This week our team met for over three and a half hours to work through the ideation phase. We added the checklist to our google doc and went through it step by step together. We first met on Wednesday after class for two hours to begin brainstorming. We did a pre-brainstorming activity, discussed our end goals and our brainstorming rules. We decided to make a padlet and take some time to brainstorm as many ideas as we could about our topic - how do teachers increase their efficacy of teaching 21st century skills? After we came up with a lot of ideas we organized them into three categories: teacher-centered, student-centered and teacher and student-centered ideas. We then had a discussion about the ideas we came up with and the questions we still had about our topic. This took about 2 hours so we decided to take a break and work on our own to decide which ideas we liked the most individually. Then we met again the following night to look over everyone’s preferred choices and came up with the top two promising ideas. From here we answered all the questions on the checklist about each of our two ideas such as: the value of the ideas, the constraints, and evidence of brainstorming about how it would work in a school setting. We all felt that these two ideas were very promising and came to a consensus that they were the best two ideas we had collectively come up with.
My individual contribution this week was the same as everyone else's. We all worked together the entire time to come up with as many ideas as we could as well as collectively deciding which would be the top two choices. All our work this week was done collaboratively. This is not an easy task. I have to say my group members worked very hard to move their schedules around to accommodate our long meeting sessions. As we were discussing ideas and questions I typed our thoughts onto the doc while also contributing to the discussion. I added quite a few ideas to our brainstorming session on padlet and I picked my favorite ideas and added them to our doc before we met for the second time.
This week the challenges were the amount of time we had to spend meeting together to collaborate. We spent two hours on Wednesday and an hour and a half on Thursday brainstorming together. We also had to spend time individually looking over the ideas we brainstormed and picking our favorite ones. After completing the checklist and explaining our ideas, the value, the constraints and providing evidence we felt like we had done a great job of describing everything in detail. We were excited about our two possible ideas and how it could make a difference in the lives of teachers.
I’ve done this type of brainstorming with my students before. They did genius hour projects this year and brainstorming was one of the beginning steps. Students had to work on a project that they were passionate about for one hour every week to develop a product that would show their learning. In order for the students to come up with their project idea we did something called The Bad Idea Factory. Students had to come up with as many bad ideas for their projects as they could. They were given a certain amount of time and worked in groups to list as many bad ideas as possible on a google doc. The class then shared their lists with me and we discussed them as a class. This is similar to what we did in the ideation phase but not exactly the same since we were brainstorming good ideas instead of bad ideas. However, I have seen it work with students and it is a fun activity that allows students to be creative and wild with their ideas.
Tim Brown discusses creativity as a way of thinking that has no bounds. He points out that creativity is stifled by judgement and societal expectations. No one wants to be judged so people are not as willing to be creative. Fear of being judged keeps people conservative in their thinking (Brown, 2008). I have to say I agree with this statement. I see myself doing the same thing when I am asked to be creative. I want my idea to be a good idea so I only share a few of my ideas instead of all of them. Brown (2008) then points out that children are not this way. Children have not yet developed the fear that adults have of being judged so they are far more open about their ideas and therefore are more creative than adults. Students who are in a safe environment are more free to play and this applies to adults as well. If adults are in a safe environment and they won’t be judged they can be more open about their ideas (Brown, 2008). This points to the fact that brainstorming sessions need to have ground rules where participants won’t feel judged so they can be open about their ideas. This applies to the ideation phase and the DT process overall because you never know the direction that the conversation will go. Ignoring one idea may stifle the creativity of the group. Groups need to feel that whatever they say will be safe in order to allow brainstorming to reach its full potential.
Resources
Brown, T. (November 10, 2008). Ted Talks. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RjwUn-aA0VY
BYOD Reflection
My response to whether I would support the integration of BYOD into my school will be slightly biased because my site is already 1:1 with chromebooks for each student. I’ve seen how effective it is to have students use devices that are school provided and if I had a choice this would be the type of program I would like to use at my school site. BYOD can be a good program at schools if school-provided devices are not already in place, but I think there are obstacles that make it less effective than 1:1 school-provided programs. I agree with Imazeki (2014)that a BYOD program can keep students engaged, reduce grading time, provide instant feedback and allow for open ended responses (that clickers cannot). I also like the fact that BYOD allows for distance learning because students can respond to questions or engage with class materials outside school hours on their own devices (Imazeki, 2014). However, all of this can be accomplished on 1:1 programs with school-provided devices as well. Additionally, with school-provided programs you don’t have to use web tools that work on various operating systems like you would in BYOD programs. If students all use the same school-provided devices then teachers can use apps that work for one specific operating system.
Some ways that BYOD programs would be more beneficial than school-provided programs are the potential for it to be lower cost (Imazeki, 2014). Right now my district has paid for the initial purchase of student devices and the upkeep. BYOD programs would cost a fraction of the amount that my district is paying because students would be supplying their own devices. Nevertheless, my school student demographic is 67% socioeconomically disadvantaged so I cannot say that many students have their own devices that they can bring to school. It is also different at an elementary school. Students that are under the age of 11 don’t have devices like students who are in middle or high school. This would be another obstacle to integrating it at my school site. Overall, I think BYOD is a decent enough program, but schools have come a long way and I don’t think is the best program out there for students. Imazeki (2014) points out a lot of positives for BYOD but the overall tone of the article is as if teachers are first starting out using technology in the classroom. If I were at a school that was just beginning to look at using technology in the classroom and the district did not have the funding to provide devices for students then BYOD would be a good option but I think most districts are heading in a different direction at this point.
Schrum and Levin (2015) point out that using devices in any 1:1 configuration can positively impact student achievement when properly used. Therefore, one other determining factor for deciding between a BYOD program or a 1:1 school-provided program would be how teachers would use it. If teachers are flexible and able to manage a class of student-owned devices then it would be a good program to use. If teachers are less flexible or less able to manage a class of student-owned devices: because they don’t know how to prevent students from being distracted on cell phones or they don’t know how to manage different operating systems then a 1:1 school provided program would be best. Imazeki (2014) points out the same thing by explaining that teachers have to be patient and flexible when integrating BYOD into their classroom. They have to anticipate glitches and other small problems to occur. This can be difficult for some teachers and would be another reason why I’d prefer a school-provided program.
Resources
Imazeki, J. (2014). Bring-your-own-device: Turning cellphones into forces for good. The Journal for Economic Education, 45 (3), 240 - 250. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
Schrum, L. & Levin, B.B. (2015). Leading 21st century schools. (2nd ed). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd.