על חינוך, טכנולוגיה ומה שביניהם

Despite a hot economy, millions of young people are stranded without work and are not continuing their education beyond high school. For those of us involved with education reform, workforce development or HR, that’s no surprise. It is essentially a case of bureaucratic culture versus the app culture. Different generations process experiences differently. In the “old days”—ten years ago—those of us in the boomer generation would expect young people to suck it up and eventually do things the “old way.” That behavior seems to be headed for the history books. Perplexed baby boomers can occasionally be heard saying, "What's wrong with this app? It's not working." Then they use their smartphone to dial a Millennial (born between 1981 and 1996) or Gen Z (born after 1996) family member to rescue them. They are less likely to wring their hands, tap on a metaphorical screen in the sky, and say, "What's wrong with this education bureaucracy, workforce agency or HR department?" A high school dropout cannot tap on an app and get the help they need if it involves more than one organization. Nor can an unemployed high school grad, a person who attended and left community college early or visited a local workforce board. They may sequentially visit a pertinent website, fill out forms, communicate with someone through email, or make a visit to an office, but to many young people, this is all very disconnected—and decidedly not social. Today’s youth culture lives in apps—not for the sake of the technology itself, but for the rich social, psychological identity-driven mash-up that define a person, group, interactions and opinions. When a Millennial or Gen Z-er accesses a new consumer app, it is as simple as opening the morning newspaper is for their parents or grandparents. However, when the same people look at a college schedule, fill out paperwork or an online form, access or save records that they may need later, and, eventually, try to conjure it all at the end of this process, they are stopped in their tracks. This routine is not part of their culture. It is a physical workaround for what should rightly be in an app. The same is true for the hiring process, and its disconnected demands of toggling between job boards, craigslist, resumes and interviews. Little of this is “social" in the sense that it is not tied into the social circle that provides validation—and perhaps the nod to proceed. Yes, startups and grant-funded programs for youth have built websites, and even apps. But these are most often not known broadly because they are not properly funded, did not involve top-end designers or brand builders, nor scaled and validated through social media. These startups and programs lack branded apps on social media platforms to attract younger generations, allow them to be shared, “liked” and tied into the experiences of others they know. Without those social signals as well as continual feedback from their friends and influencers— what the younger generations rely on for context—they are likely on very different wavelengths from the colleges who want them to attend and stay, training and outreach opportunities vying for their attention, and employers who need reliable entry hires. Each generational shift suffers a cultural communication schism, noticeable at home and in school, that in the past was navigable by the time young people focused on college or career training, or entered the workforce. Today, this is not happening. The culture that started with apps is not likely to be interested in how things were done in the past, which for many of us is still the present. They may well drop out, go into the gig economy or, because they are unaware of available jobs, go idle, likely in their parents’ homes. The disjunction between the world as it was (and is) and the world that many young people live in can be seen through an equity and access lens as one of significant barriers. If you can't reach impacted populations or show them what is available in the way they receive and confirm information, you are setting up barriers along social, cultural, racial and economic lines. The technologies, data, branding and user-friendly apps and websites common in consumer, commercial and some government sectors need to be used as a guide for a new breed of developers interested in the future of educational institutions, workforce agencies and foundation-funded projects. This new effort has to follow a bottom-up philosophy, driven from the point of view of the those out of work, confused about work, not knowing where to go for training, or whether to stay in college without any certain work outcomes. The gap between the traditional practices and the social and consumer app world is serious. Simply creating app-like technology to mimic older processes is not the answer. That lowers the viability of the labor pool at a time when we can employ as many people as are trained and available for the many open skilled jobs. Not reaching people or engaging them hurts the economy as well as individual lives and regions. Equity is more than creating more organizational programs or developing more ineffective websites without adequate measures for engaging and empowering young people who need support. There is no shortage of employers using social media to recruit new hires. These employers even enlist their own young employees to tweet, post on Instagram or their favorite social media, and talk about how good it is to work at their company. But how do you reach and motivate a 16- to 24-year old still living at home—or worse, on the street or as an itinerant—to interact with educational opportunities? We need to move from typical programs with standard outreach to the design, testing and iteration required to cross into the real app world and ramp it up in new ways with younger people in the design, development and delivery process. It should be noted that there are powerful corporations investing in expensive solutions that could help lead the way. Among them are Salesforce, Workday, SAP, LinkedIn, Amazon, and others that have the back-office capability to power such bridge-spanning apps that live and operate in both higher education and in major employers. However, outside their sales environment, inside most of these giant cloud-based organizations there is little motivation to take on the work of bridging old processes into a new equity-focused opportunity space. If we proceed as we are going, more agencies, foundations and community colleges will build more programs “for” disconnected youth and fail to find and engage enough young people consistently and measurably. At the same time, the social-media giants will push into this space, but will not likely have an equity mission. Meanwhile, venture firms and foundations will continue to fund startups that make reasonable products that are unlikely to push the incumbents out of the way. The best move is a better form of cross-sector collaboration to solve a problem that all sides need solved. This will involve the best and brightest of the app developers working alongside traditional organizations willing to self-examine the complications they present to each other and the world of youth. This is not a case where more programs and more people will make a difference. We are at a point where there should be fewer people involved and a focus on building much better industry-standards solutions, in order to reach the people who need much better information via social solutions—and who are more than willing to be part of the process to engage their peers. Gordon Freedman is president of the National Laboratory for Education Transformation, a research and development nonprofit dedicated to modernizing learning, training and job- seeking, and a Fellow at National University's Precision Institute. Previously, Freedman was vice president global education strategy at Blackboard, Inc. Despite a hot economy, millions of young people are stranded without work and are not continuing their education beyond high school. For those of us involved with education reform, workforce development or HR, that’s no surprise. It is essentially a case of bureaucratic culture versus the app culture. Different generations process experiences differently. In the “old days”—ten years ago—those of us in the boomer generation would expect young people to suck it up and eventually do things the “old way.” That behavior seems to be headed for the history books. Perplexed baby boomers can occasionally be heard saying, "What's wrong with this app? It's not working." Then they use their smartphone to dial a Millennial (born between 1981 and 1996) or Gen Z (born after 1996) family member to rescue them. They are less likely to wring their hands, tap on a metaphorical screen in the sky, and say, "What's wrong with this education bureaucracy, workforce agency or HR department?" A high school dropout cannot tap on an app and get the help they need if it involves more than one organization. Nor can an unemployed high school grad, a person who attended and left community college early or visited a local workforce board. They may sequentially visit a pertinent website, fill out forms, communicate with someone through email, or make a visit to an office, but to many young people, this is all very disconnected—and decidedly not social. Today’s youth culture lives in apps—not for the sake of the technology itself, but for the rich social, psychological identity-driven mash-up that define a person, group, interactions and opinions. When a Millennial or Gen Z-er accesses a new consumer app, it is as simple as opening the morning newspaper is for their parents or grandparents. However, when the same people look at a college schedule, fill out paperwork or an online form, access or save records that they may need later, and, eventually, try to conjure it all at the end of this process, they are stopped in their tracks. This routine is not part of their culture. It is a physical workaround for what should rightly be in an app. The same is true for the hiring process, and its disconnected demands of toggling between job boards, craigslist, resumes and interviews. Little of this is “social" in the sense that it is not tied into the social circle that provides validation—and perhaps the nod to proceed. Yes, startups and grant-funded programs for youth have built websites, and even apps. But these are most often not known broadly because they are not properly funded, did not involve top-end designers or brand builders, nor scaled and validated through social media. These startups and programs lack branded apps on social media platforms to attract younger generations, allow them to be shared, “liked” and tied into the experiences of others they know. Without those social signals as well as continual feedback from their friends and influencers— what the younger generations rely on for context—they are likely on very different wavelengths from the colleges who want them to attend and stay, training and outreach opportunities vying for their attention, and employers who need reliable entry hires. Each generational shift suffers a cultural communication schism, noticeable at home and in school, that in the past was navigable by the time young people focused on college or career training, or entered the workforce. Today, this is not happening. The culture that started with apps is not likely to be interested in how things were done in the past, which for many of us is still the present. They may well drop out, go into the gig economy or, because they are unaware of available jobs, go idle, likely in their parents’ homes. The disjunction between the world as it was (and is) and the world that many young people live in can be seen through an equity and access lens as one of significant barriers. If you can't reach impacted populations or show them what is available in the way they receive and confirm information, you are setting up barriers along social, cultural, racial and economic lines. The technologies, data, branding and user-friendly apps and websites common in consumer, commercial and some government sectors need to be used as a guide for a new breed of developers interested in the future of educational institutions, workforce agencies and foundation-funded projects. This new effort has to follow a bottom-up philosophy, driven from the point of view of the those out of work, confused about work, not knowing where to go for training, or whether to stay in college without any certain work outcomes. The gap between the traditional practices and the social and consumer app world is serious. Simply creating app-like technology to mimic older processes is not the answer. That lowers the viability of the labor pool at a time when we can employ as many people as are trained and available for the many open skilled jobs. Not reaching people or engaging them hurts the economy as well as individual lives and regions. Equity is more than creating more organizational programs or developing more ineffective websites without adequate measures for engaging and empowering young people who need support. There is no shortage of employers using social media to recruit new hires. These employers even enlist their own young employees to tweet, post on Instagram or their favorite social media, and talk about how good it is to work at their company. But how do you reach and motivate a 16- to 24-year old still living at home—or worse, on the street or as an itinerant—to interact with educational opportunities? We need to move from typical programs with standard outreach to the design, testing and iteration required to cross into the real app world and ramp it up in new ways with younger people in the design, development and delivery process. It should be noted that there are powerful corporations investing in expensive solutions that could help lead the way. Among them are Salesforce, Workday, SAP, LinkedIn, Amazon, and others that have the back-office capability to power such bridge-spanning apps that live and operate in both higher education and in major employers. However, outside their sales environment, inside most of these giant cloud-based organizations there is little motivation to take on the work of bridging old processes into a new equity-focused opportunity space. If we proceed as we are going, more agencies, foundations and community colleges will build more programs “for” disconnected youth and fail to find and engage enough young people consistently and measurably. At the same time, the social-media giants will push into this space, but will not likely have an equity mission. Meanwhile, venture firms and foundations will continue to fund startups that make reasonable products that are unlikely to push the incumbents out of the way. The best move is a better form of cross-sector collaboration to solve a problem that all sides need solved. This will involve the best and brightest of the app developers working alongside traditional organizations willing to self-examine the complications they present to each other and the world of youth. This is not a case where more programs and more people will make a difference. We are at a point where there should be fewer people involved and a focus on building much better industry-standards solutions, in order to reach the people who need much better information via social solutions—and who are more than willing to be part of the process to engage their peers. Gordon Freedman is president of the National Laboratory for Education Transformation, a research and development nonprofit dedicated to modernizing learning, training and job- seeking, and a Fellow at National University's Precision Institute. Previously, Freedman was vice president global education strategy at Blackboard, Inc.

The digital divide between rich and poor students isn’t what it used to be. As more devices find their way into homes, screen time across the socioeconomic spectrum is growing. But some more affluent parents are starting to pull back, setting stricter limits on device use both in and out of the classroom. That was the focus of a recent New York Times article, which noted that even as America’s public schools promote the use of devices, others are banning screens from class. In the article, Nellie Bowles discussed how “throwback” play-based preschools are trending in affluent neighborhoods; parents in Kansas City launched a program called Stand Together And Rethink Technology (START); and another group of parents in Missouri have joined forces to figure out how to reduce their children’s screen time. As educational technology continues to proliferate, and as today’s careers demand tech-savvy job candidates who already know how to use devices, the argument over the right amount of screen time is getting louder. To gain some consensus on the issue, EdSurge reached out to a handful of education and industry experts for their opinions. We talked to them about the race to equip students with devices, the role that content plays in the overall equation, what schools with limited resources should know about these trends and what’s in store for the future. Richard Culatta, CEO, ISTE: I would disagree with the suggestion that there has been a “race to equip every student with a device in the classroom.” While it’s true that schools are increasing access to technology, the driving force is generally to support new types of learning—it’s not a race. In fact, I’m not even sure who they would even be in a race with. And I’m definitely not seeing schools discontinuing their focus on effective use of technology. If there is any trend, it’s a recognition of the importance of focusing on teacher training to ensure that tech investments are used well. Some schools, in their initial attempts to use technology, focused more on choosing devices and apps than on preparing teachers. This is a model that simply doesn’t lead to good learning outcomes. Anya Kamenetz, journalist and author, “The Art of Screen Time: How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life”: I'm not seeing any trend away from devices in the classroom. I was recently at a very affluent private school touting its high-speed Wi-Fi and brand-new makerspace, which is the norm for better-resourced schools that I visit. The New York Times article cherry-picked examples of Waldorf schools. Waldorf education is nothing new, and the Association of Waldorf Education of North America lists just 172 schools around the country. What I am seeing is increasing anxiety about students' own phones in the classroom and the distraction that brings, and skepticism from parents about the value of laptops for homework. Benjamin Heuston, CEO, Waterford Institute: We're going to continue to see a lot of gyrations in this area until the technology gets easy enough that it disappears and becomes transparent. In education, we are still so early, and it's such a nascent area that people still think it's important to talk about what kind of device you have, or what modality that device is. Really, what we need to be talking about the problems we want to solve, and choosing the tool that's most appropriate for solving those problems. And sometimes that’s going be a digital tool. But the fact that it's digital doesn't make it good or bad. Technology is an extremely powerful modality, but in and of itself, it's not good or bad. It just depends on how you're using it and whether you're using it appropriately or not. That context seems to be missing in our Twitter-verse right now. Emily Weinstein, Project Zero and postdoctoral fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Education: It’s easy to just talk about screen time as if it’s an amorphous sort of general thing, but I think often when we focus on that we lose sight of how important it is to attend to what kids are actually doing when they're using those screens. Now, it's obvious when we look at extreme examples, but just take the case of social media and imagine a child who spends 15 minutes on Instagram. There's a huge difference (in terms of that child’s wellbeing at least) between spending 15 minutes on Instagram looking up inspirational content on running and working out, versus the same amount of time looking at depressogenic and/or self-harm oriented content. Put simply, the content itself matters more than the time spent looking at the screen. With this in mind, the point of whether or not to have the technology—or to limit its usage to, say, two hours a day—is less relevant than the idea that all screen time is not equal. There are some extremely positive uses of technology that empower kids at all different ages, but there are also some very disempowering and upsetting uses of technology. Culatta: While it is important to have balance in all aspects of our lives, we find that the amount of screen time question is not nearly as helpful as the question about what students are doing with the screen time they have. For example, if a student is clicking through a digital textbook or doing the equivalent of digital worksheets, I would hope that she would have very little screen time. If, on the other hand, she was using technology to problem-solve, collaborate, and engage with peers around the world, then I would hope that she would have much more screen time. Heuston: Learning is social and always happens in the context of other people and other people's ideas. That piece can be strengthened and bolstered by well-designed and well-executed technological programs, but when you start saying, “Let's hand it all over to technology,” you really can’t envision a future that isn't dystopian. As a huge proponent of technology, even I'm saying that it’s right in its place, in the right dosages and with the right intentionality and thoughtfulness. But technology is only one arrow in a quiver—it's only part of the tapestry. We need to keep a balanced approach and keep our sanity about it. Technology can help you do some things more easily. But when you use it, the expectations for what you want to do go up exponentially. I think we all need to recognize and honor the very hard work that parents and teachers are doing today, and I don't think that work is going away. Our expectations for what kids are doing are only going to increase. Culatta: The real question related to use of technology in education is about the type of learning experience provided to the student whether analog or digital. When educators have appropriate professional development and the time to develop meaningful and engaging learning experiences for students (where tech plays a role), then the benefits can be incredible. One of the biggest issues in education today is the fact that teachers come to a digital classroom with digital natives and are not prepared to jump in with clear goals and an understanding of how to appropriately use tech in learning. Kamenetz: I think about the positive uses of screen time in terms of creation, connection, discovery, and joy. Creative uses of technology include audio and visual recording and mixing, coding, web and app design, word processing, drawing, robotics and 3D modeling. Connective uses of technology are for communication purposes, which range from gaining fluency with social media, to composing an essay or a presentation, to writing an email. Discovery means accessing the internet, or some educational software, to learn things, practice new skills and answer questions. And “joy” covers the joy of being a fan and appreciator of music, video, and written content, as well as playing games. I believe in a balance of all four while trying to drive down the mindless, pointless or negative uses of technology to fill time, fight boredom, displace other needed activities or foster hostility, depression and other negative feelings. Culatta: Regardless of the school’s resources, the most important part of tech implementation is an investment in the teachers, not the devices. Even schools with limited technology can create amazing tech-enabled learning experiences when teachers know how to use tech effectively. Kamenetz: Resources should go primarily to train and support teachers in being gutsy in integrating tech into the classroom. Handheld devices are about as ubiquitous as television in the lives of all students so the focus should be on helping students use tech to pursue their own learning goals. Public schools in less affluent areas are less likely to have money for the latest equipment, but more importantly for training to help teachers foster creative and constructive learning opportunities with screens. With more pressure to hit literacy and numeracy targets imposed by the Common Core and high-stakes testing, computer time is more likely to be devoted to low-level drill-and-kill literacy and numeracy software—or somewhat robotic, easy-to-game multiple choice “credit recovery programs” for high school students. I see passionate teachers uniting on social media to exchange creative ideas for using the engaging properties of technology to hook their kids into lessons. Heuston: The standards have been raised. Luckily, research shows that young children are capable of a lot, and so let's get them started earlier. We're going to need better tools in order to get better outcomes, and technology will help fill that gap. But still, it's going to take a lot of work. People should hold technology accountable. But technology is never going to erase the relationships that we desperately need to foster and strengthen, or just the sheer energy and work that's required to raise the rising generation. Kamenetz: I think we're seeing that digital devices are not magic beans that transform the classroom experience and enhance student learning all by themselves. These are essential elements of the way that we live and work today. I hope that there's a growing awareness which requires very human virtues such as empathy and creativity to instill tech into the classroom in a productive way. The digital divide between rich and poor students isn’t what it used to be. As more devices find their way into homes, screen time across the socioeconomic spectrum is growing. But some more affluent parents are starting to pull back, setting stricter limits on device use both in and out of the classroom. That was the focus of a recent New York Times article, which noted that even as America’s public schools promote the use of devices, others are banning screens from class. In the article, Nellie Bowles discussed how “throwback” play-based preschools are trending in affluent neighborhoods; parents in Kansas City launched a program called Stand Together And Rethink Technology (START); and another group of parents in Missouri have joined forces to figure out how to reduce their children’s screen time. As educational technology continues to proliferate, and as today’s careers demand tech-savvy job candidates who already know how to use devices, the argument over the right amount of screen time is getting louder. To gain some consensus on the issue, EdSurge reached out to a handful of education and industry experts for their opinions. We talked to them about the race to equip students with devices, the role that content plays in the overall equation, what schools with limited resources should know about these trends and what’s in store for the future. Richard Culatta, CEO, ISTE: I would disagree with the suggestion that there has been a “race to equip every student with a device in the classroom.” While it’s true that schools are increasing access to technology, the driving force is generally to support new types of learning—it’s not a race. In fact, I’m not even sure who they would even be in a race with. And I’m definitely not seeing schools discontinuing their focus on effective use of technology. If there is any trend, it’s a recognition of the importance of focusing on teacher training to ensure that tech investments are used well. Some schools, in their initial attempts to use technology, focused more on choosing devices and apps than on preparing teachers. This is a model that simply doesn’t lead to good learning outcomes. Anya Kamenetz, journalist and author, “The Art of Screen Time: How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life”: I'm not seeing any trend away from devices in the classroom. I was recently at a very affluent private school touting its high-speed Wi-Fi and brand-new makerspace, which is the norm for better-resourced schools that I visit. The New York Times article cherry-picked examples of Waldorf schools. Waldorf education is nothing new, and the Association of Waldorf Education of North America lists just 172 schools around the country. What I am seeing is increasing anxiety about students' own phones in the classroom and the distraction that brings, and skepticism from parents about the value of laptops for homework. Benjamin Heuston, CEO, Waterford Institute: We're going to continue to see a lot of gyrations in this area until the technology gets easy enough that it disappears and becomes transparent. In education, we are still so early, and it's such a nascent area that people still think it's important to talk about what kind of device you have, or what modality that device is. Really, what we need to be talking about the problems we want to solve, and choosing the tool that's most appropriate for solving those problems. And sometimes that’s going be a digital tool. But the fact that it's digital doesn't make it good or bad. Technology is an extremely powerful modality, but in and of itself, it's not good or bad. It just depends on how you're using it and whether you're using it appropriately or not. That context seems to be missing in our Twitter-verse right now. Emily Weinstein, Project Zero and postdoctoral fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Education: It’s easy to just talk about screen time as if it’s an amorphous sort of general thing, but I think often when we focus on that we lose sight of how important it is to attend to what kids are actually doing when they're using those screens. Now, it's obvious when we look at extreme examples, but just take the case of social media and imagine a child who spends 15 minutes on Instagram. There's a huge difference (in terms of that child’s wellbeing at least) between spending 15 minutes on Instagram looking up inspirational content on running and working out, versus the same amount of time looking at depressogenic and/or self-harm oriented content. Put simply, the content itself matters more than the time spent looking at the screen. With this in mind, the point of whether or not to have the technology—or to limit its usage to, say, two hours a day—is less relevant than the idea that all screen time is not equal. There are some extremely positive uses of technology that empower kids at all different ages, but there are also some very disempowering and upsetting uses of technology. Culatta: While it is important to have balance in all aspects of our lives, we find that the amount of screen time question is not nearly as helpful as the question about what students are doing with the screen time they have. For example, if a student is clicking through a digital textbook or doing the equivalent of digital worksheets, I would hope that she would have very little screen time. If, on the other hand, she was using technology to problem-solve, collaborate, and engage with peers around the world, then I would hope that she would have much more screen time. Heuston: Learning is social and always happens in the context of other people and other people's ideas. That piece can be strengthened and bolstered by well-designed and well-executed technological programs, but when you start saying, “Let's hand it all over to technology,” you really can’t envision a future that isn't dystopian. As a huge proponent of technology, even I'm saying that it’s right in its place, in the right dosages and with the right intentionality and thoughtfulness. But technology is only one arrow in a quiver—it's only part of the tapestry. We need to keep a balanced approach and keep our sanity about it. Technology can help you do some things more easily. But when you use it, the expectations for what you want to do go up exponentially. I think we all need to recognize and honor the very hard work that parents and teachers are doing today, and I don't think that work is going away. Our expectations for what kids are doing are only going to increase. Culatta: The real question related to use of technology in education is about the type of learning experience provided to the student whether analog or digital. When educators have appropriate professional development and the time to develop meaningful and engaging learning experiences for students (where tech plays a role), then the benefits can be incredible. One of the biggest issues in education today is the fact that teachers come to a digital classroom with digital natives and are not prepared to jump in with clear goals and an understanding of how to appropriately use tech in learning. Kamenetz: I think about the positive uses of screen time in terms of creation, connection, discovery, and joy. Creative uses of technology include audio and visual recording and mixing, coding, web and app design, word processing, drawing, robotics and 3D modeling. Connective uses of technology are for communication purposes, which range from gaining fluency with social media, to composing an essay or a presentation, to writing an email. Discovery means accessing the internet, or some educational software, to learn things, practice new skills and answer questions. And “joy” covers the joy of being a fan and appreciator of music, video, and written content, as well as playing games. I believe in a balance of all four while trying to drive down the mindless, pointless or negative uses of technology to fill time, fight boredom, displace other needed activities or foster hostility, depression and other negative feelings. Culatta: Regardless of the school’s resources, the most important part of tech implementation is an investment in the teachers, not the devices. Even schools with limited technology can create amazing tech-enabled learning experiences when teachers know how to use tech effectively. Kamenetz: Resources should go primarily to train and support teachers in being gutsy in integrating tech into the classroom. Handheld devices are about as ubiquitous as television in the lives of all students so the focus should be on helping students use tech to pursue their own learning goals. Public schools in less affluent areas are less likely to have money for the latest equipment, but more importantly for training to help teachers foster creative and constructive learning opportunities with screens. With more pressure to hit literacy and numeracy targets imposed by the Common Core and high-stakes testing, computer time is more likely to be devoted to low-level drill-and-kill literacy and numeracy software—or somewhat robotic, easy-to-game multiple choice “credit recovery programs” for high school students. I see passionate teachers uniting on social media to exchange creative ideas for using the engaging properties of technology to hook their kids into lessons. Heuston: The standards have been raised. Luckily, research shows that young children are capable of a lot, and so let's get them started earlier. We're going to need better tools in order to get better outcomes, and technology will help fill that gap. But still, it's going to take a lot of work. People should hold technology accountable. But technology is never going to erase the relationships that we desperately need to foster and strengthen, or just the sheer energy and work that's required to raise the rising generation. Kamenetz: I think we're seeing that digital devices are not magic beans that transform the classroom experience and enhance student learning all by themselves. These are essential elements of the way that we live and work today. I hope that there's a growing awareness which requires very human virtues such as empathy and creativity to instill tech into the classroom in a productive way.

A productive school year happens when teachers employ competent planning and effective classroom management techniques. In doing so, they create the classrooms in which students thrive. How can we ensure we’re keeping learners engaged within these classrooms? The Glossary of Education Reform calls engagement the degree of attention, curiosity, optimism, interest and passion that students demonstrate when learning or being taught. These in turn influence the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education. This concept is based on the belief that students learn best when they are interested, inquisitive or inspired. Consequently student learning and performance will suffer when students are bored or disengaged. Concepts, mandated curriculum, and state standards may be set in your school and you may feel like your hands are tied sometimes. Nevertheless, teachers can still influence the delivery of the material and provide lessons that speak to their learners’ interests and learning styles. Here are some thoughts on how to ensure you’re keeping learners engaged in any class. Without a doubt, kids are the toughest audience you’ll ever have. Nevertheless, keeping your students’ attention doesn’t need to be a chore. The strategies you’ll learn about below are part of the 10 shifts of practice of future-focused learning. Consider them mini-shifts you can incorporate right now to ensure you’re keeping learners engaged. Give them more say in choosing a topic to investigate and write about. For example, let them collaborate on Pinterest  boards to organize, comment, and share materials. Sign up to Melissa Hiltner’s Pinterest  board for some fresh ideas. From there you can make and manage your own grade-wide board in collaboration with fellow teachers and parents. Multimedia presentations, such as using audio and video, can help with keeping students engaged through use of creativity. Let them demonstrate concepts by tying in today’s technology in the classroom to content and lessons in ways that are relevant and interesting to them. You can even explore how to empty pecha kucha techniques to make digital presentations more effective. You can always succeed with keeping learners engaged by giving them challenging problems to solve. Describe a relevant real-world problem they must then investigate in order to develop a workable solution. Another exercise that works is to have them create physical prototypes to solve a problem through functional application. Students should not have to feel penalized for making a mistake. Instead they must be motivated to eliminate one more way that doesn’t work in the quest to find a solution. Scholastic helps to get teachers in the mindset of exploring possibilities in search of a solution. These are ways to promote positive social engagement and create an environment that is more welcoming to those with different abilities and backgrounds. Ask about your learners’ feelings as they reflect upon a project, or an important topic such as bullying. In addition, be open and available to them if they should seek the advice of an adult on something more personal. Many students have no one to talk to about troubling personal or family problems. When troubled, kids are more prone to misbehave and less able to concentrate, and it can be a struggle keeping learners engaged in such cases. Teachers and counsellors are important individuals in helping children handle such situations. A classroom routine creates the necessary structure that supports child development and offers a sense of comfort for younger students. As such, they know what to expect next, which is important when students come from disadvantaged or ever-changing backgrounds. Cues and games help to refocus a classroom when attention drifts away. Getting up and getting the blood flowing is a nice way for children to use movement and hands-on learning, and expend a little energy. For optimum health, adults need to change positions and activities frequently within the day. Why wouldn’t children have similar needs? Teachers can succeed in keeping learners engaged and actively making discoveries in class using the above practices. Ultimately they will help each of you in getting the most from the learning environment. Start with these suggestions, and begin to incorporate your own. Then you can watch your levels of student engagement soar.

When people feel stressed because of toxic levels of adversity—such as experiencing or witnessing physical or emotional abuse, or substance abuse—they find it very challenging to step back from a negative experience, pause, and calm their nervous systems. When this happens during adolescence—as the influence of peers is increasing and young people cope with the challenges of a developing sense of self—the stress can be very challenging. Fortunately, there are some emotion regulation strategies that educators can build into their instructional practices, routines, bell work, and so on that help students pause and reflect a bit on their choices and dilemmas. I’ve been implementing these brain-aligned strategies in the upper elementary and middle school grades in the Indianapolis Public Schools. These activities are not to be implemented in the heat of the moment, when students are extremely agitated or dysregulated. These are preventative and reflective. A previous article highlights more strategies that can be used to create an atmosphere that feels safe for traumatized students. We may think of adults as the go-to or point people for helping young students regulate negative emotions and experiences, but peers can be of great assistance to one another if we teach and model how to be present for one another. There are many times in our middle school classrooms when students are surprised to learn that one of their friends has experienced adversity like their own. We can use these moments to build cooperation and collaboration within our schools and classrooms. In a morning meeting or when small groups are meeting, have students discuss questions that will show them what they have in common. You can start with a silly question like, “How many of you have two eyes (or two thumbs, or hair)?” Students might laugh, but this will drive home that they have things in common. You can then move on to more fraught questions: How many of you have ever broken a bone? How many of you have ever been afraid? How many of you have ever not eaten breakfast? Dinner? As the year goes on and students build trust with each other, the questions can become more intense: How many of you have ever had something scary happen to your parents or brothers or sisters? How many of you have been in the hospital with an injury or illness? How many of you have ever had someone you love arrested? How many of you have experienced the death of someone you care about? Many of us have experienced some of these situations. If we keep them to ourselves, they may grow to feel overwhelming, taking up so much space in our minds that the only things we think about are the negative experiences and problems we have. If we see that others have experienced these things also, that can help us come to terms with them. When a student begins to become agitated, irritated, or upset, teachers can try to co-regulate with them if they have not reached that point of no return where the anger or sadness overrides their ability to talk or share concerns or challenges. When adolescents bring significant adversity to their schools and classrooms, they often need a trusted adult to listen, to gently probe, and to share possible solutions and improved outcomes. The following questions are meant to spark a discussion and show empathy while helping the student calm their nervous system—they can begin to repair and heal with an adult who sees them, feels their pain, and listens to learn. For this strategy based on a metaphor and focused on the development of students’ minds and emotions, I start by bringing a bouquet of flowers and several types of fruit and vegetables to a morning meeting. As a class, we discuss how they’re similar and different, and what it takes for them to grow and flourish. Then we make connections between the students’ mental and emotional development and the flourishing of a garden. We discuss questions like: What makes each of these fruits, vegetables, or flowers unique? What ingredients and environments do these plants need to grow? Are any of these ingredients the same for your own mental and emotional development? What would be your sunlight? What would be similar to water for your mental and emotional health? If you think of your mind or emotions as a garden, do you have a protective fence? Do you have boundaries, routines, and structures that keep you safe and comfortable? This strategy can be useful in helping students to analyze their own feelings and to realize which people, places, and experiences in their lives act as nutrients for their well-being.

Subscribe to receive weekly updates of MindShift stories every Sunday. You'll also receive a carefully curated list of content from teacher-trusted sources.