#UWinDig

Choosing how to incorporate technology into your classroom can often feel like an overwhelming task. Sometimes we add technology just for the sake of having technology. Sometimes we find a cool application on our favourite teacher-blog and jump right in, adding it to our already overwhelming amount of technology, making it serve no real purpose. Sometimes we sit down at the computer intent on finding the perfect tool for the perfect lesson plan only to find ourselves WAY down the internet rabbit hole three hours later with no real progress to show for it!

The Technologist Module on Ontario Extend provides a helpful framework in choosing technology that really works for you and your students. Using the design framework, this module leads the user through a process of defining the problem they are addressing, and then finding a real solution.

I decided to use really enter into the process to see for myself how it would work. I chose a problem I experienced in my own teaching experience and set about to find the perfect solution. In many ways, the process was helpful. Thinking about my own students and trying to place myself in their shoes really did help me to focus in on what the actually challenge was for them. In the end, however, I do believe I already had a solution in mind and the module did very little to expand on that solution. In retrospect, this type of activity would be better suited in a small group, where the brainstorming phase really generates as many ideas as possible. When completing it on your own, you are more likely to stick within the realm you already have established for yourself as a teacher. You will then evaluate the ideas within that realm as well and then settle into your regular routine. The design process is a helpful application to the designing lesson for teachers, however, usually the design process involves a group of people designing something to solve the problem. It would be great to see teachers get together in this way to solve common problems that they have.

Below you will see my Piktochart, which shows my journey through the module.
I also choose to explore two other ed tech tools: Seesaw and Doceri.

*Click on various sections for view in-depth content and videos*

At first glance, some may find this article about the Chinese Social Credit system set to fully role out in 2020 not directly relatable to education in the Western world. It reads as the script of a Black Mirror episode (in fact, it eerily reflects this particular episode.) The basic idea is that the State will use their vast surveillance system to give citizens a social credit score. Citizens will receive rewards for higher scores, while those with lower scores will receive punishments. An example of a punishment would be blocking them from flights and high-speed rail – i.e. restricting their movement.

While it seems this is happening a world away, this is something we should be examining. The State is controlling behaviour of their citizens with a behaviour reward system. It sounds a lot like the type of systems many teachers are using, like Class Dojo, to manage behaviour in their own classes.

Before reading this article, I didn’t think much about tools like Class Dojo. I thought they might be helpful tools but had thought very critically about them. After reading more about China’s social credit system, I can see some real dangers in this type of system in a micro-culture like a classroom. There are three major issues that it has illuminated for me: how do we decide what behaviours are acceptable, is it okay to publicly (or even privately) shame students for their behaviour, and what kind of biases do we have towards students because of the people they spend time with?

As teachers, how do we decide exactly what behaviours are acceptable? While examining the social credit system in China, this was one of the things that struck me. Who decides what is proper moral behaviour? In the classroom this looks different than what we might see on a grander level. For instance, if a student continuously stands up and walks about the classroom, many teachers may decide this is undesirable behaviour. They may loose points on their class dojo. BUT, what if this student thinks best while moving.

The second issue this brings up is the idea of shaming students. The social credit score publicly shames and assigns a number to someone based on their behaviour. This number is likely very difficult to change once it goes too far one way or the other. This is similar to a student in a classroom. If we are using systems like Class Dojo are we labeling students with a number and shaming them publicly. How difficult do we make it for students to turn their behaviour around and start over?

The last point I’d like to make is that one of the behaviours that will have an impact on social credit score in China is who you are friends with and spend time with. Even if your friends post something negative on social media about the government, you will loose points for it. Do we punish students for who they are spending time? Or more likely, are we biased towards them because of the people they spend time with?

While I believe things like Class Dojo are still a far cry from the system that is rolling out in China, I think it is something we should be examining. How do you view behaviour management systems in the classroom? Do you think they are similar at all to the surveillance systems that exist in China? Or are we going to far in this comparison?

Click below to view my Prezi!

I confess, I’m a shortcut platform junkie. I have used most of the ones mentioned in the Hink article at least once. They have helped me in my work and in my personal life but I can see the limitations.

As the article explains, these platforms have become just another way for students to try to ‘get
the right answer.’ They are haunted by the ghosts of education past that say that students should be filled with facts and figures. Those facts are then regurgitated onto a worksheet or standardized test. This model of education continues to permeate our system and many of the tools we use to try to extend beyond it continue to limit students within the context of rules and boundaries. The Powtoon below both describes this idea and is also an example of the limiting features of these types of platforms. Just check out this Powtoon by another student in a different class to see how limiting they can be – we created something very similar and we don’t even know each other (somehow I think we even sound the same!)
I do want to challenge the article in one way. Many of these platforms can act as a scaffolding tool to something bigger and better. Especially in the junior years I believe they definitely have a place in getting students creating digital content, even if it is within certain parameters. One of Hinks criticisms of shortcut platforms is students believe they are “guaranteed [a] working product at the end with little risk of failure.” Students need to learn to take risks but sometimes they need an opportunity to create something with a small risk. Once they are comfortable in an area, they are more likely to move beyond it to something more challenging.  And believe me, there is no guarantee even on a platform like Powtoon that everything will turn out they way you want it to. I was ready to give up on mine more than once!

So, my ‘take-away’ is to be careful. Be careful of the message we are sending to our students with each platform we use. We need to be sure to celebrate failures and show them how we are limited within the frameworks. Creativity takes a lot of risk and we should provide our students with as many open-ended opportunities as possible.