I love this...this is like Berger in how technology provides students with universal access and accountability in producing tangible evidence of their learning to be proud of, providing empowerment and resources accessible in a classroom to all students in a relevant manner.

Perhaps to ameliorate this concern there could be a lesson taught on rubrics (the significance of, etc), and maybe a classroom discussion on Internet rules so as to challenge the self to be better and expand in knowledge? How do technologically inexperienced teachers, like myself, approach setting such parameters?

Who teaches the students the basic foundations of technology (Word Processors, etc) to get them to this point where they are able to complete such a project? I've been in classrooms where students have never had access to any form of technology other than smartphones and can barely type on a computer keyboard, and are also unfamiliar with any and all word processors; how can we, as teachers, get them to the point where they can efficiently complete relevant projects like such? Who is responsible for teaching the basics to students from demographics that lack such resources?

This is what we refer to as the "New English" Classroom, which allows students to engage in new, more accessible and engaging forms/modalities of "text" under the pretense that text is seen everywhere, thus allowing them to relate easier to more relevant varieties of text. However, the question becomes "How do we as teachers keep up with the constantly evolving realm of technology, particularly in forms where we are unfamiliar?" Do we constantly participate in PD? Also, what if we do not have access to the necessary resources to integrate such tech in the classroom? How do we best service our students with little resources? Hypothetically, this sounds incredibly beneficial to a classroom community, however, we must view it from a realistic lens.

This reminds me of Kohn and Vygotsky's theories. Cognitively speaking, play in the classroom would heighten / deepen students' understanding of learning, which would make the integration of ed tech ideal via gaming. I just wonder how this could fit into an English curriculum. particularly in an impoverished area.

I agree with these findings. In my classrooms students work better (be it with their writing or focusing) while listening to headphones or doodling. I don't think we should fight this, but rather we should view this as an asset and capitalize on the students' strengths of multi-processing by trying to find a way to incorporate technology as a means of guiding them toward producing better work. I wonder what sorts of tech can be incorporated in this situation

I disagree with this generalization of "digital natives." One cannot simply group people of all socioeconomic demographics into a label of technological ability based on age, because a great majority of this demographic lacks access to resources that would enable them to possess "sophisticated knowledge and skills with information technologies." I have worked with millennials who would be deemed, by these standards, "digital natives," and they don't fulfill the distinctive characteristics because they are impoverished in their upbringing. Age cannot define technological prowess; it is all about access to resources.

I would agree that digital text is more flexible and hyper. It is easier for students with LDs, generally, to work on computers/iPads because they are able to type faster or organize/rearrange their thoughts more coherently due to the "hyper" nature, as the video implies.