Although it has been some time since my last post, I want to continue the conversation on academic dishonesty.  As mentioned in several of my previous posts, academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon. However, there are few studies that provide a voice for the lived experiences of rural general education high school teachers regarding this phenomenon. It is the rural classroom teacher, with their unique insight into the complex challenges of the rural educational experience, which is best able to provide a voice for the lived experiences and perceived need for pedagogical change regarding academic dishonesty. My goal as the researcher was to turn up the volume on these voices.

A powerful theme to emerge from the data gathered during the interviews and the focus group session had at its core the student-teacher relationship.  It was Payne (2013) who stated, “The key to achievement for students from poverty is in creating relationships with them” (p. 101).  Similarly, Elmore (2015) described the 21st-century learner as one that “hunger[s] more for relationship than for information” (p. 48).  Being a veteran of the classroom, I know that academic dishonesty is rare in classrooms where learning is relevant, engaging, and where teachers communicate with students, developing positive relationships.  The reader could easily view this theme as the lifeblood of the previous themes I have shared.

The role of the classroom teacher cannot be understated.  The key strategy in which the participants of this study gave voice to was that of relationships.  Madison described this strategy well when she recognized, “I have found that by gaining a student’s trust and respect, that student will more often than not perform better academically in my classroom” (Interview, March 23, 2017).  Going further, she stated, “In a way, I feel a student who is academically dishonest in my class is personally insulting me and damaging the rapport and respect we have built” (Madison, interview, March 23, 2017).  This sentiment was not lost on the other participants.

In describing the development of the strategies to manage the academic dishonesty in the digital age, Hailee stated,

I try [to] put in new methods of teaching . . . I try to stay on top of that, but for me, it’s, it always comes back to that personal application . . . I thrive on personal relationship.  (Interview, March 13, 2017)

Suzanne emphasized this as well, describing that when students do original work, “they have to give it their own touch, their own voice” (Interview, January 10, 2017).  Elaborating, she stated, “I as a teacher have developed a . . . relationship with those students, so I know their voice, their quirks, their syntax, . . . strengths, and weaknesses” (Suzanne, interview, January 10, 2017).  Abby equivocated, stating, “You have to know your students better [be]cause your like, ‘that does not sound like their work’” (Interview, January 24, 2017).

To foster such a relationship strategy, Emma explained, “[I tell my students], ‘This is a no stress class!’  And so, because of that, there is a closeness that occurs in our classes” (Interview, January 24, 2017).  As she detailed, “In my class, they know me . . . there’s not a lot of distance between [the] teacher-student relationship in my class” (Emma, interview, January 24, 2017).  As other participants put it, such relationship building enables them to “hear those conversations” (Chyann, interview, February 28, 2017) while “combating plagiarism . . . on the ground” (Sydney, interview, March 16, 2017).  Hailee framed it as, “I try [to] lean on that, you know, that little bit of personal connection piece.  And I think sometimes . . . that’s effective” (Interview, March 13, 2017).

Within the focus group, the participants once again put forth that the key strategy in which to combat academic dishonesty in the digital age was that of relationship building in the classroom.  In reflecting how creating such relationships affected her pedagogy, Hailee stated, “I think that changes what you do in your classroom too.  I give my kids a lot more grace” (Interview, May 1, 2017).  It is this type of relational grace that Allie spoke of when she described telling her students, “So if you plagiarize, I actually don’t care as long as we can talk about why it’s plagiarism and you fix it” (Interview, May 1, 2017).

Not all the focus group participants found building relationships such an easy task.  In reaction to the others’ discussion concerning this, Payton added:

Along those same lines, I don’t know . . . I’m in a rural school district and I understand that comment about you know the students – you know whose doing this, that, and the other.  A lot of times I don’t.  I’m clueless. (Interview, May 1, 2017)

However, he went on to say, “I’m thinking that’s something I maybe need to change.  And if they feel like they know you, they might be more willing to do what you want them to do” (Payton, interview, May 1, 2017).  This speaks to the underlying factor to building relationships – to getting to know the voices of their student – motivation.  Sydney reflected on this, stating:

I do really value building relationships with them and I definitely think that I do build a really good relationship with them . . . and it is that kind of idea that they will be more willing to do something because they like me.  (Interview, May 1, 2017)

As noted by the several within the focus group, although building strong relationships with students provides a motivational influence, it is arduous.  For Hailee, as she put it, “I work really hard at relationships” (Interview, May 1, 2017).  Allie, in describing the end of a school week, stated, “Nothing’s available on Friday’s’ because you’re tired – because it takes so much energy . . . and that is part of your job at a rural school, I think” (Interview, May 1, 2017).  Payton concurred, stating, “I’m a lot more drained at the end of the day.  I think it’s because I’m having to pull on an area that’s not a natural strength” (Interview, May 1, 2017).

Throughout this study, as the teachers reflected on this key strategy, they described a pedagogical framework in their classrooms to engage with students in order listen to those conversations that guide instruction.  Each of the educators put forth a need to change what they did in their classroom to hear the voices of their students – getting to know their touch.  This engagement speaks to the underlying factor of building relationships – to getting to know the voices of their students – motivation.  As noted by these rural educators, building strong relationships with students provide a motivational influence within their student but is also pedagogically demanding and time-consuming.  However, all attested to the need to knowing their students’ voices due to the changing climate of the 21st-century classroom. My desire is that the findings of this research, along with this posting, will supply a voice to educators on a wider scale, providing a meaningful pedagogical framework for the 21st-century classroom.

REFERENCES

Elmore, T. (2015). Generation iY: Secrets to connecting with today’s teens & young adults in the digital age. (5th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Poet Gardener Publishing in association with Growing Leaders, Inc..

Payne, R. K. (2013). A framework for understanding poverty: A cognitive approach. (5th ed). Highlands, TX: Aha! Process, Inc.

As mentioned in my last post, academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon. However, 21^st century technologies are changing our perspective on this.  As Armstrong (2014) stated, “Technology . . . is changing the way many students learn” (p. 40) with, “Educators . . . tend[ing] to resist major change” (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2011, p. 112).  Viewing this as a positive, Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011) further state, “this shift in the learning platform, if managed correctly – which means disruptively – is not a threat.  It is an opportunity” (p. 112). It was with that mindset that I turned to rural educators for my own research, to provide them a voice. As mentioned previously, five common and interconnected themes emerged: (a) Purposeful Pedagogy, (b) Culturally Conditioned, (c) Blurred Lines, (d) Knowing Their Voice, and (e) Clarity and Consequences. With this posting, we will explore the second most dominant theme to emerge from the data gathered during the interviews – Culturally Conditioned (see figure above) – by listening to the voices of the educators.

In addressing the shifting dynamic in their classrooms, every participant emphasized a need to recognize how the changing culture affects 21^st century teaching and learning.  As one participant described it, “I do think it is a mindset and a culture thing, and I don’t think it’s just in schools” (Abby, interview, January 24, 2017).  Whether the participants pointed to the technology, the rural setting of their schools, or other influences, the conditions they faced in their classroom highlighted the changing culture.  The theme’s title was born out of this outlook and to the research indicating perceptions of academic dishonesty are culturally conditioned (Heckler & Forde, 2014).

In speaking to this changing culture that undergirds the academic dishonesty phenomenon, the participants first turn to their students, which is no surprise.  As educators, this is an instinctive quality as they are the focus of our career choice.  As such, Madison sadly noted, “The main disheartening thing that I see is it’s becoming more widely accepted among the students.  It’s not a big deal to them.” (Interview, March 23, 2017).  Audrey, in describing the nature of her students, stated, “Just the extremes that they will go instead of just doing it themselves baffles me every time” (Interview, January 10, 2017).  Hailee described it as, “Kids think that if they don’t value it, it shouldn’t matter” (Interview, March 13, 2017).  She laughingly added, “I think they’re counting on you to be as disinterested as what they are” (Hailee, interview, March 13, 2017).

Still focusing on the mindset of the students, Hailee described it as a “culture of procrastination” (Interview, March 13, 2017).  Adding to that, she stated that today’s students,

“. . . feel like they don’t need to go anywhere – they don’t need to plan ahead.  They can do it all the day before because all of the information is available to them without waiting – no matter where they are.”  (Hailee, interview, March 13, 2017)

Allie put it slightly differently.  She described the rise in this culture of academic dishonesty as, “either laziness . . . and then sometimes [it] is just panicking because you don’t know if you’re doing it right so you think they said it better than you” (Interview, March 20, 2017).  Madison reflected that “I think it really comes down to them – it’s so accepted.  It’s just not a big deal amongst their peers, not at all” (Interview, March 23, 2017).

Today’s students were born into a digital age where technology is part of their daily lives.  According to Hailee, it is this, “The rise in technology [that] has enabled this, this culture of procrastination” (Interview, March 13, 2017).  Many of the participants reflected on the changing classroom culture due to 21^st century technologies.  As Ryan described, technology created an easy path to academic dishonesty in that it is “more easily accessible now to have your hands on other people’s work” (Interview, March 1, 2017).  In the mind of today’s students, as Chyann attested to, believe, “If it’s out there, it’s ok to use it” (Interview, January 28, 2017).

Adding to the technology impact on academic dishonesty, Sydney related, “It has definitely contributed to it a lot.  I mean, they just want to take so many shortcuts because everything’s at their fingertips” (Interview, March 16, 2017).  Audrey, reflecting on her experience since entering the classroom, stated:

“It’s definitely, I think, easier for them to cheat now because they are so much more technologically advanced than they were eleven years ago.  Their access to it is so different – almost all of our kids have a cell phone.  So, they can either Google something for themselves or take a picture of it for a friend.”  (Interview, January 10, 2017)

Thus, a culture is created, according to Sydney, where “students who are academically dishonest . . . insist that they were not being academically dishonest.  They genuinely feel like they were not being academically dishonest” (Interview, March 16, 2017).  Adding to this, Beau stated:

“As with academic dishonesty, as with technology, I think that we will always be behind with that as teachers . . . because . . . kids are innovators, kids are smart.  They’re going to find new and creative ways to cheat.  I mean, I remember when the mirror on your shoe and answers under your desk was creative.”  (Interview, March 13, 2017)

Each of the educators emphasized a need to recognize how a changing culture affects 21^st century teaching and learning.  Whether the teachers pointed to the technology, the rural setting of their schools, or other influences, the shifting dynamic they faced in their classrooms highlighted this changing culture. Similar to the first theme, the educators point to the importance of building strong, genuine relationships in their classrooms to counter this cultural conditioning. The practical implications for the classroom teacher is twofold.

First, with access to such a broad swath of data and information with 21^st century technologies, the understanding of what is considered academic dishonesty is of absolute necessity.  With technology now considered a legitimate learning tool in the 21^st century classroom, there is a need for a definition and context of academic dishonesty within the digital age.  As at least one participant of this study attested to the struggles teachers and students face in defining academic dishonesty within such a cultural environment, stating, “I feel like the digital age has kind of changed that definition a little bit” (Payton, interview, May 1, 2017).  There is a need for a clear definition and practical guidelines concerning academic dishonesty in the digital age.

Secondly, as this study and previous others demonstrate, students entering today’s classrooms were born into a digital age where technology is part of their daily lives – radically changing their thinking and learning.  As such, there is a disconnect between such learners and the traditional classrooms they are in – paving the way for academic dishonesty.  The implications of this are that classroom teachers need to be proactive and purposeful in structuring their classroom and instructional practices – establishing learning that is relevant, engaging, and where they communicate with students, developing positive relationships.  In addition, at some level – academia, K-12, state or national departments of education – there is a need for the adoption of 21^st century teaching/learning models that meet the learning schema of a radically changing student demographic.

REFERENCES

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Heckler, N. C., & Forde, D. R. (2014). The role of cultural values in plagiarism in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9221-3

Academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon. A little over a half-century ago, Bowers (1964) published the first of its kind large-scale study on academic dishonesty.  In that research, Bowers discovered that approximately 75% of college students participated in some form of academic dishonesty.  Thirty years later, McCabe and Treviño (1997) replicated the research.  Although the researchers only observed a modest increase in overall cheating since Bowers’ study, McCabe and Treviño discovered significant increases in the most explicit forms of academic dishonesty.  Research since McCabe and Treviño further establishes that there is a recognized problem regarding academic dishonesty, starting as early as the primary grades, that influences academic integrity throughout an individual’s post-secondary education and career.

A recent event occurred that disrupted my understanding of my own pedagogical practices in regards to academic dishonesty.  I call it the ‘Kimberly Effect’ in acknowledgment to my wife Kim, a computer programmer who works in the public sector.  She recently encountered a situation at her work that reinforced the words of Armstrong (2014), “Technology . . . is changing the way many students learn” (p. 40).  She was attempting to answer several questions that she considered difficult or questioned her own answer.  During this process, she used her phone to contact me via text to discuss the questions.  Between the two of us, using our own understanding and the power of the internet, she was able to answer the required questions.  It was at the end of this event that I realized, as an educator, if I had viewed this taking place in my classroom, I may very well have considered it cheating.  However, I knew it to be using technology in collaboration to aid learning.  This ‘Kimberly Effect’ experience reminded me that students often “[point] to the ‘real world’ where accessing all available resources to solve a problem was the norm, suggesting that instructors should recognize that and adapt their expectations of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the courses they teach” (Cole, Swartz, & Shelley, 2014, p. 35).

Events like this reinforce what many of today’s teachers and students are calling for – a reasonable and balanced perspective on the 21st-century classroom. As Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011) noted, “Educators, like the rest of us, tend to resist major change.  But this shift in the learning platform, if managed correctly – which means disruptively – is not a threat.  It is an opportunity” (p. 112).  This shift, the changing of the dynamics of the classroom in the digital age, further highlights the importance of understanding academic dishonesty in the digital age from the perspective of the classroom teacher.

Using this as the impetus for my own research, I turned to rural educators in southwest Ohio to describe their experiences with academic dishonesty in their high school classrooms. Five common and interconnected themes emerged: (a) Purposeful Pedagogy, (b) Culturally Conditioned, (c) Blurred Lines, (d) Knowing Their Voice, and (e) Clarity and Consequences (see figure below).

The first and most dominant theme to emerge from listening to the voices of these experienced teachers was purposeful pedagogy.  In addressing academic dishonesty in the digital age, every educator pointed to the importance of being proactive and purposeful in structuring their classroom and instructional practices.  Terms such as accountability, creativity, diligence, personalization, proactive, and purposeful were used by the teachers as they recounted how their pedagogy had evolved due to 21st-century technologies.  Such a shift to meet the changing dynamic in their classroom, according to the educators, takes time and can be demanding.  However, as they described, the accountability measures of a purposeful pedagogy are found in the relationships that are formed to counter a disinterested and disengaged 21st-century learner.

With access to such a broad swath of data and information with 21st-century technologies, the understanding of what is considered academic dishonesty is of absolute necessity.  With technology now considered a legitimate learning tool in the 21st-century classroom, there is a need for a definition and context of academic dishonesty within the digital age.  As at least one participant of my research attested to the struggles teachers and students face in defining academic dishonesty within such a cultural environment, stating, “I feel like the digital age has kind of changed that definition a little bit” (Payton, interview, May 1, 2017).  Furthermore, as this study and previous others demonstrate, students entering today’s classrooms were born into a digital age where technology is part of their daily lives – radically changing their thinking and learning.  As such, there is a disconnect between such learners and the traditional classrooms they are in – paving the way for academic dishonesty.

The practical implications for the classroom teacher are the need to be proactive and purposeful in structuring their classroom and instructional practices. Lectures and worksheets, often found in the 20th-century classroom teacher’s repertoire, will just not do. The 21st-century educator will need to establish learning that is relevant and engaging – where, instead of finding fault with them, communicate with students in order to develop positive, meaningful relationships.  A 21st-century education incorporates #PurposefulPedagogy. This requires an adoption of 21st-century teaching/learning models that meet the learning schema of the radically changing student demographics.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, A. (2014). Technology in the classroom: It’s not a matter of ‘if,’ but ‘when’ and ‘how’. The Education Digest, 79(5), 39-46.

Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Cole, M. T., Swartz, L. B., & Shelley, D. J. (2014). Students’ use of technology in learning course material: Is it cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(1), 35-48.

McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.

In writing Ruminations & Rabbit Trails, I briefly touched on the transformation taking place in the field of education – a transformation that is blurring the lines concerning the landscape of teaching and learning. As I stated then, now is the time to nurture that change. However, as Rosebrough and Leveratt (2011) describe,

“Many teachers have the tendency to put their heads down, noses on grindstone, and plow straight ahead through what it is they think they are supposed to be teaching. Suddenly they look up to see that not only has the subject matter changed almost overnight, but that students themselves have changed” (p. 2).

When that sudden ‘look up’ realization occurs, it can be overwhelming. It may force some educators to put their nose back to the grindstone – hiding their face in their work – not wanting to look up. It is at that moment we need to ask ourselves, “What really matters in education?”

Rosebrough and Leveratt (2011) put forth that, “What really matters in education is not what but who” (p. 8). Teaching is a human endeavor, taking a human touch. If we, as educators, chose to teach due to our content or focus on athletics or desire for advancement, we’ve truly lost our way. In a period of such transformation within the field of education, where 21st-century students bring their 21st technologies and 21st-century trauma into our classrooms, now is the time to have a clear vision – a clear purpose.

Recently, I asked a group of upperclassmen students, “Now that you are nearing the end of your high school career, what would be ‘one thing’ that you believe would have helped you prepare for NOW/college/career/life?” They were to respond with an online posting, giving a two paragraph response. Afterwards, I had students create #summaries of what they had posted. The data results are insightful and powerful. Below is one group’s #summaries:

As a rural educator with a deep commitment to the rural identity, #sproutchange speaks to me! This group of upperclassmen sees a need to #stopconformingtooldways – a desire for a 21st-century educational system that is #newwave and that #workstowardfuture.

As noted above, education is about WHO. As Rosebrough and Leveratt (2011) remind us, “Education begins with learners and their transformation” (p. 14). The voices of those learners, like my upperclassmen above, reminds us of the needed change to our educational system – one that will be transformational in their 21st-century lives. They are also a reminder of WHO is needed to make this change – US. Now is the time to #sproutchange – to nurture that transformation – because, yea, #StudentsMatter.

REFERENCES

Leverett, R. G., & Rosebrough, T. R. (2011). Transformational Teaching in the Information Age: Making Why and How We Teach Relevant to Students. ASCD.

“Despite all of my fancy degrees, I was never an educator, only an instructor . . .” (Seaton, 1948). So were the words spoken by Prof. Edward Bell, portrayed by Edmund Gwenn (think Santa Clause in Miracle on 34th Street). It was a simple, Saturday morning movie. Yet this old film snapped me back to the realities of why I teach – why educators are so important.

Earlier in the film, Prof. Bell was lamenting the students he encountered – the generation of youth coming into his classroom. As he sat with at the table with two of those young people, he remarked, “You young people are a paradox . . . you’re ingenious, resourceful, yet you have no discipline, no dignity, no respect for tradition nor people . . . none of you seem to have any purpose” (Seaton, 1948). Although this film comes from a different time, a different generation, Prof. Bell’s words are echoed by teachers today in every hallway, classroom, and staff lunch room of schools across the country. Times are so different but yet still the same.

The young college student (played by William Holden), speaking about the ‘older’ generation, tells Prof. Bell that, “Maybe they haven’t given us much reason to respect them” (Seaton, 1948). Now, it would be quick for us of the ‘older’ generation to point to this as a prime example of that “no discipline, no dignity, no respect” that Prof. Bell spoke to. I have witnessed this repeatedly during my time as an educator. In a break from the expected, Prof. Bell tells this young college student, “Perhaps” (Seaton, 1948).

It is this “Perhaps” that leads the professor down a path in which a strong relationship with the two college students forms. It is through such relationships that the professor, near the end of the film, comes to realize the true meaning of being a teacher. As he described the importance of what the new found relationships had done for him, he describes, “Despite all of my fancy degrees, I was never an educator, only an instructor . . . An educator isn’t one who gives examinations and lectures but someone who lights up dark places” (Seaton, 1948).

It is amazing what building relationships with your students will do. Teaching is a human endeavor, taking a human touch, so #RelationshipsMatter. Yea, students today say and do things that I never would have considered in ‘My Day.’ However, it is no longer ‘My Day.’ It is “Their Day.” #TeachingMatters because #StudentsMatter – so why not build those relationships – why not give them a reason?

So, are you an educator or an instructor?

REFERENCES

Seaton, G. (Director). (1948). Apartment for Peggy [Motion picture].

As I noted in my Ruminations & Rabbit Trails post, my doctoral journey awoke something within me that goes beyond the walls of my classroom. As I explored the possible paths outside those walls, I have a come across a common thread within the field of education. This shared perspective is framed within phrases like a “deep commitment to social justice” and “visible contribution to advocacy.” This common aim is part of creating an inclusive culture across the educational profession. This is all well and good but there is a noted absence of an underrepresented population – rural students, rural teachers, and rural life.

I fully acknowledge my affinity for rurality that my background instilled and the personal connection I have with rural places and people. However, the rural influence is a distinct educational environment that brings with it an intensity that can only be found in the rural experience. Research tends to marginalize rural life and individuals, often portraying rurality as the problem that needs to be fixed. Rural is the neglected ‘R’ in culturally relevant pedagogy (Azano, 2014).

Based on the NCES definition, there are close to 10 million students enrolled in rural school districts, comprising over 20% of all public schools (Johnson, Showalter, Klein, & Lester, 2014).  Within the state of Ohio (where I reside), the rural student population is the fourth highest among the 50 states, with more than one in four Ohio students enrolled in a rural school (Johnson et al., 2014).  Moreover, the rural school enrollment continues to outgrow non-rural enrollment (Johnson et al., 2014).

Rural school districts, and the communities they serve, all share unique characteristics that provide a distinctiveness from their urban/suburban counterparts (Burton, Brown, & Johnson, 2013; Fishman, 2015; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013; Tiecken, 2014; White & Corbett, 2014).  Rural schools are typically the centerpiece of the community in which they serve, an institution connecting generations of families (Hassel & Dean, 2015; Lin, Isernhagen, Scherz, & Denner, 2014; Wilcox, Angelis, Baker, & Lawson, 2014; Witte & Sheridan, 2011).  As Tieken (2014) noted in her recent work, Why Rural Schools Matter, “[the rural school] is more than a job or an institution; it’s an identity” (p. 65).

For this, the rural identity, I do hold a deep commitment to social justice. It should not be the neglected ‘R’ within a culturally responsive educational system. I will continue to make visible contributions to and be a voice for its advocacy because, yea, #RuralMatters!

I am not alone in this. There are other voices out there speaking up for the neglected ‘R’ – standing firm for the rural identity – because they too believe, #RuralSchoolsMatter. My thanks and my support go out to those individuals and organizations.

A few of those voices:

Dr. Mara Casey Tieken Dr. Allen Pratt (@PrattAllen) Dr. Steve Johnson (@johnson557377) Dr. Claudia Coughran (@cdcough) Kirk Koenneche (@GLSSuperFalcon) John White (@RuralED) Emily Meier (@MisforMidwest) Kelly Peaks Horner (@ACOFEE) Linda Aragoni (@LindaAragoni)

The National Rural Education Association (@nrea1) AOC (@OHAppCollab) Ohio SRC (@ohio_src) TN Rural Ed Assoc (@TNREA) Rural Ed Chat (@RuralEdChat) Rural Schools Collaborative (@Rural_Schools) Rural Trust (@RuralTrust) Rural Education News (@RuralEdNews) The National Center for Research on Rural Education (@RuralEdCenter) The Holler (@Holler_network)

REFERENCES

Azano, A. P. (2014). Rural: The other neglected “R”: Making space for place in school libraries. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 60-65.

Burton, M., Brown, K., & Johnson, A. (2013). Storylines about rural teachers in the United States: A narrative analysis of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 28(12), 1-18.

Fishman, D. (2015). School reform for rural America. Education Next, 15(3), 8-16.

Hassel, B. C., & Dean, S. (2015). Technology and rural education (ROCI). Retrieved from http://www.rociidaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ROCI_2015_RuralTech_Final.pdf

Johnson, J., Showalter, D., Klein, R., & Lester, C., (2014). Why rural matters 2013-2014: The condition of rural education in the 50 states. A report of the Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/2013-14-Why-Rural-Matters.pdf

Lin, S., Isernhagen, J., Scherz, S., & Denner, P. (2014). Rural educator perceptions of parent involvement in public schools: Perspectives from three states. The Rural Educator, 36(1), 40-56.

Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200203

Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

White, S., & Corbett, M. (Eds.) (2014). Doing educational research in rural settings: Methodological issues, international perspectives and practical solutions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wilcox, K. C., Angelis, J. I., Baker, L., & Lawson, H. A. (2014). The value of people, place and possibilities: A multiple case study of rural high school completion. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 29(9), 1-18.

Witte A. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2011). Family engagement in rural schools (R2Ed Working Paper No. 2011-2). Retrieved from http://r2ed.unl.edu/workingpapers/2011/2011_2_Witte_Sheridan.pdf

The ‘Logan Effect’ – that is what I call it, at least.  As a 25+ year veteran of the classroom – finding success at the secondary, undergraduate, and graduate level – it was my great-nephew Logan that shook my pedagogical foundation.  He was not yet four years old when he asked for my smartphone (the picture below shows him asleep, hand still positioned as if holding the phone in which I used to take his picture).  He then proceeded to operate it faster and with greater proficiency than I had encountered with many adults.  This was a gut check for me concerning the reality of how education must change to meet the needs of the 21st-century learner.  Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011) described those like Logan as the digital natives who have become a disruption within education.  This disruption is due to what Wimberley (2016) attributed to learners who “are different from any previous generation of learners” (p. 68) that “swipe away and move through technology in every area of life” (p. 25).

My great-nephew, age 3.

This ‘Logan Effect’ experience was the impetus for my own research, completed in the first half of 2017.  The purpose of the study was to describe high school general education teachers’ experiences with academic dishonesty in the digital age in rural school districts in southwest Ohio.  From experience, I knew that academic dishonesty is in and of itself not the actual problem. Academic dishonesty, like a bad cough or runny nose, is just a symptom of a far greater problem. It is an indicator that today’s educational model is not in the best interest of our students – our future. As one of my research participants expressed concerning the blurred lines that the integration of 21st-century technologies into the classroom has created, “[since] knowledge is so accessible to them through technology, what responsibility, [as an educator], do I have?” (Allie, interview, May 1, 2017).  That is an excellent question: What responsibility, as educators, do we have?  This edublog is part of my response and responsibility.

My great-nephew in his kindergarten class, age 5.

Fast forward a few years. My ‘Logan Effect’ experience is further deepened. The little boy who once was excited to learn – to go to school – no longer has that joy that could be seen on his face as he sat in his kindergarten class (seen in the picture above when I visited as his special guest).  To borrow a line from Frozen, one Logan used to sing to me when I would be in another room, “Do you want to build a snowman?” (Vecho, Buck, & Lee, 2013).  Just like Anna singing to Elsa, Logan just wanted me to leave that room – to come play with him where he was at. Today’s learners are asking the same thing from their teachers, their administrators, and their schools – to come out from behind a locked educational door and ‘play’ with them where they are at.  Through such experiences as these, along with my own personal research, I am convinced that the pedagogical framework that meets the needs of today’s students allow them to learn in ways that correspond with how their brains are wired to think-learn-play. So, . . .

Do You Want to Build a Snowman?

 

REFERENCES

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Vecho, P. (Producer), Buck, C. (Director), & Lee, J, (Director). (2013). Frozen [Motion Picture]. Burbank, California: Walt Disney Pictures.

Wimberley, A. (2016). Reshaping the paradigms of teaching and learning: What happens today is education’s future. (1st ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.