Tag Archive for 1:1

Distraction and Devices: Our Research Findings and Faculty Discussion

ChallengingforWeb

What effect does our device program have on students’ distraction and focus in class? As part of our developing 1:1 environment, we conducted a large-scale Academic Technology survey in the fall to evaluate our program along many axes. Through surveying students, faculty and parents, we were able to get a comprehensive picture of the device program and its effects throughout the school as they were perceived by all of our stakeholders. One large question that our community had going into the program was the issue of how students would be affected by the potential distraction of having digital devices in the classroom.

This week, I presented some brief findings to our Upper School faculty. Following the presentation, Christina Serkowski and I facilitated two small-group discussions about the data and the larger issue of distraction and focus in class. Here is a summary of those findings, and the conversation that followed, as well as an invitation for you to help us continue this conversation.

A Widespread Concern

When we asked “What is the most challenging or difficult aspect of the device program,” a common answer emerged from all four stakeholder groups. (Click on any image to view larger size)
ChallengingforWeb

Students reported that there were really two aspects to the issue of distraction: their own ability to monitor their distraction and that of the classmates.

StuDistforWeb

Students’ comments further demonstrated these two aspects.

StuCommforWeb

The implication of this data is that while distraction is often discussed as an individual problem, the effect of one student’s distractions can reach to other students in the immediate area.

Students can be distracted by their own devices as well as those in their immediate area.

Students can be distracted by their own devices as well as those in their immediate area.

 

Faculty Discussion

Upper School faculty had a discussion following the presentation of this data, and the conversation was wide-ranging, from individual classroom strategies and potential system/school policies, to how this data changed some teachers’ view of the distraction problem. A common recurring theme was that some teachers had previously viewed the issue of distraction as personal responsibility (i.e., “If a student makes the choice to be off-task, that’s their responsibility”), but now saw the issue differently because of the effect students could have on their peers.

Comments in the faculty discussion were organized into categories in the mindmap below. The entire mindmap is too large to display here, but you can view the expanded version to see the comments themselves.

The main categories of comments in the Upper School faculty discussion. Click through to see the full summary of comments.

The main categories of comments in the Upper School faculty discussion. Click through to see the full summary of comments.

 

Further Discussion

Does this data align with your observations in your classroom? Do you view the distraction issue as one of personal responsibility, or class management? Does anything surprise you in this data? Any other observations, comments or questions? Please comment and continue our conversation below!

Uses of Technology to Enhance Formative Assessment and Differentiated Instruction

Fall2014_Cover_001

Along with our Academic Dean Richard Kassissieh (@Kassissieh, KassBlog), I co-authored an article on the use of technology in formative assessment and differentiation. The article appears in the Fall 2014 edition of Curriculum in Context, the journal of the Washington State chapter of ASCD. The article describes a variety of ways in which our faculty are using formative assessment strategies to gather and analyze student performance as well as giving students opportunities to engage with content and skills at a variety of levels.

Using Guided Access to Minimize Distractions in iOS

IMG_0176
Mobile devices often end up loaded with apps designed to push notifications out to users. Games, social media, communication tools and personal organization tools like Calendar and Tasks are all designed to grab a user’s attention when something needs to be noted. When trying to concentrate on work, this becomes a constant distraction pulling away from the task on hand. It also creates a challenge for people trying to use these devices in presentation settings, as notifications about personal items such as communication or appointments can end up being shared on screen with a class or audience, and audio notifications can interrupt a presentation or playback of audio or video. Thankfully, there is a way to suppress all notifications when you’re using the iPad in a visible setting using Guided Access.

Guided Access is a feature of the iOS settings which allows you to do two major distraction-managing steps: eliminate notifications, and lock yourself into a particular app to help resist the pull of a quick game or social media checkin. Once the feature is activated, you can’t leave whichever app you’re in until you deactivate it (which can be configured with a passcode for more security). It also has a feature where you can specify parts of the screen that won’t receive any pop-ups. If you have a free app that pop-ups up with advertisements from time to time, for example, this could help eliminate those distractions. Finally, while it’s turned on, no aural nor visual notifications will occur from any other app. This includes:
  • Calendar
  • iMessage
  • Mail
  • Addictive Games of your Choice
  • Anything else which Pushes Notifications (Social Media apps, etc.)
You can, of course, disable many notifications permanently in the Settings app. Guided Access gives you the opportunity to temporarily disable them while you are sharing the iPad in the classroom setting and then have it go back to normal mode once you’re done, as well as to force yourself to stay in a mode such as writing, reading or drawing. To activate Guided Access, first turn it on in the Settings app under General->Accessibility->Guided Access. Here, you’ll specify if you want to use a passcode in order to turn it off once it’s activated. Once Guided Access has been activated, go to the app you plan on projecting or playing and triple-click the Home button. You’ll be notified that you’re in Guided Access mode (and, as a bonus for those of you projecting, you can lock the rotation here so that you don’t accidentally rotate your image while sharing). When it’s time to leave the app, triple-click the Home button again to disable Guided Access and return to normal use.
Parents and teachers may initially jump at the option to lock students into a particular app (an e-reader, notetaking app or school LMS, for example) by specifying a passcode which they control, then activating Guided Access before handing the device to the student. In this case, the student would then be unable to leave the app. There may be situations in which this is appropriate (test or controlled writing scenarios, for example), but most use cases for the iPad involve switching between multiple apps. In this case, the teacher or parent would have to enter the passcode every time a student wanted to switch between their electronic textbook, for example, and their notes program. Anybody planning on using Guided Access as a way to “put the blinders on” and focus on a single task should think through whether that single task also involves a single app, or whether a combination of apps is necessary thus making Guided Access a clumsy tool to fit the need. While not a long process, it does add an extra step each time you want to switch between apps to have to de-activate Guided Access and re-activate it in the new app.
Our interviews and conversations with students reveal that they are extremely mindful of how distracting notifications and other apps can be, and are often looking for ways to help manage their devices better to support focus. Coaching students to use Guided Access when appropriate can give them a tool to use when they notice that they need it and when it fits the nature of the task. Similarly, for anyone giving presentations or sharing multimedia in class, using it can ensure that notifications don’t interrupt and cause a potentially embarrassing distraction.

Don’t Make(r) a New Computer Lab

Our Makerspace is, as with many schools, located in the room which used to house a computer lab. The transition from pull-out lab-based computing to immersive 1:1 environments has left a variety of spaces available to be used in creative ways. Schools looking to offer Maker and tinker-oriented programs (including robotics or other tech-based activities) can make a natural transition of that space by adding maker tech, and it even makes some logistical sense– these are rooms which are often designed to offer easy access to power and network outlets, and may have lockable storage for peripherals or laptops which can be repurposed for tools and supplies. But in the rush to revise the computer lab, have we recreated “The Computer Lab?” At the Independent Schools Educators’ Network dinner at ISTE 2014, I spent some time chatting with Kelsey Vrooman of the Urban School and Bill Selak, now at Hillbrook, about this very question.

I believe that the most important reason for 1:1 computing in schools is context: students using computers in Language Arts creates a context of use for the computer which places it within that discipline. The message of this style of use is clear: you have a variety of tools that you use to discover, experience and demonstrate the discipline of Language Arts– your computing device is one of them. The computer lab model decontextualized technology use by creating an abstract space, time and skill set for computing use, and we have abandoned that model because it no longer fits with our view of technology an integrated, immersive, just-in-time resource.

The goal of adding a Makerspace is either implicitly or explicitly expressive of some of the same desires and goals of 1:1 computing– “soft” skills or ideals such as creativity, collaboration, problem-solving and authentic work, or concrete curricular goals such as STE(A)M or 21st Century Computing/Technology Skills. As we asked with 1:1 computing, we should ask the same ideological questions about the location or environment of a Makerspace: pull-out, or push-in? Standalone, or immersive? Remote, or classroom-based?

Seymour Papert described the computer lab through the lens of systems and schools in “The Children’s Machine” by calling the lab a school’s attempt to control and homogenize a resource that it didn’t know how to adopt. The lab, he argues, is a construct borne of the school system’s need to clearly delineate expectations, input/output and “expertise” (in the form of a responsible teacher). Many of his observations about the “unknown” nature of tinkering-based learning hold just as true for the Makerspace as they do for computing. To be sure, there are logistical concerns which lead to a separate Maker space (just as, in the pre-mobile days, it wasn’t reasonable to put 1:1 device ratios in a classroom using only desktops): a Laser cutter has to be installed with specific air circulation needs, for example, and isn’t going to be rolled into a class on a period-by-period basis. That doesn’t mean, however, that many of the elements of the Makerspace can’t be mobile: materials, tools, (and more importantly:) skill sets and challenges can be pushed in to classes and contextualized just as we are now doing with 1:1.

We have reached a compromise on our campus of the personalization and contextualization of 1:1 computing for most needs, with specialized resource centers of computers for unique needs beyond that which a personal device may cover. Our publications classroom has specialized software and additional computing power for photo and image processing. The same goes for an art classroom. When Middle School students, armed with iPads, embarked on a MinecraftEDU project, we supported them with a collection of classroom laptops to run that software. The challenge in building our Makerspaces is to strike the same balance: what are Maker activities which require a specialized and purpose-built space, and which deserve to be pushed-in and integrated into class contexts?