In last week’s article, “Why I Broke the Rules, Part 1,” I explained a situation in which I was faced with deciding whether it was appropriate to break a rule in the support of effective student learning.  The following story will illustrate another similar situation that occurred later the same day and how I chose to handle the situation.

My second account of technology usage occurred later that afternoon in a ninth grade geography course.  Again, a class spent in review for an upcoming exam, students completed packets.  Being that geography is an important discipline for state testing, most – if not all -students were motivated to do well.  Just like any typical inclusion classroom, varying levels of learning challenges were present and easily identifiable after a few moments of observation.  Being this class is about geography, many modalities can easily be presented (i.e. maps, atlases, globes, class notes, verbal examples).  I ensured students had access to these tools.  I even crumpled a nice clean sheet of paper to demonstrate the definition of map distortion.

However, learning tools possess their limitations.  This statement is true of the classroom atlases.  Many of the country names and borders were difficult to read clearly, so served little purpose in the learning of many students.  I discovered this shortcoming – not by student commentary – but by the emergence of an iPhone (again).

Taking into account my episode with the Spanish class earlier in the day, I peered over the shoulder of the student wielding the outlawed device.  He was using an iPhone app that utilizes many maps and atlases.  This app can zoom in and out, as well as more clearly show the names of locations than the print classroom atlases.  Again, a student broke the rules, and again I looked the other way in the name of furthering student academic success.

I watched throughout the course of the class as his confidence and understanding increased.  Later, I saw the similar

passing back and forth of a device as I had seen in the other classroom.  He unlocked the key to his learning and wanted to share that experience without someone else.  To stop this “moment” and strictly enforce the school policy would have been completely inappropriate, in my opinion.

Many of my readers know I am a strong advocate of technology in the classroom, that I believe such ideology opens students to new and better ways of learning, and that it keeps instruction current in our Twenty-First Century world.  Perhaps my allowance of unapproved technology in the classroom can be construed as defiance to the traditional education system and to the school where I taught.  However, I assure my readers that the opposite is true.  I greatly support the education system in our country – otherwise why would I want to participate in it?  I simply adopt a philosophy of change analogous to that of Booker T. Washington and his ideals of change within civil rights:  Change from within established systems is more effective to all than is creating an entirely new system from the ground up.  The latter ideal does carry its benefits, but economically and governmentally can encounter far more challenges.

In closing, I prefer to teach from the perspective of my students – using their society, context and culture – rather that from only my perspective.  After all, I already know the curriculum in which I teach, but my students need to know it also and experience an environment that allows connection between curriculum and culture.  The way to keep learning new, fresh and effective is to keep open ears, open eyes, and an open mind.