18 March 2008

Full of Sound & Fury


All-teacher email messages can be a funny thing. Sometimes they’re very positive and encouraging in nature (“Hey, did anyone catch the play this weekend? Good job everyone involved!”), and other times, like today, they take on sharper tones. I’d be lying if I said I never got sucked into it, but today I sat on my hands while people argued about our school’s new cellphone/”electronic entertainment device” policy.

Our new policy (in a nutshell) allows for the use of iPods & mobile phones at lunch and in the hallways between classes, but not during class (current policy is no use at all, anywhere during school day). Consequences escalate with each subsequent infraction, but all involve confiscation of the device. This policy will be piloted during the 4th quarter of this school year and evaluated over the summer.

The email that kicked it all off challenged proponents of the new policy to defend it. From there, the emails came thick and fast. By and large, responses revolved around one of these themes:

  • FINALLY we’re allowed to confiscate phones – what took so long?!
  • We’re too soft on these kids
  • Why don’t we just jam the cell signals?
  • They banned them in NYC; why can’t we ban them here?
  • If you didn’t sit on the committee, you have no right to complain (not explicitly stated, but implied)

To my dismay, nobody actually used the phrases “In my day” or “When I was their age”, but the pseudo-rant that I can only hope was a poorly written attempt at satire more than made up for it in the “missing the point” department. Also to my dismay, not a single response dealt with the possibility of using mobile phones in a classroom context. I was getting frustrated reading these responses, and decided to craft my own. After a quick Twitter shout-out for some links to add to my existing collection, I wrote the following:

Hi everybody,
Amid the talk of mobile phones at school, I’d like to highlight the part of the policy that allows for teacher discretion of use in class (…they’re to be turned off “unless approved by the staff member in charge.”).

*

Some of the links below go to discussions and presentations on the emerging use of mobile phone technology in education, and others are to specific applications that can either be infused into the curriculum or used as organizational aids; the latter use might be particularly useful for our students with learning disabilities and the oft-attendant organizational issues (I use Jott and GoPingMe all the time).

*

This, like other technologies, is simply another tool for which we have an opportunity to explore and model not only appropriate use, but also potential pedagogical benefits.

Discussions

http://www.cellphonesinlearning.com

http://www.edutechie.com/2007/06/8-ways-to-use-camera-phones-in-education/ http://www.slideshare.net/satonner/mobile-phones-in-education-constructive-not-deconstructive-124979/ http://www.math4mobile.com/index.html

http://horizonproject.wikispaces.com/mp+impact+on+education

Applications

http://www.gcast.com/

http://www.gabcast.com/

http://jott.com/default.aspx

http://gopingme.com/

http://www.scanr.com/default.aspx

http://www.qipit.com/

(To my credit, in that email I refrained from the shameless self-promotion in which I’ll now engage.)

My email was followed about an hour later by one from the head of the committee that developed this policy. She provided some links to old favorites of the edublogosphere like Did You Know? 2.0 and A Vision of Students Today, as well as some other stuff based on Prensky, Gardner, et al. Nothing new to most people reading this blog, but potentially (I hope) discussion-starting for my faculty.

My biggest beef with this policy is the confiscation; I don’t like it at all, but I guess I have to live with it, at least for a few months. While not perfect, I think it is FAR preferable to dropping the ban-hammer on 3,200 students (good luck enforcing that, by the way) or mandating a multiple-day suspension for multiple infractions (as appeared in the original draft, since removed).

I’ll be following the grapevine at school with great interest between now and June, and looking forward to the committee’s post-trial evaluation report.

Bookmark and Share
5 November 2007

Cell Phone Trifecta: If You Can’t Join ‘em, Beat ‘em!


How many teachers do you know who would give their eyeteeth for one of these gadgets? (from NY Times)

The jamming technology works by sending out a radio signal so powerful that phones are overwhelmed and cannot communicate with cell towers. The range varies from several feet to several yards, and the devices cost from $50 to several hundred dollars. Larger models can be left on to create a no-call zone.

Here’s the rub:

Using the jammers is illegal in the United States. The radio frequencies used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like those used by television and radio broadcasters.

The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.

Would you risk the legal ramifications in order to guarantee an end to illicit cell phone use in your classroom? As long as you didn’t flaunt it like an idiot, there’s probably a very low risk of getting caught.

Is this the ultimate answer to ending unwanted cell phone use – equip teachers with pocket-sized jammers?

Bookmark and Share
3 November 2007

Using Cell Phones for Good, Not Evil


As receptive as I am to practical applications of tech in the classroom, I’ve never been big on mobile phones in school. Not that I’m inherently against their use; I just haven’t seen much that’s convinced me there’s that great a need for them in the classroom. A few tools I’ve come across in the last month or so have convinced me, however, that phones can come in very handy as far as helping students get organized (a skill that we teachers often require but rarely teach).

Organizational support is especially important for our students with learning disabilities, many of whom also exhibit symptoms of ADHD (there’s anywhere from a 15-80% comorbidity rate of LD & ADHD, depending on who you ask). Many of these students are so lacking in organizational strategies that the help of an aide or special ed teacher is explicitly written into their IEPs. I’m wondering if offering them an organizational tool in the form of a familiar, comfortable technology might empower them to take more ownership of this aspect of their learning.

Our kids use cell phones every day to communicate with friends and family. Can we teach them to harness the power of voice and text communication for organizational purposes? Here are three FREE services I use to help me remember important tasks:

Jott (public beta)

This service allows you to call a (US) toll-free number (probably irrelevant in this age of standard US nationwide calling plans; there’s a local 647 number for Canuckistani Jotters) and dictate text to be sent to any email address in your Jott addressbook. You can also use Jott’s contact manager to create groups of recipients (e.g., Family, Soccer Team, Period 1 Students).

Set up an account at Jott.com. You’ll be asked for an email address and a phone number to associate with your account. When you call Jott, you’ll be asked, “Who do you want to Jott?” Say the name of any contact or group in your account (Say “Me” or “Myself” to Jott yourself). After the beep, leave a quick message (“Vocabulary homework; read Chapters 3 and 4″). Your message will be transcribed by either voice-recognition software or a human transcriptionist and sent to the contact’s email address.

For bonus tech geekery, do what I do and have a Gmail filter/label combo set up for Jotts (click thru for a cleaner pic):

1.png

Wakerupper (private beta)

Wakerupper is marketed as a free wake-up call service. Use the drop-down time menu and calendar to schedule calls; Wakerupper’s text-to-voice software can even play a recording of a short typed message.

2.png

This is a much more “bare bones” approach to reminders than Jott, and could be valuable for students who don’t spend much time on email, but can access the site to schedule some reminder calls. I’ve never scheduled a reminder call for more than a day in advance, but the calendar doesn’t seem to have a defined time limit. Wakerupper’s site says you can schedule reminder calls via phone, too, but as yet, I haven’t been able to locate that number. (Edit: Wakerupper customer support sez the schedule-by-phone option has been removed until it can be further refined)

Wakerupper is still in private beta testing, and you must email them at beta@wakerupper.com to request an account. This isn’t like some other beta sites, though – I got my account within minutes of requesting it.

TextMemos

Similar to Wakerupper, TextMemos allows you to advance-schedule text messages for most major mobile carriers. The only catch here is that if you’re not in the US, you must know the recipient’s mobile carrier (not a problem if you’re texting yourself). Type in your text message, set the date and time, choose the carrier, and away you go.

3.png

So which one is best? As always, depends on the needs of the user. I love Jott, but I have easy access to email through much of my day, and it’s my “command center”. Students who have limited computer (but ubiquitous mobile) access would probably be better served by Wakerupper or TextMemos, and even then it’s a question of personal preference of text or voice.

Privacy concerns here are valid. All three services have stringent privacy policies, but I still probably wouldn’t use any of these services to convey sensitive information (if they want to tell the world that I ran out of milk this morning, they’re welcome to).

My students are glued to their mobile phones (overheard in homeroom one day: “You can’t just… NOT text. That’s ridiculous.”), so I think it makes sense to put them to some good use. I doubt I’ll be requiring them to txt in their homework anytime soon, but I wonder if using these tools for automated reminders would help them in any way.

All services are available in the US and Canadia (English only); TextMemos is currently the only one that can be used outside these countries.

EDIT: I think it’s important to note that I have no vested business interest in or connections to any of these companies, other than as a very satisfied consumer of their respective products. Just in case the Edublogger’s Ethics Committee comes knocking…

Bookmark and Share
29 October 2007

LOL @ Bhvr Anlsis & Txting ;-)


From a discussion on crisis management at grad school tonight, we got onto the topic of cell phones in schools. Some folks recommended a straight-up ban. I disagreed, and suggested instead we model appropriate use of technology for our students and focus on trying to reduce or eliminate their desire to use phones in class. The conversation moved toward the most frequently witnessed use of cell phones in schools: texting.

I was challenged: How will you take a cell phone away from a girl who hides it in her skirt? What about all the cheating kids do with phones? My basic response was this: if the kids are engaged throughout the class, they’ll be less likely to drift to their phones. To cheating, I said I believed that if cell phone cheating is that rampant in a class, the problem is not the phones, it’s probably either a) the assessment, or b) a lack of classroom management. I tend to agree with the folks who propose teaching appropriate uses for technology rather than outright bans, if for no other reason than that bans rarely work anyway.

As I thought more about this discussion on the ride home, I thought about how neatly the “ed tech” angle ties into an aspect of school psychology, behavior analysis.

Behavior analysis relies on a fairly simple principle we call ABC – Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence. If the Behavior is “texting during class”, there must also be some sort of Setting Event or Antecedent – what immediately or not-so-immediately precedes the Behavior. Likewise, there is also a Consequence – what happens immediately after. According to behavior analysts, we can guide behavior by altering the Antecedents and Consequences.

Example 1:

Barbara is an another boring English class. The teacher is not engaging, and rarely introduces any variety into the class. Bored stiff, Barbara goes for her phone to check her messages and text a friend. Her texting, a direct violation of policy, goes unnoticed by the teacher.

Antecedent/Setting Event: Boring class; no engagement.
Behavior: Texting
Consequence: Friend contacted, boredom momentarily relieved.
Verdict: Behavior reinforced – likely to continue.

Let’s switch things up.

Example 2:

Same student, same boring class, same text. Barbara gets caught this time, and is written up. When the vice-principal gets to her writeup three days later, she is assigned detention.

Antecedent/Setting Event: Boring class; no engagement.
Behavior: Texting
Consequence: Short-term: Friend contacted, boredom momentarily relieved. Long-term: Detention.
Verdict: Behavior reinforced – likely to continue. Why? The immediacy of boredom relief outweighs the detention that won’t come for another week.

Rain down detentions on poor Babs; it won’t make much of a difference. More work is also created for the teacher (who has to write the student up) and the vice-principal (who has to deal with the situation). How do we make everyone happy?

Change what happens before the behavior occurs – head it off at the pass.

Example 3:

Same student, same English class. Teacher creates engaging lessons, varies activities and assessments. Makes learning meaningful to students. Teacher alleviates boredom so Babs doesn’t have to. The need for boredom relief is removed; the phone stays tucked away. Babs has no more detentions, the teacher doesn’t have to write her up any more, and the vice-principal can focus on more pressing disciplinary matters.

Sure, these scenarios are a little oversimplified, but not so much so that they’re inaccurate. The moral of the story for me is that the “great cell phone debate” (how silly will this look in 20 years?) is not nearly as much about technology as it is engaging young people. Take away their cell phones and they’ll write notes to each other. Take away their notes and they’ll fiddle with something else. Create an environment that does not engender behaviors such as texting answers to one another, and you won’t have these problems (for God’s sake people, walk around your classrooms and LOOK at your students while they test! Have kids place their phones on their desks if it’s that bad! Let them try to text the answers to essay questions to each other, instead of multiple choice questions, and see how far they get!).

Texting, like all behaviors, serves a function. Remove the need for that function, and it doesn’t matter if you’re Classroom 2.0 or Classroom 0.1 Alpha RC2 – your kids will be with you, and not elsewhere.

Bookmark and Share
Newer Entries »