As I read through the Andrew Churches’ “Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy,” clicked my way through “Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything,” viewed Marc Prensky’s “Digital Natives,” and alternately guffawed and groaned through the Beloit College “2019 List,” I found myself becoming increasingly (and sometimes uncomfortably) aware of the differences between myself and the students I teach.  Prensky was absolutely correct in pointing out that students are not the little “usses” we were trained to teach.  There are fundamental differences in how educators and young people use and view technology.  For us, technology is frequently a tool, and for our students, their technology is a direct extension of themselves.  But then, as an educator, I tend to view most everything as a tool to be used in learning—that comes part and parcel with the job.

1. Is it necessary to break technology down in this way?

I’m not sure necessary is the term I would use—maybe useful is more appropriate.  I am definitely a “digital immigrant,” but that doesn’t mean I am completely unfamiliar with the digital landscape.  Still, it often feels as if I get control of one new app or tool only to find out it was last year’s hot thing, and the digital natives have already moved on.  Their technological attention span is almost exactly as long as the gap between new advances, and I can’t pause to rest if I hope to keep up.  Breaking down technology and its teaching as thoroughly as Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy and Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything makes it feel manageable and even sharable.  This sharable aspect is important for collaboration with other teachers.

2. How does this help explain or reframe technology in the classroom?

Teachers used to get high points on their PDAS evaluations for pulling out an ELMO or showing a PowerPoint.  We know that is no longer the case.  While these tools help in teaching, they are still part of the lecturing Prensky points out that we need to avoid; they are definitely lower on Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy.  Unfortunately, we don’t always know how to elevate our teaching practices, and consequently our students, up to those higher levels where they can analyze, evaluate and create.  Where Churches’ writing explains for us in simple terms, and his rubrics show us the way, Kathy Schrock’s work on her site hands us not only the ideas for tools, but the specific areas with links to the tools that can be used to reach the appropriate Bloom’s level.

3. If you had to explain why a certain app was necessary for your library, how would you frame the request in terms of the Digital Taxonomy or Prensky’s views?

It is important to remember here that our administration is not yet made up of digital natives (although in the coming decade, they might just be!), but they do know and understand the need to elevate educational practices to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.  The Digital Taxonomy’s use of active verbs to show what students will be doing is an absolute help to us here.  I could actually see myself sharing the Digital Taxonomy pyramid within a chart or infographic showing how a particular app would help us to reach the upper levels while incorporating or building upon the lower ones.

4. Do you think there is a difference? What is it?

Looking at this through Prensky’s lens, you can definitely see a difference in how educators and students view the use of technology.  If we are going to truly allow students the growth opportunity of reaching the top levels of evaluating and creating, we have to get out of their way and let them show us what they can do.  Any teacher can give an assignment with a technological aspect, but the real teaching in this digital age is going to come from the students who are turned loose to work and learn either on their own or within a group of collaborators.   In my own classroom I’ve been able to witness this personally as students given the opportunity to move beyond the confines of the given assignment have created beautiful representations to share with the class.

5. Do you feel technology is a tool for learning or the foundation upon which we build learning?

Is there a reason it can’t be both?  While I accept fully that our students are digital natives, that does not mean they are all comfortable within that role.  For instance, young people may not typically be far from their phone, but that does not mean they automatically know how to use it to gain information.  I’m often able to facilitate their learning, showing them how to download tools like Google Classroom or Padlet, and they are amazed to learn they can work on their assignments from nearly anywhere they can connect to Wi-Fi.

6. Why would a librarian care about any of this?

There are so many reasons librarians should care about this topic, but I can’t help thinking that it goes beyond the fact that school librarians are not just the keeper of books on a campus.  The librarian should be the first person a teacher thinks of when they hear of a new app and want to try it out in their classroom.  The librarian should be the first person teachers think to go to when they need a new way to engage their students.  And considering we spend far more time working directly with students than we do with individual teachers, the students on campus should also think of us first when they are trying out something new and don’t fully know how to make it work.  We should be the problem solvers and the people narrowing the gap for those who don’t have ready access to technology at home.  Librarians recognize the fact that students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds don’t use their technology the same way as students who have had constant access since they were toddlers, and we need to be there to show these students the way.  They may all be digital natives, but that doesn’t mean students all come with the same roadmap and guides to help them.  We get to be the guide if necessary, and when it isn’t necessary, we get to be the best cheerleader.