This is a fantastic idea and certainly a progression in the right direction, HOWEVER, calculators and cell phones among other items are stolen on almost a daily basis when the kids have gym class or at other times when they can't physically hold onto these items or don't have time to run them to their regular locker between classes. The school will need to get ahead of that problem with a solution before the theft of laptops, ipads, etc. becomes a huge issue.

This is a terrible idea. Studies show that technology gadgets in class are very distracting, and that 91% of students use their cell phones to send and receive personal text messages while they are in class. Studies also show that multitasking via the use of gadgets reduces cognition, memory and test score outcomes. Furthermore, this model is completely unproven, and while it will save schools money, it is very damaging to the students. The age of "helicopter parenting" and giving in to children's demands has led to this dire state of affairs. We are currently number 25 in math, 17 in science and 14 in reading against the rest of the world, and it's only going to get worse. Use of the internet and other technologies is more addictive than cigarettes or alcohol, and when they are used, they create the same brain state as someone who is on narcotics. We have been blinded by this addiction and brainwashed into thinking more technology is a good idea. It's absolutely tragic to see this disaster unfolding before our eyes.

Tony, for ten years we have been throwing billions of dollars into technology in the classroom, and for ten years we've been sliding further and further down in education. Studies continue to show that the misuse and overuse of technology is very damaging to cognition, memory and performance. Did I suggest that schools "completely ignore" technology? No, I did not. The strictly controlled use of technology by the teacher is appropriate. The free-for-all approach of giving in to student's demands is not. There is zero evidence that Bring Your Own Device programs improve outcomes, and on the contrary, studies of these pilot programs show no positive effects on grades and some show dips in certain areas. We have already seen the first crop of Millenials aka "Digital Native" and they are in workforce with no critical thinking skills and poor communication skills. Read this article for more information on how damaging the internet and other technologies can be: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making-us-crazy-what-the-new-research-says.html. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts which are proven by science. Now, people can go on making excuses and calling me a luddite and such. That is just a way of avoiding the real issue, which is that there is NO proven benefit to gadgets in the classroom and all studies about it have shown that there has been no benefit.

Also see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all

In reference to the daily beast article. That is not research that's an article about a man who was promoting a cause that took 70% of the donations received. I really hope you are not declaring that research.You mention that there is no added benefit to implementing technology into the classroom. You must not have ever seen the textbooks that publishers are creating and the unlimited access to research materials the Internet provides. You do not need to create a hypothesis and go to your card catalog to understand that information can and should be more readily available. I'm sure if it were up to you children would still be using feathers to write with because there is no scientific evidence to show that it is better than a pen. It may just be a matter of common sense. Also, the professor from NYU was interviewed in your original post that told students to leave their laptops at home; I would guarentee that he/she requires students type their papers, or are they only allowed to use typewriters because there is no scientific evidence to support that they are more useful than computers. Why should we limit children to that which is around them rather than grant them the ability to take information from the thousands of libraries that grant Internet access to their resources.

Even after all that I am still baffled that you tried to use that article as evidence or as you say science. When you throw those terms around people are assuming it will be a scholarly article, you know one with facts, research and yes most likely typed on a computer.

Tony, are you unable to see the numerous studies cited in the article?

Here are some more study summaries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8436831/Student-addiction-to-technology-similar-to-drug-cravings-study-finds.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030253

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-25/tech/tech_social-media_multitasking-kids_1_social-skills-study-facetime?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-5264503.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/multitasking-is-bad-for-you_n_925958.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57357895-10391704/internet-addiction-changes-brain-similar-to-cocaine-study/

http://socialmediaobservatory.com/social-media-news/internet-overuse-could-cause-structural-brain-damage-study/

As part of last year's graduating class of 2012, I was part of a similar pilot program in the second semester where students could use technology as a supplemental learning tool in class. While I don't know the effect of this program on our overall grades, I can say, in my specific case, that the class handled the technology with maturity and did not abuse the freedom in any way. Experimenting with the program for at least a full year is a win-win situation for CHS.

http://www.temple.edu/temple_times/november06/Traditionalbooks.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-ipad-and-kindle-are-cognitively-worse-for-you-than-paper-reading

I appreciate you googling all of these articles. The reason you have the ability to do this is the computer/tablet/smartphone in front of you and it is exactly the power students should have. I could google studies claiming the exact opposite but yet again you are missing the point. Times are changing and I understand you did not have the luxury of Google or an iPhone but to not allow students to use them now is naive. We are preparing students for a world that is long in the past. I commend Cinnaminson High School for taking the lead and understanding that textbooks printed in 1980 should be replaced.

Tony, I actually found most of these via the extensive research I have been doing for six months on this issue, via books I have read (real paper books). Since they happen to also be online, and we are discussing the issue online, yes, I have the luxury of posting the links to studies which I had already learned about offline. This is convenient, I agree, however, I already had the foundation of a deep understanding of the issue through books and offline study, and therefore was able to very quickly reference just a fraction of the articles from memory, allowing me to be able to look them up very quickly. Had I just used Google, I doubt I would have a complex understanding of the effects of technology in the classroom, because using only Google does not provide a structure or larger framework for critical thinking.

I'm not going to click on any of those links. Rebecca should have went to the library and searched for hours on end for these studies. She should have xeroxed each article and mailed them to you. About a week later, you could read them. Then, type your response on a typewriter and respond to her by mail. The whole process should only take about two weeks.

OR

Search the internet on your ipad/iphone/ipod/laptop/etc for about 5 minutes.

I wonder which one will be more productive?

As I mentioned, T Jones, I actually did learn about these studies through reading books, which I believe gives me a very thorough understanding of the issue we are discussing. Simply joking about being old fashioned, using feathers, xerox, etc. does absolutely nothing to further your argument. How about showing me some studies on how multitasking helps people be productive, or that gadgets are not addictive or that the internet improves long term memory and cognition? You can say I "should have went" to the library and take two weeks to write my response all you want. It doesn't really enhance the argument for using tech in the classroom.

My understanding from the literature that has been sent home is that this is a trial and that the school administration has taken a decision not to rush into the technology area but to trial what works and what does not and then assess progams. It seems to me that this is a good way to go. Rebecca, if you are studying this area (although you have to admit you have pretty much made your mind up - which is not really a proper study) why don't you work with the school administration, look at their approach, their plan, and what results they are collecting. Who knows, if you adopt a fair and objective approach your work might even be enhanced?

Maximus, it is interesting to me that no one has any comments on the studies I have provided. Here, I have given evidence that social media can brain damage and low self esteem, that reading from paper produces better learning results than reading from screens, that the internet and gadgets are as addictive as illegal drugs and that multitasking tremendously reduces productivity and long term memory. Yet, no one has one word to say about these studies, which, by the way, are a tiny, tiny fraction of the similar studies I have read over the past six months. No comment whatsoever. Now, let me clarify something. I have nothing against technology (obviously) in the same way that I have nothing against chocolate cake. I like chocolate cake and it is easy to eat. It's entertaining and recreational. Would I advocate having children eat chocolate cake all day long and bring their chocolate cake to class in order to eat it all day? No, I would not. Knowing the properties of the cake, I would realize that it something to be strictly limited, and not something that anyone should eat all day long every day. In the same way that we know that chocolate cake has some unhealthy properties for us, we already know that technology gadgets and the internet also have unhealthy properties as proven by a huge body of well substantiated evidence. Now, am I saying that children should not use technology at all? Absolutely not. I will continue in the next box due to limited characters here.

It is clear that technology is a crucial part of our lives and that everyone needs to know how to use it. But guess what? By the time the kids get to school, they already know how to use it, because it is very, very easy to use. For some reason, people have missed out on the fact that if a five year old can work an ipad, the five year old is not brilliant. The ipad is elementary. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are platforms which one can learn in a matter of hours with no instruction. Children learn to surf the internet and use Google before they even come to Kindergarden. Knowing how to work with technology is important, but it's something they pick up on their own. Social media is recreational, and surfing the internet should be, too. Most things which are recreational are limited. However, since children are now running the show, they are allowed to recreate all day in class. If you don't think that's what they are doing, then you're welcome to review the body of evidence which proves that they use their gadgets for playing games, shopping and personal texting instead of classwork. Pilot studies of this type have already been going on for three years, and the results are already available. Mixed (at best) grades, the lowest SAT scores in history in 2011 and this year, 75% of high school grads failed the college readiness exam. Employers are complaining about new hires and their lack of critical thinking skills. Continued...

College professors are shocked at how much remediation the kids need in Freshman year. Recent college grads are virtually unemployable due to the fact that all they know how to do is social media. Employers report that the new hires don't know how to email, how to make a spreadsheet, how to communicate in person and how to solve problems. They don't know how to do these things because they have spent all day, every day buried in recreational gadgets. They don't know basic math and are not proficient in reading. I can supply all of the studies on these claims, too, if you want. And yet, in the face of all of this evidence, and no evidence to the contrary, people still become enraged when it is suggested that Bring Your Own Device is a horrible idea. Why? I don't understand the justification for the outrage.

Your argument is wrong from the start. You are saying that college grads do not know how to use email, make spreadsheets, etc. and the way you improve those abilities is by giving students the tools to learn how to use them. Your argument is flawed from the beginning. Perhaps you should take a class in common sense before subjecting other people to your nonsense.

Tony, you do realize that spreadsheets and email are vastly different (and much older) technologies than smart phones, social media and ipads, right? Spreadsheets and email require math and writing skills, respectively, skills which are not being taught effectively right now. Simply saying I am wrong and full of nonsense without addressing the evidence and studies I have presented does nothing to further your argument. Do you have any evidence on the efficacy or results of the Bring Your Own Device programs which have been ongoing for the past several years? Anything to refute the studies I have presenetd on the harmful effects of the internet and social media? Unless you have some hard data or studies to present, I'm afraid I am losing interest in your argument, which seems to consist of nothing but calling me "wrong".

One "fact" is that the majority of todays high school graduates cannot spell, write or balance a check book. They are so absorbed in themselves that they could care less about learning how to run the country when the baby boom generation is gone.

Wesley, First of all I would like to thank you for your thoughtful and rational response. Finally, from you, I have an intellectual set of ideas from which to work rather than "you should write this with a feather" or "you're wrong!" Ok, firstly, I totally understand your point that correlation (which, yes, is loose) does not equal causation. It's just a theory that the negative benefits of the internet may have a direct cause on grades and cognition. However, I have to take issue with your saying that the studies don't hold water because the articles about them are written for an American audience. The study of the 17 people you mention was done by China, and I have read the actual study myself. In fact, I have it easily on hand if you would like me to send it to you. Unfortunately we can't put attachments here. If you would like to read the actual study, please email me via Patch and send me your email there. I have many studies on hand which I could share with you. Since you mention you have children I think it is really important that people know the real ramifications of what is happening with technology in society today. Now, to your point on multitasking- yes, I agree that children have always done some form of daydreaming, but writing notes is not the same as the digital medium. When one was caught writing notes in school, the teacher was unhappy because they did not WANT the kids multitasking. Today, multitasking is encouraged. Continued...

...Continued from above: Now, instead of confiscating the medium which allows children to multitask, schools are encouraging it by having children bring in devices which make multitasking too tempting to ignore (again, substantiated by many studies I can send to you.) So while kids have always attempted to do other things in class, they have never before been encouraged to do so nor had such an addictive medium which was being encouraged. Everyone seems to ignore the advice of pediatricians, who recommend NO screens for children under two and LIMITS on screens for all other children. What is the justification for the schools ignoring this advice, which comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics? As to your point on this possibly being a gimmick, I would have to say that it is, without a doubt, a fad which is both dangerous and destructive. Again, I thank you for your response and welcome further comments.

Clarification- when I was speaking about "scientific facts" earlier I was referring to the harmful effects of the internet and gadgets. A direct causation between that and grades is still a hypothesis.

As a soon-to-be graduate of a teacher preparation program, we are highly advised by our instructors to incorporate a student's tech gadgets in the classroom as much as possible, whether that be through smart phones, tablets or laptops. It's the job of the teacher to prepare his or her students for the 21st century marketplace, an incredibly technologically-advanced future. That being said, in-class use of technology support can be an extremely useful practice in "real-world" application of learning as long as the implications are appropriate. To say that these modes of learning can become distracting to the student is merely a testament to the implications used by the teacher - good classroom management and an engaging lesson will cut down on the overall distraction of the student. I think that this is a great educational decision on the part of CHS and the school district.

Devon, do you know why schools would ignore the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics to limit screens for children due to the harmful effects of too much screen time on cognition, memory, intellect, social skills and self esteem? This is something I have been wondering for a long time. Since you are in the thick of things, perhaps you could shed some light on the answer. Is there any justification for ignoring this recommendation?

With all due respect, I personally think that you're blowing the topic of personal technology use in the classroom way out of proportion. Regardless, my fellow colleagues and I are urged as future educators to incorporate smart phone, tablet and laptop learning applications in the classroom so that students continue to use such applications outside of the classroom setting in order to maximize student learning and to further foster the curricular enduring understandings. This does not necessarily mean that all lessons are, or should be, specifically limited to technology-rooted mediums.

(cont)The medical implications as a result of screen usage for students is no different than it is for adults working in administrative or service positions. As a secretary or other office/service job worker, you are asked to take a ten-fifteen minute break every two hours of consistent screen usage. I would hope that this would never be an issue in the classroom setting. I would assume that most technology used in-class would be more for reference and formatting (as in building power point presentations, spread sheets or typing documents in a word processor). Although technology can be implemented in-class for many other creative and practical uses (e.g. A teacher setting up a twitter account that all students can post to in a blackboard type discussion regarding assigned readings). The ultimate pro to in-class, educational technology use is that the ways in which technology can be used is virtually limitless, a plus for teachers needing differentiated instruction based on individual student needs.
As for the student's cognition, memory and intellect (?) being jeopardized as a result of lesson-appropriate, teacher-approved in-class gadget usage, I've never heard or read of any studies against. I can't see why my education professors (all ex-administrators and doctorate-yielding professionals of the education system) would advocate technology use in the classroom if there were longitudinal studies that proved such negative effects to the students.

(cont)The social skills and self-esteem of students are reinforced in the classroom through cooperative learning activities, a growing trend in best practices throughout the learning community. I cannot see how using in-class technology to enhance and engage students in a lesson could take away from either faction in the individual student. Technology in the classroom is not designed to alienate students, but to further improve the understanding of the material being learned by the student in a practical, real-world application.

Devon, the recommendations for adults and children are completely different. The recommendation for children under two years of age is no screen time whatsoever, while the recommendation for children older than two years of age is no more than two hours (total) of screen time per day. That includes all screens, gadgets, computers, television, etc. Now, as you can imagine, there are many reasons why they have made this recommendation, ihcluding the damaging effects I have been speaking about, which are substantiated by many, many studies. Why so many people simply chose to ignore these effects and the recommendations from the experts is baffling to me. You say that you can't imagine "education professors (all ex-administrators and doctorate-yielding professionals of the education system) would advocate technology use in the classroom if there were longitudinal studies that proved such negative effects to the students." However, there are many studies which have concluded that the use of the internet, smart phones and other gadgets cause decreased cognition, memory, self esteem and productivity. So, while it is true that the use of these technologies in the classroom, specifically, is relatively new, use of gadets and screens is not. Did you look at or read the studies I provided above?

No, Rebecca, I haven't read them yet but will make sure to. But, to speak frankly, we both know that children of all ages (and adults as well) use screen based media well over the recommended two hours. This deviation of the topic at hand, being that in-class technology is currently used in many classes at CHS, goes against what the article above is trying to communicate. Also, non-personal technology has been used for as long as I am able to remember in the form of education videos and computer -based classes such as computers (from elementary school on) and computing for college careers at the high school level. Are you suggesting that public education districts remove programs like these, fundamental to 21st century education and careers, from their curriculum?

By the way, must-reads on this subject are: The Shallow-What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains by Nicholas Carr; Alone Together by Sherry Turkle; idisorder by Larry Rosen; The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein; The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser; The Cult of The Amatuer and Digital Vertigo, both by Andrew Keen. There are many more which I have read on this topic, but these were the best ones thus far. So many more books are coming out that I'm looking forward to on this issue, as many neuroscientists and other experts pay more attention to the crisis we're facing. I don't expect any will be written by educators, though. The gadgets save way too much money for the schools, so everyone in that arena is a cyber evangelist.

Devon, I am not trying to suggest that all technology be removed from the school curriculum. I'm suggesting that due to the proven harmful effects of the internet, multitasking and using gadgets, plus the proven addicitve nature of such, that certain technologies be limited, especially phones. While it is true that digital technologies have always been used in schools, in the past, they were used very sparingly. Watching a movie on the Civil War is easy and fun, but it's not the same as an in-depth lesson. Googling answers is easy, but studies have shown that the more people use the internet to find answers, the worse their long term memories become. Googling and surfing the internet, using social media and making videos on Youtube are not things which offer students the opportunity for deep reflection and the development of critical thinking skills. They don't encourage reflection and they don't introduce the idea of overcoming obstacles in order to solve problems. In his book "The Shallows", Carr points out that Einstein was riding a bus and just...thinking when he hit upon the theory of relativity. How often are kids encouraged to just sit and think today? Continued...

According to an article on sciencedaily.com- "Patricia Greenfield, the UCLA developmental psychologist, wrote in a Science article last year that research suggests that our growing use of screen-based media is weakening our ‘higher-order cognitive processes,’ including ‘abstract vocabulary, mindfulness, reflection, inductive problem solving, critical thinking, and imagination.’” I am shocked that educators seem to be completely blind to the research and advice of physcologists and neuroscientists, preferring instead to jump on this faddish bandwagon.

And by the way, I agree with you that these technologies are fundamental to the 21st century, and that children need to know how to use them. As I stated before, they already know how to use them before they get to Kindergarden, because these gadgets are very elementary, to the point that babies can figure them out. Therefore, these gadgets should be limited to their intended purpose which is after school entertainment. I'm not suggesting they don't use them at all. I'm suggesting they use them sparingly, the way they should be used. Even Silicon Valley itself agrees- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/technology/silicon-valley-worries-about-addiction-to-devices.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www Now, when the makers of these things themselves say we need to put them down, then you know something is definitely wrong. I would like to get your feedback on the quote from Patricia Greenfield above and why her advice and the advice of many other experts, based on research, is seemingly being ignored by schools.

I find it very short sighted that you are claiming that technology should be limited to "after school entertainment." As an educator, it is the teacher's duty to maintain that all students foster the material at hand to the best of their ability -- if the use of in-class technology has the potential to help extend what is being learned by the student, why should it be limited to "after school entertainment"?

Listen, I understand that you have staked your claim against in-class technology. That's fine. You have your arsenal of .com research to back up your argument against. As stated above, the integration of technology in the classroom is an educational "cultural shift" to complement the growing use of technology in our society. It's not as if gadgets are becoming more common in the classrooms because teachers are becoming lazy or students are addicted to their iPhones. The function of any primary/secondary schooling is to prepare students for the real-world after graduation. In the real-world technology is ever present, so why should it not become a fixture in the classroom?

I, too, could barrage you with myriad peer-reviewed articles/journals and university links stating the many reasons why appropriate technology use in the classroom is growing in popularity. But, seeing as you have ample access to a computer and the internet, explicated through this continuing correspondence, I'll let you conduct your own research at will.

Good debate, though.

Devon, Actually I have been unable to find any peer reviewed studies that prove a positive impact on grades or performance. Since you say you can barrage me with a multitude of them, I'd be happy to read them. I am well aware of the studies which are "surveys" as to whether students and teachers enjoy the program. Enjoying something and finding something fun does does not equal efficacy. In fact, the research I have read indicates mixed grades with large dips in certain areas after two years with the program, and no benefit in student performance. Now, what you're saying about the reasons this has become popular is in direct contradiction to the quotes I have read from educators and from survey results. Across the board, educators claim that they "tried to ban cell phones but it wasn't working". That's when they decided to try to "harness" the gadgets and use them in the classroom. There was no peer-reviewed research because this was a brand new idea. It hasn't been going so well. What has happened is that "popular" has replaced "beneficial". It's widely admitted that there is no solid evidence to back up embracing these programs. Some of the articles above touch upon that but you said you haven't read them. I understand that you want to defend the idea because you're going to be using it, but it is disheartening that the defense seems to be replacing careful research of the issue and thoughtful reflection on the latest science.

Oh and one thing I forgot to say is that I've spent six months of offline reading, going to the library, etc. on this research and yet people still must insist that I did it all online (".com research). I wonder why? Is the idea of offline research that inconceivable? I've been working on a book about this very topic, due out next spring, so yes I am extraordinarily well versed in it. I did not just Google up a bunch of studies and slap them on my comments. But it is amusing that the accusation is stated as if it's negative.

I believe you've made yourself abundantly clear. Best of luck on your book release and bravo for utilizing our public library system. Perhaps you should also releaase your book in Latin.

Note to self. Must stop arguing with strangers on the Internet. Hey, perhaps your reasons against tech/Internet use in the classroom holds some real breadth after all.

***final post

Devon, it's a pity you never commented on any of the research I presented or the quote from Patricia Greenfield. I thought you might have been able to shed light on why the current findings are being ignored by schools. Oh well. Thanks for the debate anyway.

Do all of the students in the class have the same equipment? If not, I think any benefit may well be in favor of those whose economic status permits the best gadgets.

Rebecca, I think people just find it hard to believe you'd spend 6 months researching a topic in a library. Thanks to google, us non-luddites (google it) are privy to the relevant info in about 5-10 minutes. Scary as it may be, the world is changing ever-faster. Technology is an integral part of human society and interaction. We disarm our children by fixing them with blinders, even if our intentions are good. Let the young use the most efficient tools available to them.

Fascinating discussion! As a college teacher for over 20 years, I have seen a remarkable rise in the ownership and use of personal computers, cell phones, and smart phones by my college students. Rebecca correctly identifies the classroom gadget problem as unsuccessfully multitasking, and others misunderstand her view as anti-gadget. Certainly, smartphones and computers allow quick access to a wide variety of information, and information gathering is important; however, the real educational value lies in how students USE that information. We learn by doing much more than memorizing, but of course we need guidance on what and how to do. If I'm explaining MLA citation guidelines to my English Composition II class and most of them are surfing the net or texting one another, no amount of instantly acquired information will help them: they need to apply their undivided attention to my instructions. I know from much painful experience that many do not listen (and some seem to have no idea of how to listen or retain my words, e.g. by taking notes), and therefore cannot correctly apply this amazing internet trove of facts. Instant internet access provides lots of raw data, but no guidance on how to evaluate or apply it to real situations, like supporting a thesis.

A few years ago, an "expert" came to my college and advocated that we allow students to text message to instructors during class. She suggested that we have the unwieldy set-up of dual computers and projectors -- one for the PowerPoint she assumed all teachers now use (all but me, perhaps), and the other to show the text messages. Her theory was that this would relieve college students of the "trauma" of raising their hands and speaking their questions out loud! She assured us that no students would text to friends or surf the net on their phones because this would be so intellectually freeing and so much fun, as if the only barrier to classroom participation in the last 2500 years was timidness. I tried to point out that learning to speak up is part of gaining maturity and that verbal communication is still very important, but she encountered a problem with her PPT file and stopped interacting with us while she fixed it.

In general, my college students today seem less capable of discussion and conversation, and positively stymied by debate and civil disagreement; many shut down at the first hint of conflict, while those willing to speak seem incapable of listening to others. Classroom discussions now resemble political roundtables, with everyone speaking at once, yelling pithy sarcasm and unsubstantiated absolutes. Writing assignments show a rudimentary ability to regurgitate information, but little ability to analyze and draw conclusions; finding a theme in an essay or film is, for most of them, an insurmountable mystery. Too many students seem obsessed, to the point of addiction, with their smart phones. During breaks, I have seen 20 students sitting alongside each other in silence, each one clicking away alone. Most are incapable of BEING where the ARE (which I notice elsewhere, even when people pay to be somewhere, like a concert or play); they want to be somewhere else, but when they get there, they do the same thing. Insisting that they be present, in body, mind, and spirit, in a classroom with others is the most radical thing we can do today; BYOT invites them to park their bodies while their minds and souls roam the internet. This reduces teachers to babysitters and prison guards.

You're right, there is some potential for learning in the situation. I guess both Rebecca and I are wondering why some people seem so enthusiastic about this. If all the kids were playing with yo-yos, would we try to work them into the classroom? Not everything popular outside the classroom needs to be brought in.

Wesley, that was exactly the point I've been trying to make from the start. We cannot ignore how much technology has become a part of our daily routine, and this should be incorporated into the classroom setting as a way to provide alternative uses for technology in the way of learning.

One reason Technology has come into existence is to provide a more streamlined way to complete everyday tasks. It can make a more efficient human being, and therefore a more efficient learner if implemented correctly.

Can anyone shed light on the question I have asked several times? What do high school educators feel about the current research being done which proves that "our growing use of screen-based media is weakening our ‘higher-order cognitive processes,’ including ‘abstract vocabulary, mindfulness, reflection, inductive problem solving, critical thinking, and imagination"?

Since none of you saw fit to answer my question, perhaps you would be more interested in this video of a monkey using an ipad- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyEJAXWpICI