Technology Could Redefine Learning. Schools Settled for Substitution.

Following the passing of Jerry Mintz of AERO, I found myself thinking again about Class Dismissed, the 2015 documentary I was featured in. Revisiting my interview brought back ideas I shared then and showed me how much my views on technology and learning have stayed the same.

Technology has always had the power to open up learning: connecting young people with courses, experts, peers, and audiences beyond the classroom. Yet schools have often used it to put familiar worksheets and test preparation on a screen. In the SAMR model, that’s Substitution—the lowest level, where technology replaces a tool but leaves the learning task much the same.

The more ambitious possibility is Redefinition: using technology to make new kinds of learning possible. That could mean students pursuing questions they care about, learning with people across distances, and creating work for an audience beyond their teacher.

I explore this gap between technology’s promise and its use in schools in my new article, “Technology Could Redefine Learning. Many Schools Settled for Substitution.”

What could students do if schools moved beyond substitution?

Stop Trying to Detect AI. Start Creating Better Assignments

What if we spent less time trying to detect AI and more time designing learning students can't outsource to it?

In my latest Tech & Learning article, I explore Michael Hernandez's Uncheatable Assessments and what happened when I put several assignments through his Cheat Vulnerability Index.

The goal isn't AI-free learning. It's learning worth doing.

What do you think makes an assignment “uncheatable”?

Stop Trying to Detect AI. Start Creating Better Assignments

What if Schools Are Shortening Attention Spans More Than Screens?

We hear it everywhere: Kids can’t pay attention anymore, and screens are to blame. Screens can certainly affect attention, but what if we’re overlooking something else?

For years, schools have trained students to read short passages, answer predetermined questions, move on, and repeat. High-stakes testing and test-aligned curriculum may be contributing to the very short bursts of attention we so often blame on technology.

In my latest LinkedIn article, I look at what the research says, what I experienced as a librarian and literacy coach, and what schools could do differently if we really want students to develop deep, sustained attention.

Read: What if Schools Are Shortening Attention Spans More Than Screens?

Gamified Learning Can Be Powerful, Purposeful, and Fun

Gamification has become another target in calls to ban or restrict technology in schools. But where is the research showing that gamification itself is harmful?

Poorly designed programs can keep students clicking for points without producing meaningful learning. That deserves scrutiny. But research also shows that well-designed gamified and game-based learning can support motivation, persistence, collaboration, creativity, and academic growth.

In my new article, Gamified Learning Can Be Powerful, Purposeful, and Fun, I examine the difference between effective and ineffective gamification through examples including Footsteps2Brilliance, Khan Academy Kids, MovieStarPlanet, and Minecraft.

Fun is not the opposite of rigor. We should evaluate what students are doing and learning, not deprive them of powerful learning experiences simply because they include games, challenges, competition, or digital rewards.

Stop Saying the Research Says All Screens Harm Children. It Doesn’t.

Research about social media, cell phones, distraction, and excessive use is too often used to condemn every screen students encounter.

That is not what the research says.

A student scrolling through social media is not having the same experience as one using a device to analyze data, translate text, receive feedback, collaborate, create, or access captions and text-to-speech. Calling both “screen time” strips away the information that actually matters.

In my latest article, I examine what the research shows, where the arguments from Jared Cooney Horvath and Jonathan Haidt do and do not apply, and why returning students to paper does not automatically improve learning.

The question is not whether students are looking at a screen. The question is what they are doing, whether the technology supports learning, and whether students have meaningful choices.

[Read the full article here.]

We Bought the Devices. We Forgot the Professional Learning.

My library media center in Harlem in the 90s where
 students intentionally went to a space to use technology.

Schools invested heavily in devices and platforms, but too often failed to make the same investment in professional learning, coaching, and staff support. We expected classroom teachers to become technology integrators, often with little more than a device, a login, and a brief introduction to a new platform.

In We Bought the Devices. We Forgot the Professional Learning., I examine what the screen-time conversation is revealing about that approach. More technology use may shift into libraries, labs, technology classes, and other designated spaces. That could be a positive change when it connects students with educators who have the expertise and time to make technology use meaningful.

Reducing routine device use will not fix weak implementation by itself. Schools must invest in developing knowledgeable staff who can decide when technology adds value, when another approach would work better, and how to use each in service of learning.