Another look at Learner agency with a BYOD lens.

So Learner Agency is ... to quote Claire Amos in her recent post about tech not improving results 

Learner Agency 
See my earlier post here. Learner Agency is the idea that the learner has a sense of ownership and control over their own learning. The word 'agency' is defined as "action or intervention producing a particular effect", so I guess if we apply this to the learner, it means they engage in a particular action or trial an intervention which then produces a particular effect. In the context of a school this might involve students taking action, whether it be through reading, researching, discussing, debating, experimenting, making or tinkering and as a result, gain (through their own efforts) new understanding and new learning. This being a shift from the notion of teachers, teaching at the student and fundamentally providing all of the knowledge and content which they then transfer to the the empty vessel. And as I stated in my earlier post, genuine learner agency can really only be achieved where tech is accessible.

How does that sit with us as we venture back down the road of personalised timetable and voice expressing choice as our space enables us after living in a little box for 8 weeks. 

We don't have the hardware to allow this at the moment.  Students are restricted to using technology when it is scheduled rather than when it is required to enhance their learning at the time. 

Is it chicken or egg?? We need to convince the learners ( however they are super keen), the parents and the BOT that more technology is required for students to use it authentically.  How do we best show this when we don't have enough for students to use it in such a way.....

What have other schools done?

1. Bitten the bullet- had teachers with skills to implement and BOT supporting.  Then implemented BYOD in a variety of forms allowing students to take ownership of their machines and have flexibility in how they use it ( obviously within frameworks and policies)

2. Supplied more equipment- costing a lot of money

3.  Stayed with the status quo- possibly fueling the fire that technology is just an add on and used like a glorified text book. 

Where are we going????