I had a great conversation with a fellow GCT recently, and we discussed the idea of 1:1 programs. He brought up a valid point - often, a 1:1 program is adopted, but the technology alone doesn't make a transforming difference in the classroom. We appreciate the new tools. They're faster, easier, and (hopefully) more engaging than using paper and pencil, but if we treat the technology like a $1,000 pencil and paper, that's what we'll get in return. What makes these programs a success is when students and teachers are reaching the upper levels of SAMR and Bloom's in real and relevant learning opportunities.
This also got me thinking about device selection. Being a part of five different 1:1 programs, I've employed successful use of laptops, Chromebooks, and iPads. Often, I am asked by colleagues what device they should choose. My answer is, "What are you wanting students to be able to do as a result of your 1:1 program?" It's not about the device. It's about how it's used, just like my friend and I discussed.
Every device has its strengths, just like we do as learners. As educators, we employ all kinds of strategies to reach all students. Within one classroom, we will differentiate for strengths and enrichment, weaknesses, capabilities, and resources. We recognize that all students are different. And I think we recognize that our resources are different, too. The good news is that we do have direct control over the differences in our resources.
Think about the last time you went to a meeting or a conference. What device did you bring? Here's what that looks like for me:
Yes, I am that person. The one that has at least two devices connected to the network, and a third that is using cellular data just in case the network gets overloaded. I'll use these devices differently depending on what I'm doing while at the conference (and what my physical surroundings are like).
So for example, during a keynote, I'm probably using my iPad mini or my phone to tweet (again, depending on network). During a featured session, if I'm sitting at a table, I'll probably use my laptop to tweet and my phone to take pictures. If I'm sitting in a lecture hall, I'll do that with my iPad. I'm sure this sounds familiar to many. Let's transfer this real life aspect to the classroom.
In the classroom, if we provided students with multiple devices (or had a very good BYOD program), our students could be empowered by the capabilities of each unique device. Let's say, for example, that my students are involved in a lesson in which they are collecting data to develop a new product. If they are using a feature like Google Forms to develop their survey, they'll probably want a keyboard, so a Chromebook or laptop would be best. When they are out collecting that data, a tablet would be the best option (as long as they stay on network). When analyzing that data, again, a laptop or Chromebook would be best, and when they present that new product to their class, the device choice would vary greatly depending on presentation choice. Considering the different ways students can present, from PowerPoints, Google Slides, infographics, and videos, the go-to device will change daily.
As a former director of technology, implementing 1:X was at the top of my priority list. In our testing phase, we began four classroom 1:X projects, and devices varied from laptops, desktops, Chromebooks, and iPads. In a true student-centered classroom, it worked beautifully. Students loved the voice and choice they had, not only with research and their end products, but also with devices. Meeting all of the four C's was a natural result.
Trying to grasp that student voice, I once asked fourth grade students in a 1:X classroom how being able to choose their device affected progress in research and presentation. The student liked it, no doubt about that. But the bigger take-away for me was that 1:X was so like the students' own personal lives, they hadn't even realized that there would be anything other than choice.
There are some big stumbling blocks with 1:X. Costs, repair, and network capacity are enough to make the technology department stop and hyperventilate for a few moments. But I think that the opportunity for students is enough that we should look to get around those barriers. They will, after all, be the same barriers faced regardless.
We need to constantly be asking ourselves what if, and why. If our answers are management, financial obligations, or because someone else did it, those are the wrong answers. If our answers are things like empowering students, differentiating instruction, and creating, we're on the right track. Going back to the conversation about successful 1:1 programs, it's not about the stuff. It's about what students are doing with it.