Reflection Article: “​Technology Integration for the New 21st Century Learner​”

I dislike admitting that my first reaction to this article was that of ​disgust​, as I felt the

writer, Nancye Blair was creating a one-sided argument in support of placing a computer or

web-enabled device into every student’s hand in order to bring their level of learning up to date

in the 21​st​ Century. Because the writer did not provide a SWOT, or at least an

advantage/disadvantage analysis, nor did she demonstrate having any appreciation for the value

teachers have on children beyond a facilitator and project manager. Nancye Blair’s ​tone​ and

content was ​almost actually condescending ​towards our nation’s current public educators​,

practically accusing teachers entirely for failing to keep students engaged in the curriculum and

of hoarding access to technology​ and therefore, ​limiting their students’ educational potential​ –

even retarding their development in areas of ​information technology​.

I​ have long held the position that technology should be integrated into education for

practical use by both teachers and students; however, I do know that teachers can only work with

what they have and how they are able to use it. I live in, and hope to teach within the Tracy

Unified School District, where elementary students do not have any device of their own, or even

access to laptops or devices within their classroom: they still share one computer lab. I am also

aware of ridiculously tight budget constraints and meager teacher allowances/access to basic

supplies that will indeed challenge me to keep my students’ engaged. So I took a closer look at

Nancye Blair’s examples of ‘empowered’ students and educators, hoping to identify or

extrapolate techniques or gain ideas that may be applied with low-tech tools—for retaining my

students’ interest as topics are introduced, explored and learned.

As I followed her illustrations of extraordinary accomplishments made by young students

and innovative teachers of progressive schools, I also followed some of the links she embedded

within this article that validated my strong belief that every student needs regular and frequent

access to current information and technology with use of a laptop, tablet, webbook, chrome

book, etc.; however, I ​disagree​ with the Nancye Blair’s assertive argument for a ​one-to-one

initiative​ for the issuance of a ​‘device to every student’ as a singular solution​. This initiative is

meant to permit students to work on a given project outside of the classroom, but fails to address

motivation and responsibility outside of the classroom; focus and interest within the class.

Furthermore, I strongly ​oppose devices going home with any student below grade 3​. (The

exception may be home study or prolonged illness). Children at age 8 have a very short attention

span (of 10-15 minutes); are very self-focused and likely not so conscientious of where they may

place the device to keep it safe and accessible. Although these students would be eager to engage

in playing educational games, the trade-off is that these very early learners should be ​active

outside of class, and ​strengthening social skills​. Chances are, these children already play games

on gaming devices and are certainly aware when others members of his family are. This

familiarity with computer games at this age is both appropriate and necessary for platforming

with ICT. Therefore, ICT should be introduced step-by-step with the teacher, and teacher-guided

for projects collaborative work.

 I feel that Nancye Blair’s article sounds like she expects each of these students with a

device will, without fail, complete their projects collaboratively or self-guided, out of their own

self-sustaining interest. In her illustrations focusing on the students, she reduced teachers to

simple facilitators and project managers. As I read on, I continued to seek ideas on how teachers

may keep students motivated -once they leave the classroom- to keep their contribution to a

collaborative project on target and not using their issued device or of their own to play unrelated

recreational games or view ‘adult’ sites, or engage in unproductive (and possibly harmful) social

media. These activities are a component of Information, Technology & Communication “ITC” of

this a one-to-one initiative. Other criticisms of her article is as follows: (1) It ​appears to be

written to motivate school administrators​ of k-12 educational institutions in the U.S.; however, it

fails to motivate any U.S. school, as those schools that can integrate ITC do or will; (2) Nancye

Blair’s article is not ‘news’ (it has been considered and debated for years) and does not even

impart usable information for educators.

It is my thought that the only measurable result of her article is: (1) Garner support from

those who would adamantly criticize public schools form the position that every student is

entitled to a device (however, would these same people help find a solution for schools of very

poorly performing students whom are more likely to misuse such a device? I think not); (2) Seek

a market (schools/community) that protagonist organizations can fulfill their own agenda (one is

a feasibility test. So far, I am only aware of studies in developing nations and in the U.S. and; (3)

Create a market for a full menu of online classes with international standards).
 In sum, Nancye Blair’s article is a call to action: however, it is not likely to have any

positive impact for Students in the U.S., partly because she fails to assist her readers to determine

practical solutions for the integration of ICT in education (that best suits their schools).

I am seeking ​how ​I may integrate technology/ICT in my classroom, not to be criticized.