# data[].attributes.headline
The Educator's Guide to Creating Connections

# data[].attributes.subject
The Educator's Guide to Creating Connections

# data[].attributes.body
Multiple authors including Lisa Nielsen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Educator's Guide to Creating Connections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Change is accelerating exponentially. What this means for educators is that to be effective, it's critical they be able to make connections for learning, both for themselves and for their students. "The Educator's Guide to Creating Connections"The Educator's Guide to Creating Connectionsis a valuable read for shaping thinking and taking action."

# data[].attributes.headline
Does Technology Belong in Classroom Instruction?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does Technology Belong in Classroom Instruction?

# data[].attributes.body
Wall Street Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no disputing that digital technology plays a major role in education. Millions of students are using personal computers, tablets and even smartphones to research and complete assignments, communicate with each other and with teachers about their courses and sometimes collaborate on school projects.

But that still leaves plenty of room for disagreement on whether technology should play a major role in the classroom itself-that is, whether teachers should rely on digital tools for a significant portion of their classroom...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Technology Belong in Classroom Instruction?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no disputing that digital technology plays a major role in education. Millions of students are using personal computers, tablets and even smartphones to research and complete assignments, communicate with each other and with teachers about their courses and sometimes collaborate on school projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Points Where the Research Behind Banning Handheld Devices for Children Is Flawed

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Points Where the Research Behind Banning Handheld Devices for Children Is Flawed

# data[].attributes.body
Huffington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You may have come across Cris Rowan's popular HuffPost piece explaining 10 reasons handheld devices should be banned for children under 12. You may also have read the rebuttal from a librarian mom who explains why she will continue to give her children handheld devices. While the pro-device author explains the benefits of handhelds, what she doesn't uncover is that the research cited by the original author doesn't support her claims.

In fact, the research cited in the Rowan piece is so unsupportive of her claims, it seems possible that the real motive behind the article was to test the reader's gullibility. If readers had dug a little deeper, they'd find the truth.

The research focuses mainly on passive television consumption and video games that are either simple or for mature audiences. Much of it also is focused, not on pre-teens, but rather on teens and adults. The research shows a dearth of findings around the type of technology use in which the overwhelming majority of children engage.

Video games themselves come in many flavors, varieties and levels of complexity, a fact the article ignores. For example, today's video games often provide complex interactive stories through which players navigate. While some are simple video games, others are Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) like Minecraft and World of Warcraft. Innovative educators have created complete educational curricula around them. Interactive programs like Footsteps 2 Brilliance are teaching young people to read using research-based interactive techniques that a book is not built to provide. Young people are playing music in iPad bands. See what that looks like here. They are fascinated with geography using apps with wild popularity like Stacked States. They are learning about physics and geometry via apps like Angry Birds. They are writing more than ever as well as reading on their handheld devices. Perhaps most important is that technology allows us to virtually reach out and touch someone, providing access to experts and others around the world who share our interests. This is happening via social networking like Facebook and Twitter, video conferencing platforms like Skype and Google Hangout, or via resources like Scratch which teach basic computer programing.

Tech savvy parents and educators know that all these things are good for young people. This is why the Rowan article left some of us scratching our heads. Rather than acknowledge any of the amazing things children are doing with their devices, the article instead focused on couch potato zombies. Most of us are alarmed at the sight of a child passively staring at a screen or playing simple or needlessly violent video games; often we adults experience the addictive nature of games ourselves and understand that it is not what is best for children. However this article focused almost entirely on these activities. Parents and educators should not be easily fooled. Handheld devices provide the ability to do much more.

I am fortunate to have had the chance to observe and teach the best use of these devices. I'm calling on parents, teachers and government agencies to use common sense and empower students with the freedom to learn using handheld devices.

Following are 10 reasons the research behind the call-to-action to ban devices is flawed.
1) American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
The AAP talks about screen time and media use, but if you look at the recommendations, they are all about TV time. Take a look at their recommendations here. You will find no mention of how young people interactively use technology. There was also a journal article cited from the AAP which is used as evidence for decreased ability to self regulate, but again, it is not referring to handheld devices. It is a study about children watching cartoons. You can take a look at that research here. Finally there is research presented to suggest that handhelds emit harmful radiation. But the research cited says no such thing. In fact it says The National Cancer Institute has stated that studies have not demonstrated that radio frequency energy from cell phones cause cancer.
2) US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
This research is used to point to handhelds causing issues with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity. You can look at this decade-old research here and you'll find it is talking about television exposure, not technology use.

Another article is mentioned that is supposed to link technology use and increased obesity. Instead, the research, which you can see here, studies televisions in the bedrooms of Hispanic children.
3) University of Bristol - Peach Project Study
This study was used to point out psychosis in children exposed to too much screen time, but again, it is pointing to passive television and simple video games. "Watching TV or playing computer games for more than two hours a day is related to greater psychological difficulties irrespective of how active children are."

4) Boston College Study

This study is reported to say that children are sleep deprived. This is true, however, it then says the problem is "probably" due to smartphones. We know, however, that the research is clear. School has created a national sleep crisis. Another problem is over-scheduling our kids. It's no wonder that after a long day of school and activities young people want some of their own downtime and they get that via connecting with peers, reading books, and engaging in other such activities all accessible via technology.
5) TED Talk by Dr. John J. Ratey
This TED Talk does not indicate we need to reduce screen time. Instead Ratey tells schools that movement enhances attention and learning ability. To remedy this we need to give students more opportunities to move during the school day. If we're truly concerned about obesity, we will find ways to restore recess, and let students leave their desks and move around.
6, 7, 8) Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011, Liberatore 2011
These pieces were cited as proof that technology causes problems like attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior. The problem is they don't do that. Here is what each of the studies were actually looking at.

6) Mentzoni 2011
This study was not about technology causing addiction, but rather it looked at what caused addiction and effects on physical and mental health in .6% of a population of young males in Norway. Interestingly, they found no correlation between video game addiction and physical health.

This is a study about male industrial workers in Korea. It also looks at internet addiction as a symptom NOT cause of other issues.

8) Liberatore 2011
This doesn't say stay away from handhelds. It says that parents should be involved in ensuring responsible use by their children. Bravo.
9) Psychological science
This research is said to make the point that children are addicted to technology. However, pull back the curtain and that is not what you find. Instead this is another article about one type of technology use: video games with a focus on pornographic and violent games.
10) Journal of American Medical Association study
The author uses this study to explain that early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), which have been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self regulate, e.g. tantrums. However, this study is not about cell phones, internet, or iPads. It is about passive television exposure. You can take a look here.
The verdict
The real intent of this author is suspect. Did she want to see how many readers would ignore the research and take her words at face value? Did she not understand that handhelds have more beneficial uses than passive television viewing and simple and/or mature video games do ?

Maybe she is showing a distaste for activities that don't bring up warm and fuzzy feelings of her own childhood; she doesn't understand it, and rails against it in the age-old way that adults do. It used to be rock-and-roll; now it is devices. Can't we be more enlightened now? Can't we, the generation who invented these devices and made them irresistible, be smarter than our parents were when they heard the Rolling Stones for the first time?

Or maybe her motives are more sinister than simple ignorance or fear. Perhaps she is preying on adult fears, while drumming up business for the company she works for; a company that profits from telling people how their resources can combat the dangers of technology.

Personally, I'd rather operate a business based on facts, not fear.

Discerning educators and parents: Take a look at the research. Decide for yourself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Points Where the Research Behind Banning Handheld Devices for Children Is Flawed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may have come across Cris Rowan's popular HuffPost piece explaining 10 reasons handheld devices should be banned for children under 12. You may also have read the rebuttal from a librarian mom who explains why she will continue to give her children handheld devices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Don't Follow the Lead of @cshirky in Banning Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Don't Follow the Lead of @cshirky in Banning Technology

# data[].attributes.body
The Innovative Educator Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clay Shirky author and professor of media studies at New York University, recently penned a guest article for the Washington Post sharing why he decided to ban technology in his class. He explains how it was challenging to be more interesting than the devices. The following quote captures some of his thinking:

"The practical effects of my decision to allow technology use in class grew worse over time. The level of distraction in my classes seemed to grow, even though it was the same professor and largely the same set of topics, taught to a group of students selected using roughly the same criteria every year. The change seemed to correlate more with the rising ubiquity and utility of the devices themselves, rather than any change in me, the students, or the rest of the classroom encounter."

While banning might be a good idea for the "sit, listen, discuss, repeat" style of teaching, for the rest of us, not so much. The disengaged classroom Shirky describes brings to mind the scene from the 1985 comedy " Real Genius " where eventually most every desk had a tape recorder and eventually the professor also gives in and replaces himself with a reel to reel to deliver his lecture.

But is this really a problem with "kids today?"
Shirky admits that he uses largely the same topics and roughly the same criteria year after year. That's part of the problem. When you repeat the same class year after year, it becomes a bit like a worn out outfit. The newness and excitement are gone. Today's students not only want , they demand an update. While banning is the easy way out, we certainly can do better.

Fortunately, many teachers are.

Shirky's article continues by pointing to research about the negative effects of multitasking.

Once you scratch beneath the headlines, you realize these studies are flawed. They measure multitasking by creating an artificial environment where the tasking is done " to " rather than " " the subjects in the study. Educator, Ira Socol elaborates on their fatal research mistakes by among other things pointing out the absurdity of measuring nonsense tasks.

Shirky tells us all this multitasking that occurs on devices distracts students from the learning he is trying to impart upon them. Can laptops be a distraction to lectures and discussion? Sure. However, imagine the student in the back of the room, legs up with a favorite newspaper, magazine, or book, placed in front of their face. This of course is also a distraction, but would we wouldn't ban reading material from classroom. We would address the the rudeness and lack of interest.

Laptops, newspapers, magazines, books, or even the person sitting next to you can be a great distraction, but you know what? They can also be amazing tools of engagement. Turn and talk. Let's discuss that passage in the magazine or current event in the newspaper. Discuss these topics via social media, and have these conversations with the world.

Shirky is blaming the technology, rather than figuring out what HE can do better as an educator in the digital age. In eliminating what he perceives as the problem - "technology," he is not addressing the real problem - "students aren't focusing on him." This is something worth discussing. Why aren't they focusing? Is it lack of interest? Inability to sit and listen to a lecture? Are they bored? Shirky can " " rather than " discuss with " students.
Shirky sees teaching as a "shared struggle." If it is shared, why is he dictating what they are doing? take from While it may be easier to ban students from the ability to use digital devices, innovative educators know how to use these devices to engage their audiences. They know how to turn traditional delivery into one that is as interesting and interactive. (You can read five ways to do that ). They know how to manage a digital classroom . They give lots of opportunities for activities like turn and talk. There are random number generators for sharing. There is polling. And, one of my favorites: peer instruction . Depending on the length of the class, there may also be a break built in to the class time, where engaging in personal business is fine.

Shirky is an ironic case because he is a professor of media studies, yet it seems his students have used that very platform to tune him out leaving him grasping for straws when it comes to figuring out how to get his connected students to tune in . It's not surprising. Shirky is an expert in media studies, yet he's never been trained as a teacher. Even if he had, sadly most teacher education programs are still preparing teachers for the classrooms of the past. Classrooms where the teacher and teacher's guide were the gatekeepers to all students needed to know and technology was a fountain pen or maybe a calculator.Times are a changin.

It's time for an update Professor Shirky.

You're teaching the same topics year after year and it shows. Don't ban devices. Get in touch with students. Talk to them. You may find they no longer want the same topics with the same criteria, measured by testing, rather than doing, every year. They know that no one needs to come to class anymore to hear you lecture. Use your time more effectively. Let them watch the lecture on their own. Incorporate best teaching practices such as frame, focus, follow up. Save class time for doing hands on, meaningful work. When you do, technology becomes "a part of" rather than "apart from" powerful learning experiences in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Follow the Lead of @cshirky in Banning Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clay Shirky author and professor of media studies at New York University, recently penned a guest article for the Washington Post sharing why he decided to ban technology in his class. He explains how it was challenging to be more interesting than the devices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does Research Support Letting Students Use Cell Phones for Learning?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does Research Support Letting Students Use Cell Phones for Learning?

# data[].attributes.body
Answers

# data[].attributes.headline
New Research: Banning Cell Phones Prepares Students for The Past

# data[].attributes.subject
New Research: Banning Cell Phones Prepares Students for The Past

# data[].attributes.body
The Innovative Educator Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent from the Center for Economic Performance in London makes a disturbing recommendation to ban students from using their digital devices for learning. The study making the rounds in stories like (The Conversation), (ABC On Your Side), and (NY Mag) disregards what innovative educators know and research shows: Paper assessments are a poor indicator of student achievement. The study indicates that after schools banned mobile phones, test scores of high school students increased by 6.4% of a standard deviation, which they say means that it added the equivalent of

five days to the school year . It goes on to say the results indicate the ban has a greater impact on special needs students and those eligible for free school meals.

But before schools and districts start pulling devices from the students who need them most, it is important to take a look under the hood.

Research (such as from Teachers College) has long showed that paper and pencil assessments severely underestimate the achievement of students accustomed to a digital world. Our student's brains have indeed been rewired for the 21st century where innovation and creativity are valued over the drill, kill, and bubble fill requirements of outdated tests.

In fact, we need to stop assuming that cell phones are weapons of mass distraction, and start embracing them as tools of engagement. Nearly 60% of teens use their own mobile devices in school for learning even when schools are not supporting such use . Savvy teachers who are tapping into students' love of texting are helping them increase their literacy skills too. N umerous studies have shown that the more kids text, the more literate they become. from California State University found that "texting can improve teens' writing"; others from Cambridge Assessment and Scott McLeod puts it this way, "Low-level work isn't very interesting or engaging to many (most?) students, particularly those who already find that traditional schooling doesn't meet their needs very well. So, faced with the opportunity to do something else, many students do." McLeod, challenges educators to consider a third option: Actually doing higher-level learning and USING the smartphones to help with that? Coventry University have corroborated this conclusion.

In classrooms where teachers are equipped with 21st century teaching practices they are incorporating school-provided and/or student-owned technology into higher-level learning. As one teacher told me after empowering her students to bring their own devices for learning,

The problem with this study is that it looks at the traditional class room designed to prepare students for their teacher's 20th century pasts, rather than the connected world in which they live. As education visionary Testing students without all the tools they will have at their disposal in the real world is no longer appropriate." In fact, there are Marc Prensky reminds us, " forward thinking school districts that empower students to use technology for learning and assessment. Had these students been able to demonstrate their knowledge using 21st century tools, the results surely would have been different.

"My students have become more alive and motivated. Students with problems, especially English language learners and special education students, have improved their behavior and are more into learning when we allow them to use their mobile devices. "

We must stop forcing students to power down when learning and taking assessments. Instead, we must support students in effectively, respectfully, and responsibly USING their digital resources which they will need to succeed in their connected world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Research: Banning Cell Phones Prepares Students for The Past

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent from the Center for Economic Performance in London makes a disturbing recommendation to ban students from using their digital devices for learning. The study making the rounds in stories like (The Conversation), (ABC On Your Side), and (NY Mag) disregards what innovative educators know and research shows: Paper assessments are a poor indicator of student achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
SpeEdChange Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am constantly entertained by the number of seemingly "very smart people" who are incredibly anxious to tell the world that they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

OK, I am being cruel, but please - We really need our "scientists" to comprehend the limitations their own questions put on their research.

Today, @derekbruff sent me to a great blog post which referenced a PBS story on multitasking. This is part of the "focus" lobby - PBS, NPR, and The New York Times are devoted to the theory that humans can do only one thing at a time. In fact, I think its at least once a week that NPR tells me that I can't possibly be driving my car because I am listening to Science Friday.

Part of what I said in a comment at that blog:

"The sad attempts to measure human multitasking via Gutenberg-era preferences continue. Here's what these "scientists" don't know: How human brains "looked" before Gutenberg and Calvin applied straight-line information flow and "single-tasking" to our species.

"So, 10,000 years ago developing brains were wildly multitasking. Looking for food, looking for predators, watching the weather, all while, I'm quite sure, checking out and chatting up potential mates or talking about doing so.

"We have, finally, begun to pull ourselves out of the straightjacket of 500 years of the Protestant Reformation's belief in "focus" and linearity.Me on Human Communication

"I could indicate the level of ridiculous comments made by researchers in this video ("you cannot drive and talk or listen" - wow, there go passengers and radio) ..."

And I want to continue "that" ("indicate the level of ridiculous comments") here. The scientists in this video imagine a static world has existed that is suddenly changing. They do this because they are not postmodernists and have not been trained in critical theories so that - I'm not just being insulting here, I really mean this - they do not know how to ask questions about the questions they are asking. And when you fail to do that, your "scientific" observations cannot be any better than the unexamined assumptions which lie behind your unchallenged questions.

So, fatal research mistake number one: " Humans have not been multitaskers before - this is new." And here I want to introduce another problem with the system - yes, even our "best" system which produces Ivy League faculty members - the division of content into separate silos. Because, in preparing their research into multitasking these scholars feel no requirement to walk through Notre Dame de Paris or Christchurch in Dublin to help conceive of the learning environments just a thousand years ago. They do not feel called to spend a week considering the work environment of the iron age. They do go to a place where they might pick berries while worrying about lions.

Instead they sat in libraries designed on 19th Century Calvinist theories, or sat at 18th Century ideas of what a "desk" is, and read research from the past half-century of their tiny slice of human knowledge via Gutenberg technology, or more contemporary technology mimicking Gutenberg technology. And when they did that the determined their conclusions before they made a single observation.

To build on an old metaphor, "the prepped their research in an entirely green environment, and were shocked to discover red when they opened the door." After all, if Dorothy had opened the door to Oz from the middle of Times Square, would the color have surprised her?

Fatal research mistake two is, "Here's an "IQ" question for you - Our measuring systems are valid." Let us begin here with the understanding that ALL knowledge and all measurement is socially constructed. "If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it." - Stanley Garn. Just to trouble you, is - in human experience of temperature, there as big a difference between 65 and 75F (17-23 C) as between 35 and 25F (+2 and -4 C)? In other words, as humans describing the weather, should we really be dependent on a scale based in the response of water to heat? But of course we are, and we are so acclimated to this that just hearing a number associated with weather - say "thirty" - immediately evokes radically different thoughts based solely on which side of the Detroit or " The assignment test: The subject is given a map and receives instructions to buy the following objects: half a hundredweight of potatoes, one-half pound of coffee, one-half pound of sausage, fifty pfennigs worth of fresh biscuits, and a pound of butter. He is further required to bring a pair of trousers to the tailor and a pair of shoes to the cobbler, as well as a ten-pound package to the post office. He is also required to pay a certain amount of tax at City Hall and to pick up a friend at the train station. The following rules are to be observed: The person leaves the house at 10:30. At 1:00 he should be back for lunch and accomplished all his tasks. Now the tax office is open only from 8 to 10 a.m., fresh bread is available only after 11 a.m., and the friend arrives at the station at 12:30. The post office and all stores are open between 12 and 2. Between the apartment and the train station runs a streetcar-which takes one-quarter of an hour and may be used at will." It was on this basis that the German government of 1934-1938 - using theories from the US State of Virginia, would decide whether to murder or at least castrate a person. Niagara rivers you live.

So, how we measure matters. This is how scientists "measure" attention and multitasking: They use flashing lines and symbols and other nonsense tasks in most cases. They ask odd questions, and yes, sometimes they even observe, but in every case they begin with a "grounding point" roughly equivalent to my sister Nancy (who I love dearly) sitting in a corner of the University of Edinburgh Library reading an 18th Century novel. Total, 100% involvement in a single task. For all of these research projects, that is "best" - 100 on their scales. It does not matter if, as I think often happened, Nancy would stumble out of the building hours later not knowing where she was or what the weather might be or if she had eaten today. In the measurement systems all of these studies are based on, Nancy is "100" and I am close to "Zero."

Essentially this is like saying that "72 F degrees" is the ideal temperature. That's lovely unless you are a polar bear or a tropical bird or...

But, and we must know this as we think about the education we offer our students, these researchers never question these measures. They are "mathematical scales" and they believe that a mathematical scale represents a "truth."

Fatal research mistake three is, " We know what multitasking is." Just as, say, we know what "North America" is ( is it Canada, the US, Mexico? Include all of Central America? Include the whole Caribbean?), or we know what a "nation" is ( The UN and FIFA have very different counts), or we know where Europe stops and Asia begins.

I might argue that all "driving" (operating a motor vehicle) is multitasking. I might argue this because the driver combing his or her hair while reading the newspaper is only a bit less scary than the person with the locked stare straight ahead. I sort of expect that drivers will be alert to many things around them at the same time, and would, perhaps, even notice if the child in the car seat in the back began choking. There's even a huge industry devoted to giving you things to read while driving, one major participant in that industry is the government.

I also might argue, as one website notes, that some of our most complex, attention demanding work environments are multitasking environments. " Emergency physicians epitomize what it's like to work in a time-pressured, interruption-based environment. Multitasking is necessary to survive in this environment where you are constantly shifting focus and addressing new tasks or problems as they arise." Would we really want airline pilots who could only pay attention to one thing at a time?

So, if medicine and operating a car are multitasking, as I might add, is walking down the street, what are these researchers measuring?

They have not asked. Largely because "we," education-as-we-know-it, have not taught them to ask.

Understanding the unexamined assumptions which lie beneath our "knowledge" is a vital issue that we rarely engage in our schools. And assuming that the "best" path to knowledge transfer or work is my sister Nancy's path - lovely as that may be - is offensive.

Or so I say while writing two documents plus this, answering email, tweeting, and watching Two Knights from Brooklyn.

- Ira Socol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am constantly entertained by the number of seemingly "very smart people" who are incredibly anxious to tell the world that they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. OK, I am being cruel, but please - We really need our "scientists" to comprehend the limitations their own questions put on their research.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Social Classroom: Engaging Learners with Cell Phones & Social Media

# data[].attributes.subject
The Social Classroom: Engaging Learners with Cell Phones & Social Media

# data[].attributes.body
By Lisa Nielsen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
eBook - The Social Classroom: Engaging Learners with Cell Phones & Social Media

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting Student Personal Learning Networks

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting Student Personal Learning Networks

# data[].attributes.body
eBook By Lisa Nielsen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
eBook - Supporting Student Personal Learning Networks

# data[].attributes.body
Education Insights

# data[].attributes.body
The Innovative Educator blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his recent Huffington Post article, Don Tapscott (Author of Growing Up Digital which defined the Net Generation and the sequel, Grown Up Digital ) lashes out at The New York Times for their recent portrayal of teens in " Growing Up Digital " another in their litany of pieces about today's generation being more inept because they spend so much time immersed in digital technology. Tapscott's on-the-mark post conveys my sentiments on the topic exactly. In the lengthy for HuffPo article he shares these nuggets:

Net Geners are better at switching attention and multitasking
When I look at my own children, their friends, and legions of other Net Geners, this is what I see: They're faster than I am at switching tasks, and better than I am at blocking out background noise. They can work effectively with music playing and news coming in from Facebook. They can keep up their social networks while they concentrate on work; they seem to need this to feel comfortable. I think they've learned to live in a world where they're bombarded with information, so that they can block out the TV or other distractions while they focus on the task at hand.

Kids don't really have ADD, they're just bored
So why do some Net Geners seem to have attention deficit disorder in class? Isn't it possible that the answer is because they're bored -- both with the slow pace and with the content of the lecture? Researcher Marc Prensky thinks so. "Their attention spans are not short for games, for example, or for music, or rollerblading, or for spending time on the Internet, or anything else that actually interests them," he writes. "It isn't that they can't pay attention, they just choose not to."

Prioritizing passion over homework is alright
The Times piece ends with the story of Vishal, who after a long Sunday on his computer is finally getting to his homework at 11pm. But we learn that Vishal's time online was in fact editing his new film. Vishal is a budding film director! Sure, he should get to his homework earlier. But the reader is left wondering how Vishal's passion for his craft, and his laser-like focus on editing over a 12-hour period is somehow evidence that he has lost his intellect or his attention span.

His conclusion...
The evidence suggests that many young people today are using technology to become smarter and more capable than their parents ever could be; and, like Vishal, to accomplish important, perhaps great things. Rather than kids losing their attention spans there is a stronger case to be made that growing up digital is equipping today's youth with the mental skills, such as scanning and quick mental switching, that they'll need to deal with today's overflow of information. The superior performance for many of them, as evidence by university graduation rates show they know when they have to focus, just as the most intelligent members of my generation did. They may think and process information in a different way than most boomers do, but that doesn't stop them from coming up with brilliant insights, new models of doing business, new ways of collaborating; or, for that matter, creating a carefully edited film as a teenager.

For the full article visit New York Times Cover Story on "Growing Up Digital" Misses the Mark

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his recent Huffington Post article, Don Tapscott (Author of Growing Up Digital which defined the Net Generation and the sequel, Grown Up Digital ) lashes out at The New York Times for their recent portrayal of teens in " Growing Up Digital " another in their litany of pieces about today's generation being more inept because they spend so much time immersed in digital technology.