Driving Question 2: What are the risks and benefits to self and others in the digital environment, and what are schools doing about it?

Description: 

The article by the outlet ‘Mamamia’ discusses the approach schools are using to deal with technology. It contrasts Sydney Grammar’s banning of technology in classrooms while still including coding and computer science in the curriculum with the approach of ‘Acorn’ school in London, which has a blanket ban on technology in school, teaching practical skills and not allowing students to watch tv until they turn 14. The article caused me to reflect on the risks and benefits of technology and how we use it in classrooms.

Feelings: 

The London school caused me mild indignation at how completely they dismissed the role of technology in modern society. I felt irritated at the tone used by the staff at Sydney Grammar, patronising students about the impact technology is having on them, but simultaneously was intrigued in the prospect of having a school keep digital technology largely out of classrooms while still recognising and teaching its value and uses. 

Evaluation:

The position that reducing the use of technology in classrooms can result in increased performance has mixed support from the literature. Technology isn’t inherently bad in classrooms, but it can disrupt or reduce learning if students have free reign, as the number of distractions it provides splits or completely shatters focus. I agree with the article’s general stance that reducing technology in classrooms is good, but the article provides very little evidence for its position.

Analysis:
The two different approaches in the article on paper look like they share the same dna, but in practice one is clearly more supported than the other. The approach ‘Acorn’ in London takes is highly problematic when considering the context of modern life. McElroy (2021) argues that digital connectivity is essential to providing students the ability to thrive in the modern world, and completely depriving students of technology for most of their schooling will leave them unequipped to thrive in a digital age. Sydney Grammar’s approach is far more compelling. There is substantial evidence to support that unrestricted access to technology is counterproductive, favouring the restriction of devices in classrooms Sydney Grammar opted for (Kirschner and De Bruyckere 2017). However, they take a more moderate and defensible approach by incorporating computer sciences into their curriculum, balancing learning with the digital literacy necessary to thrive in the current age (Boccini et al. 2022). Ultimately,

Conclusion: 

I’ve come to the conclusion that a blanket ban on technology is an ineffective tool for improving the educational outcomes and prospects of children. While reducing the use of technology in classrooms is a valid approach to foster a deeper learning environment, the evidence suggests that it needs to be balanced with digital education to ensure that students are learned critical thinkers while also having the digital skills and knowledge required to be able to succeed in the modern world.

Action Plan: 

In light of my reflection and research, I plan on incorporating technology into my teaching in a controlled manner, balancing focused learning with explicit instruction and active supervision to ensure that students are using technology effectively and not being distracted. I plan on making the majority of my lessons technology free for the students to facilitate active thinking and discussion, while intermittently including the use of technology for activities like research tasks or assessments to develop their digital skills as an ability to facilitate their own learning, not replace it.

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sydney-grammar-bans-computers/

References:

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: State of play and practices from computing education. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/126955

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

McElroy, T. (2021, December 3). Addressing the digital divide in education: Technology and internet access for students in underserved communities. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/12/03/addressing-the-digital-divide-in-education-technology-and-internet-access-for-students-in-underserved-communities/