intangible outcomes ((Tomal, Schilling, & Trybus, 2013, pp. 19-26).

It is imperative for administrators and educators to gain a better understanding of the perceptions and effectiveness, both positive and negative, to improve instruction delivery.  The incorporation of blended learning, although somewhat still in its developmental state, are beginning to show its value to enhance and enrich student teaching and learning.  In addition to a well-developed blended learning model, it is important to remember that technology is not the sole answer, but merely another tool to help aid and assist educators in developing well-constructed lessons to help benefit our students.  Blended, along with careful planning, appropriate instruction, open communication, clear and measurable objectives, and reliable assessment & evaluation are all important factors needed to ensure the academic success of students with disabilities. As technology evolves, so will education. It is our job as educators to continue to build on our knowledge to benefit our students’ achievement in academic areas as well as their overall well being as life long learners.

 Jake LeGros is a 5th grade teacher in Olentangy Local Schools.   In addition to being an innovative teacher within his own classroom, Jake holds the position of technology chair within his building and provides training and technology resources to teachers throughout the entire district.

References:

Fish, W., & Gill, P. (2009). PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE INSTRUCTION. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 1303-6521

Gecer, A., & Dag, F. (2012). A Blended Learning Experience. Educational Sciences: Theory And Practice, 12 (1), 438-442.

Lim, J., Kim, M., Chen, S. E., & Ryder, C. E. (2008). An empirical investigation of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 113-119.

Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C., & Van der Merwe, T. (2014). Implementing Blended Learning at a Developing University: Obstacles in the way. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12(1), 101-110.

Tomal, D. R., Schilling, C. A, Trybus, M.A, (2013), Leading school change:  Maximizing resources for school improvement. Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

BY KRISTA HYME

On June 15, 2016, I had the pleasure of attending the “Wild” Side of Blended Learning Conference with Marcia Kish. Marcia consults with teachers and districts in Ohio, as well as surrounding states, a they begin to transition into utilizing blended learning.  Her company is called DSD Professional Development (www.dsdprofessionaldevelopment.com). Her knowledge was impressive and her enthusiasm was infectious!

This was my first blended learning conference of my career! I very much enjoyed that Marcia organized the conference in the same manner that a skilled blended learning teacher might organize their room.  Prior to attending this conference, I had no idea that there were even levels of progression as you work to organize and develop a blended learning experience in your classroom. I had developed the misconception of blended learning as something you just jumped into and did. Hearing Marcia describe the 3 phases of blended learning made this teaching shift seem more clear and much less daunting.

I teach kindergarten, so I have less contact time with my students and they tend to be much less independent than other grades. Seeing that the 3 phases of Blended Learning allows teachers to go slowly and gradually release responsibility to the students makes perfect sense for my young learners. I was also happy to hear that she suggests a minimum of a year in phase one learning , in one subject area, before progressing to greater differentiation in phase two and eventually total student self- paced learning in phase three.

I was also amazed at the plethora of free web-based programs that were shared with us during this workshop. I really thought I was going to hear about things my district was using, but that was far from the case. I plan to focus on phase one of blended learning in math during the coming school year. I will be using Dreambox next year with my class. However, I am also very interested in seeing how the free web applications Frontrow, Sumdog, Prodigy, Kahoot and Pear Deck might be used to compliment and add to the Dreambox program.  I  am thinking that one program might be exclusively used at school while others might be used at school as well as for practice at home. I think I will be able to figure this out as the year evolves and I get to know my students.

Other than the phases of learning and free web resources, the organization and use of student data binders seemed to be another major topic that was covered. It is clear that one of the major benefits of using web-based programs with students is that teachers are able to gather a great deal of data about what children know and don’t know. However, if you don’t come up with a plan for organizing the student data all this benefit will be lost. The goal of the data binders is to move away from the information only being utilized by teachers and to put it into a format that will also allow  teachers, students and parents to self-monitor progress toward  grade-level expected learning goals.  I was not able to see an example of a grade K data binder at the conference so I will continue to try to find examples on my own.

As I left the conference, I found myself excited and with lots of information to share with peers. I also found that I had a new list of questions to ponder and research. I have always been a risk-taker in the way I organize my language arts instruction with young learners. Math takes me out of my comfort zone, so I have never been much of a risk-taker in this area. I believe that the blended learning model will allow me to differentiate my instruction in math like I do in language arts. I look forward to improving my math instruction through utilizing the early phases of the blended learning model during the 2016/17 school year.
Krista Hyme is a kindergarten teacher in the Olentangy School District located just outside of Columbus, Ohio. Krista is new to blended learning and is an advocate for using high-quality, personalized, technology-rich instruction with primary age children.

What is a “walled garden” you might ask? The term refers to the filters that are put in place to protect individuals from accessing harmful content on the web. At first glance, it appears that walled gardens are a good thing, especially for schools. Who would argue that we need to protect our students? Roblyer and Doering state in their book Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (2013) “Students can be impacted negatively by the internet in many ways, including accessing inappropriate materials, online predators, sales pitches aimed at children, privacy issues, cyberbullying, and computer viruses.”

Many in favor of walled garden may say that by limiting a child’s access in school to only websites deemed safe, they are keeping harmful content away from children. I would contend just the opposite and would even go so far as to say that walled gardens put students in far more danger than we think. Most students do not only access the internet Monday-Friday 9 am to 4 pm during the school year calendar. They are digital natives, and as such, are interacting with technology on a regular basis outside of our classrooms. While some parents do very closely monitor their child’s access to the internet at home, many are very unaware of the amount of time even young children are online. Many do not know of the vast number of sites out there that children find on their own. While most parents are very comfortable teaching about stranger danger, bullying, and other threats that exist in the physical world, many do not know how to teach their child how to stay safe online, as this is something that was never explicitly taught to them.

While we don’t want to see it, the threat is there. According to the FBI Website (2011), “Recent studies show that one in seven youngsters has experienced unwanted sexual solicitations online. One in three has been exposed to unwanted sexual material online. One in eleven has been harassed or bullied online.”  This makes the role of education in the area of digital citizenship and safety critical. It is the school’s responsibility to teach students how to be safe, responsible, and thoughtful while online. If walled gardens are in place, students cannot practice the skills they need in a supportive, structured, monitored environment and are left to navigate the challenges on their own.

I am not supporting removing all filters, but I am advocating that those sites that are 95% safe and are excellent for instructional purposes be allowed in schools. I also believe that teachers should be given curricular resources and professional development to utilize in teaching children how to handle the 5% issue. Just as we cannot watch our children 24 hours a day, and must teach them how to stay safe when we are not there, so too must we extend this to their online experiences.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic,
Tammy