Author: Nofisat

This summer, I embarked on a journey through EC&I 830: Contemporary Issues in Educational Technology. I did not anticipate how much it would stretch, challenge, and push me in my thinking about technology, learning, and education. This was more than a class for me, it was a learning experience on a deeply personal level.

 Takeaways: What I Learned Reflection Post

Structured Debate on Controversial and Timely Topics
Engaging in a series of structured debates on contemporary and often controversial topics was one of the most eye-opening aspects of this course. From the impact of social media in education to whether or not Schools should continue to teach skills like cursive, multiplication and spellings that can be easily carried out by technology, each debate provided the kind of “deep end” thinking that forced me to look not only at what I knew but at how I knew it. I not only had to formulate an argument I had to truly listen, think, and re-think to engage with other classmates on such diverse topics, respectfully. For me, these were less about winning or losing and more about modelling and growing as a critical digital citizen in online dialogue and conversation.

Exploring New Tools (discord, blogging, Flip, InVideo, NotebookLM)
As with any opportunity for me to play around with new tools, it’s all about HOW I learn best. I realized that new tech can never replace my key needs of rich content curation, collaboration, communication, and creation  but what it can do is provide a richer context for those four Cs to be applied. I will continue to reference the tools here as part of my daily work with teachers, students, and in my own learning journey. Discord, for example, might be my “secret weapon” now for live conversation and quick resource exchange, while blogging in this course really helped me to “slow down and look” in a way that suits my learning style. Additionally, exploring tools like Flip, NotebookLM and InVideo, for video editing, reminded me of the need to integrate multiple media into my learning and teaching practice as much as possible. I was able to successfully put in my Learning Journal for Invideo to help wrap it up into a creative  and scenery video which took me a lot of time and energy than I expected, especially the editing of scripts and putting graphics in their places, I also valued the hands-on exposure to several tools (Canva, Loom, AI-assisted writing) that I would otherwise have to pay to try out or sign up for on my own. These are already a regular part of my classroom and coaching toolkit, but likely for the long haul now. I will not go without acknowledging ChatGBT for a good editing of some of my work.

Mindset
Beyond all the tools and techniques, I think the most important lesson for me was in reframing my mindset as a teacher and a learner. I am no longer simply someone who uses and teaches tech; I am also a critical digital citizen and upstander. The lenses I bring to teaching and leading now include a much stronger critical eye and challenge for how technology is used (why and for what). I do not now take any platform at its word and immediately question and vet potential equity impacts and human impacts. I also need to seek opportunities not only to combat online hate and disinformation when they happen but to use my work in teaching and learning to model and upstand in the fight for equity in digital spaces as well as the physical. That lens shift has led to different lesson design, deeper conversation with students about the impacts of their work online, and a sharper focus on what I measure and how I assess the impact of tools in my teaching and coaching work with adults.

A Part of Something Bigger: Contributions to a Community of Learners
While I wasn’t always the most active poster in Discord, I always read and reflected deeply on the threads my classmates created in discussion, especially during weeks of debate. Those threads often took the class’s thinking to the next level and helped me see things I hadn’t considered. I also took every opportunity to respond to peers in blog comments to leave encouraging feedback, offer additional resources and tools, and raise questions I knew would help my fellow learners think more deeply. I also appreciated how our collaborative Google Docs during the debates and chat backchannels reminded me how powerful it can be to engage in peer dialogue in professional learning. My peers in this course have reminded me that learning, to be its best, is never an individual act or practice – it is something we build and make together, conversation by conversation.

 Final Reflections
EC&I 830 this summer changed not only my digital toolkit – it changed the way I approach education itself. I have come to see that being a responsible digital educator means bringing criticality, intentionality, and an informed, active awareness to how we design and create technology-enhanced learning experiences for students of all backgrounds. Learning to do that well means creating safe, accessible, inclusive, ethical spaces where all students can use and make with technology rather than be excluded or marginalized by it. This course has not just been formative, but foundational in my teaching and coaching in ways that I will remember for a long time to come.

After listening to the agree side video during the debate “technology has led to a more equitable society”, my immediate reaction was to strongly agree with it and take it at face value. After all, every aspect of modern life incorporates or at least involves the usage of digital tools in some form. I reflect on my own experiences in which the educational, health, occupational, and even activist pathways that I have taken are all enabled through technology, and the statement seems to make complete sense. However, as I continued to dwell on this, I find myself stopping at the important questions of “equitable for whom” and “equitable in what ways?”.

On the one hand, I can attest to technology opening up doors that have previously been closed. In my work, I have encountered students who have been labelled as low or non-performers in a traditional learning context excel once they have been provided with the appropriate assistive technology tools to support their learning. This was not miraculous but one of access, as tools such as speech to text technologies and adaptive technology provided a far more equitable experience for these learners in an academic setting. At those times when I can see my students succeed, I can completely buy in to the role of assistive technology and the tremendous potential it has for all learners who may have previously fallen through the cracks.

On the other hand, I consider learners who may not have basic internet access at home. The pandemic highlighted how deep the digital divide runs and how prevalent it is even in the most well funded communities. I recall a survey statistic that over three quarters of teachers in high-poverty schools reported their students could not access the internet to participate in synchronous learning consistently. It is difficult for me to consider a piece of technology or digital tool to be a great equalizer when access is not something that has been equitably extended to all. I recall an interesting RAND study on the digital divide that was conducted at the beginning of the pandemic. The issue for learners and families was not solely about the one-time support of having or not having a digital device, but the ongoing, long-term support, infrastructure, and digital skills necessary for all learners.

It is this inconsistency and dichotomy that frustrates me the most. It is not just the devices and infrastructure alone but the opportunity that it unlocks. In an ideal world, the internet represents a world of endless possibility in which you can do everything from buy essential goods to taking an online university degree to finding potential work, but it is also the world in which the work is not done, or there is not the support for, a large percentage of the global population. I have not found this to be reconciled or changed in any way, which frustrates me as this is an opportunity gap as well. I came across a recent statistic in an article that I found chilling: “2.7 billion people in the world remain offline, of which 84% of those offline are in the Global South.” (Digital Trends 2023). In an increasingly technological and digital world, I find it upsetting that we are failing so many.

Equally, in the same way, technology does provide that space of opportunity where those who have been traditionally disenfranchised can make their voices heard and not wait for traditional pathways of justice or representation. One story that I find heartwarming in this regard is in the recent case of Florida students using social media platforms to support one another after school shootings occurred and rejecting the “usual” narratives being touted by adults around them. They did not need to wait for an external party to represent their views, as they used digital tools to not only share information and resources with one another but build a movement of civic action.I will qualify some of my own excitement on this, however, as I think the truth is that for every high-profile case of using digital technology to achieve what are otherwise lofty goals, there are countless untold stories of the innumerable individuals, usually from already marginalized communities, who have been either left behind, left out, or directly harmed as a result of systems that have not been designed with their needs and access in mind. Yes, these technologies can help us see areas of bias, discrimination, and social injustice in an unadulterated format that previously would not have been visible, but they can also be just as adept at replicating those same issues in a new guise if we are not cautious in our approach. As much as I have read about the potentials of artificial intelligence to drastically improve access to healthcare, clean water, sanitation, education and reduce global inequality (Pappas, 2023), I know anecdotally and in other literature that without ethical design and rollout, these tools will benefit only a privileged few.

I don’t believe that I am changing my position on the original statement by the conclusion of this exercise, but rather refining it. Technology can lead to a more equitable society, but it is not guaranteed or automatic and takes hard work and effort. It does not just happen organically through increased distribution. Equity is not built into the device or the technology but in the design, the necessary systems of support and, more importantly, the desire to make things more inclusive. We have to be as deliberate and intentional about access as we are about innovation.

   As such, it is less of an either-or answer but more of a consideration that while I reflect on my own experiences in which technology has helped many, I need to be cognizant that for every student, family, or individual who benefits, there are likely many more who are still struggling. This reflection is not a rejection of technology but a call to always remember whom we are building these tools for and not to conflate access and connectivity with equality.

As education enters this brave new world, it’s understandable to assume that the basics aren’t worth teaching. Spellcheck with a click or a tap. Calculators for multiplication tables. Keyboards, not pens. It’s a valid question: do these skills still matter?

After reflecting on the many different stories and sources I have encountered during this course, I must say I remain conflicted about the role of foundational skills and “rote” knowledge in today’s classrooms. As someone who is a firm believer in student voice and powerfully preparing students for the demands of the future, I have more than once wondered about the true relevance of things like memorization of times tables, spelling lists, and teaching of cursive, to name a few. After all, I cannot even read my students’ cursive to verify their comprehension. Typing automatically checks for spelling. A calculator will do the math.

So, do we really need these skills?

The articles I have read this week, and others leading up to it, have led me to be rather frustrated at the need to be an either/or in this conversation. There is certainly evidence to support the practice of being less content-heavy and overloading students with unnecessary facts. We need to focus on deeper learning, as many of the cited experts have stated. We need to give our students the skills to learn how to learn, to be innovative, and to be thinkers. The articles, however, on the importance of teaching these skills, and especially handwriting, make a very compelling case as well.

As the articles I have read this week have so powerfully shown, there is significant research that shows the importance of handwriting, specifically during the early years, as a means of supporting reading and writing skills. Automaticity in writing and spelling, as well as composition skills, are all so critical, as are the basic computational skills, which are so easily accessed through memorized facts, such as the times tables.

Yet, the articles and debate video on the need for a shift in educational practice also make a rather poignant case. As the video Redefining Education and the article Creating Innovators by Erica Swallow show, there is a very rote way of teaching that, while academically rigorous in nature, does little to allow for the innovation, collaboration, and inquiry that will be needed for our students to be ready for the world that will exist for them when they leave school.

So, the question remains, do we need to continue to teach these skills?

After much reflection, I think the answer is quite clearly a resounding yes. As is the case with much of education, the answer lies in the balance. Yes, technology can close the achievement gap, but only when paired with excellent teaching. Yes, handwriting and computational skills are so very important, but so are tech skills and a certain level of fluency with technology. This is not an either/or type of question; it is a both/and. The research from Stanford demonstrates an appropriate time and place exists for both approaches.

Similarly, cursive, spelling, and math fluency are not the adversaries of innovation and technology; they are the allies that equip students with the skills to become confident and successful learners.

It makes me reflect on the many layers to today’s educational landscape. Traditional skills anchor students while  technological skills launch them. The most innovative classrooms are not those who have forgotten the old ways rather, they’re the ones that have mastered them while raising the bar. I think education shouldn’t be a battleground of keyboard versus pen. By appreciating the pen and the pixel, we can give our students the opportunity to write their own future in more ways than one.

The debate around banning mobile phones in schools is one that sparks strong opinions, and rightly so. As I reflect on the diverse perspectives presented in the class debate and accompanying readings, I find myself both intrigued and challenged by the complexities of this issue. Are we protecting students’ learning environments by implementing these bans, or are we stifling their ability to thrive in a digital world?

Argument for a Ban by ​Kritika and Meharun: Focus, Fairness, and Mental Health
The pro-ban argument was buttressed with both quantitative research and concrete policy shifts and legislation. The experimental study from Carleton University found that a ban improved test scores among 16-year-olds by 6.4%, equivalent to five extra instructional days.

This was echoed in the agree team’s opening statement, where they argued:

“Phones are not only distractions rather, they are amplifiers of anxiety and inequity in schools. Removing them levels the playing field and creates a focused, healthier environment for all learners”.

However, the strongest argument for me came in the following observation: lower-achieving students improved at higher rates, making this a potential equity and engagement solution, not just a disciplinary one.

New York State and the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) both implemented full-day cellphone bans using Yondr pouches. In NSW, Principals observed a reduction in behavioral issues and a rise in student learning and positive interactions. The NCES 2025 document supported the widespread agreement among American school leaders. Per that report, over 77% of schools already limit student phone use during instruction. In this dataset, over 58% of surveyed school leaders agreed that “phones have a negative impact on student performance.”

Jonathan Haidt’s TED Talk (2018) was another particularly convincing and visceral argument for a phone ban. In this personal reflection, Haidt diagnoses a rise in anxiety, depression, and loneliness among the youth, attributing these issues to pervasive and perpetual smartphone use. While he does not have a causal explanation for this effect, Haidt frames this as a public health emergency and not merely an education problem. I found myself entirely persuaded. When I think back to my own classes (and check my own behavior), how often do I or do students carelessly let our phones interrupt class? Is it ever just one scroll? I can’t help but feel we are losing more than we are gaining by surrendering our attention. A 2015 analysis by Beland & Murphy, discussed in a Chartered College article, used UK school data to show that phone bans boosted GCSE scores, especially among lower-performing students when enforcement was strict. Yet the article also points out that phones can support key learning activities like collaboration and feedback, and that younger learners appear less distracted by phones, suggesting a more nuanced, age-sensitive approach may be appropriate.

Reflective Insight: From this lens, banning phones becomes an act of service, not of control. It’s about freeing our students from distraction, temptation, and risk. I connected with the central idea that digital boundaries do not create deprivation; they create space for focus, for learning, and for human connection.

Argument Against a Ban: Teaching, Not Taking Away
However, the anti-ban argument also introduced important nuances to my thinking:

Sadi also asked a compelling question:

“What is the role of educators if we eliminate tools like phones instead of teaching students how to use them responsibly?” .

Campbell et al. (2024) published a scoping review of all existing literature on this very subject. They collected and compared 22 studies from 2016-2023, all which addressed outcomes of cell phone bans on academic performance and behavior. Their conclusion is complex and fragmented which included some studies showed positive effects of a ban, some were neutral, and some even showed a negative impact of taking away mobile devices. One important argument that stuck with me is the possible harm to families who may be actively marginalized from digital learning if they cannot access phones. Furthermore, this approach does nothing to inculcate digital literacy or digital citizenship which are key skills in the digital age.

A 2013 meta-analysis by Thomas, O’Bannon & Bolton offers a surprising insight into current classroom practices: many teachers are already fans of phone integration for instruction, citing tools such as polling, multimedia projects, and collaborative learning. Their research found that low-SES students may particularly benefit from classroom phone integration. This study repositions the mobile phone as a possible pedagogical tool.

Clayton and Murphy’s (2016) direct classroom study presents a more inspirational story. In this study, students were asked to create instructional videos for their peers, engaging with multiple mobile applications such as Google Classroom and Khan Academy. The result was more than improved academic performance. Students built media literacy, personal agency, and peer connection and support. This made me wonder if the issue is not the device but how it is (or is not) used in the classroom.

Reflective Insight: From this point of view, bans are quick fixes but band-aids, not cures. Students are unlikely to ever be in an environment without access to a phone. Is it not our responsibility to teach them to live with—and not from—their devices?

The Middle Ground: A Place for Myself
At this point, I no longer see the ban/no-ban issue in black and white. Each side has merits and can speak to different contexts and education needs. On the one hand, phones represent a clear danger to the ability to focus and, by extension, wellbeing. On the other hand, they have clear instructional value when used correctly.

So, how can we serve both values in a coherent policy?

In my opinion, schools can:

1. Set structured restrictions on phone usage during instructional periods, including time limits and designated activities

2. Designate structured periods in the school schedule when students are encouraged to use phones to learn or for homework.

Nofisat

Technology is one of the most pervasive aspects of the modern classroom. Interactive whiteboards, learning management systems, personalized learning apps—the list goes on. But for the debate class, the question asked this week, it was neither practicality nor pervasiveness that was at the center of discussion. We discussed if, and more importantly why, technology should be used in the classroom in the first place. In writing this post, I wanted to try to connect the research, the critiques, and my classmate’s persuasive arguments together. In short, I found that technology, while not perfect, does have the potential to improve learning. Especially if it’s used intentionally, inclusively, and, most of all, in combination with excellent teaching.

Points of argument were

Agree Side

Customizable for diverse students: Advocates for diversity highlighted how tech-enabled tools, such as adaptive software and interactive simulations, empower students with learning differences to progress at their own pace.

Combatting boredom: Echo chambers, where “students stare at their books,” were contrasted with tech-enhanced environments as “stale.” Technology was framed as a tool to rekindle curiosity through gamified lessons and real-time feedback.

Adjunct, not substitution: Emphasizing that tech should augment traditional instruction, rather than replace it. Technology was most potent when layered over robust pedagogy and human interaction.

Disagree Side

Efficiency for specific learners? Dustin’s rebuttal: Adaptive tools can feel “robotic and cold,” leading to confusion for students who require individualized support.

Boredom and no engagement: Inserting “screens” into classrooms as teaching aids alone does not prevent student disengagement because they can still lose interest if the content lacks depth and practical relevance.

Equivalence vs. replacement: Dustin challenged the notion of “equal use” as a standard, arguing that technology must not just coexist with but also match or outperform traditional methods in effectiveness.

What I Learned from the Pro-Technology Side

The most convincing argument in  Leanne and Jenni’s debate (in my opinion, and apparently others too) was made by pro debaters from Team 1. The point that struck me most was the benefit of technology for children with learning differences. The speaker highlighted how voice-to-text software, screen readers, and adaptive learning programs helped students work at their own pace and based on their individual strengths. The McKinsey study backs this up, estimating that up to 13 hours per teacher could be shifted to direct support by automating certain tasks (Bryant et al., 2020).

Boredom is also a very real, but sometimes overlooked, phenomenon in the classroom. But for those students, the lack of engagement is not a matter of effort or intelligence—it’s simply a mismatch with their skills and interests. In those cases, the pro debaters made a very convincing point that classroom tools (Kahoot, Flipgrid, Quizlet games, etc.) can engage students through collaboration, gamification, and variety. As a student, I can definitely speak to this: on days when learning is coupled with an exciting use of technology, school doesn’t feel so bad!

I also appreciated the measured, practical tone of the argument in favor. This speaker was at pains to make the point that technology should not replace teachers or the classroom experience. In fact, she was very explicit: technology is a supplement to instruction, not a substitute. We also went over two pedagogical models that aligned with this sentiment in class TPACK and SAMR (University of Calgary). In both models, technology is a layer that can either modify or completely redefine a learning task, but both require strong pedagogical intent to do that. For me, all these points came together to form a well-founded belief in a blended approach to the future of education: in the classroom, both teachers and technology play a role.

What I Learned from the Disagree Side (Dustin’s Arguments)

On the other side of the debate, Dustin’s arguments were also surprisingly resonant and instructive for me. I was taken aback when I realized that some of his most compelling arguments resonated with me in ways I hadn’t expected. Dustin’s first outburst (also one of the more controversial topics in education) was the limitations of adaptive technologies. Adaptive learning platforms are growing in popularity (Kessler, 2022) and often promise to be “personalized” and “student-centered.” But in practice, these algorithms are often much less flexible than they seem. One example Dustin used was how a fixed “learning path” often backfires for students with complex or atypical learning needs. A real learning plan should allow for fluidity between concepts based on the student’s needs, strengths, and interests. It’s one of the major critiques I’ve also come across in my research.

The second point I found especially convincing and topical was the use of technology as a “Band-Aid” for curriculum or planning that isn’t otherwise engaging. One line in particular stuck with me: “You can have all the screens but if the lesson isn’t meaningful, students will still zone out.” And I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t been in classes like that. Classes where all the tech was used…but it still felt like none of the learning was happening.

A third salient point from the disagree side was the need for outcomes, not just equalized use. Equal time with tech and equal time with books (or whiteboards) doesn’t automatically mean equal outcomes. While the exact framework was different, the overestimation of learning technology’s positive effect is the same point Hamilton and Hattie (2021) made after their meta-analysis of 15,000 studies.

Also backing up was a study by Vodopivec (2024), who found that BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies in classrooms reduced overall student academic performance and increased both smartphone distractions and cheating behaviors. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship also had a great video featuring Sophie Winkleman, who warned about all the downsides of replacing in-person learning with devices. This ranged from problems with social skills and mental health to increasing distractibility among younger learners. With so many potential downsides, I found the call to be cautious all the more convincing. Thanks to these points, I began to understand technology in the classroom through a different lens.

My Final Reflection: Balance, Not Blind Adoption

After the debate, I came to the conclusion that technology (used right) will be part of a classroom of the future. In the same way I see students, I also see technology as a bridge and a mediator not an authority or a replacement.

For tech in the classroom to improve learning outcomes, it should:

• Be used intentionally, not automatically
• Be inclusive and accessible, with a special focus on helping those with learning differences
• Be used in combination with strong teaching, emotional support, and real-world skills and knowledge.

And we must always ask:

• Does this tool work in our local context?

• Are our teachers trained to use it effectively?

• Does it enhance human connection, not replace it?

Learning, no matter how fun or well-presented, will always fail to engage without an excellent teacher guiding the process. Technology itself is a tool, but with the right teachers and training, it can be one of the best tools in the learning toolbox.

The debate also gave me some practical advice: I can walk into the future of learning with my LMS, which will not replace the high school teacher I so appreciated but will hopefully be one of the tools in my teacher’s kit.

Childhood today looks very different than it did 25 years ago, and one of the biggest changes is technology, not just social media. I have been doing a lot of thinking over the past few weeks about how childhood in the 21st century seems to look so different from what I remember of my own childhood. In class, we spent several sessions discussing and debating a burning question: Is social media ruining childhood? I took a stance on the disagreeing (that social media isn’t the bad guy) side of the fence, but I think that, if anything, doing the work to argue for both sides really did open my eyes.

What I Learned from the “Social Media Is Ruining Childhood” Side

One of the most impactful pieces of evidence presented by Kaela and Mike on the “agree” side was the undeniable impact that social media can have on children from an emotional and mental health standpoint. Watching the podcast episode with Sharon McMahon, Dr. Becky Kennedy shared that not only can social media be overstimulating for children’s nervous systems, but also that it can disrupt children’s emotional regulation in a variety of ways. I had never considered how overwhelming it must be for very young children to experience that level of social comparison on a constant basis.

I also thought the Matthew McConaughey interview was incredibly powerful. He said children today ask “What do you think of me?” rather than “Who do I want to be?” I mean, come on, that is one of the best zingers I have ever heard. The most powerful thing for me about that moment was that it really brought home the idea that social media encourages children to focus on external validation rather than internal discovery. But it is not just the anecdotal. There is hard science out there as well. The pair of articles from JAMA Pediatrics is especially compelling in that it documents a correlation between increased screen time and a rise in depression and anxiety in teens. Mike and Kaela really did a strong one on this debate, as I was almost convinced, especially when they indicated the effect and to what extent the parental control can be effective on children who know their absolute right on things.

What I Learned from the “Disagree” Side (The Side I and Carol Debated)

As I said before, I think the “disagree” side of the argument is important and offers important caveats to a one-sided argument. I got to argue for the “don’t judge social media too harshly” side, and I think it really made me see that, like anything, the medium has a time and place and need not be seen as black and white. I especially appreciated the article from InternetMatters.org that breaks down how social media can, in the right context, offer young people space to feel connected, explore their identity and passions, and build digital literacy. I also really, really like the work of Jonathan Haidt, who took on the common narrative that social media is the driving force behind poor teen mental health in this Wired article. I think he has a great point in saying that, no, the story is far more complex, and we risk solving for one variable when the issue of teenagers and mental health is actually more multi-layered. This Wired piece helped me see how much things like parenting practices, school, and other societal norms and expectations can play into the current “teen mental health crisis.”

We also got into a book called The New Childhood, by Jordan Shapiro, which reframed the entire way I think about the debate around the benefits or detriments of screen time. He argues that children’s digital play is not that different from how we have always thought of childhood play; children just have different toys now. I thought that was especially helpful in the way of flipping the conversation from “screen time is bad” to how adults can parent and educate alongside the development of digital tools and resources.

My Takeaway: Balance and Boundaries Are Key

To be honest, I think the question is not so much whether social media is “good” or “bad.” It’s more about how to use it and how to help children manage their experiences with it. I think really looking at both sides helped me to realize that the single biggest risk factor is not so much social media in and of itself, but rather when children are on those platforms without guidance and without limits, without understanding of the emotional cost it can have on children’s brains.

If anything, this activity helped crystallize for me the importance of media literacy from an early age, as well as having the patience and awareness to create the boundaries that feel right for your child. It’s possible that social media has become a part of childhood, but that does not mean we can’t be proactive about making that childhood as healthy as possible.

Between Tiny Hands and Big Ideas

The day often starts with a buzz or a gentle vibration from my phone, nudging me into action. Before I even brush my teeth, I’ve already checked my mails, notifications from my social media platforms (i.e. WhatsApp, Facebook) and sometimes I am woken up from my iMessage from work asking to come in earlier, all with a few taps on my smartphone.

This is my life: part early childhood educator, part graduate student, full-time mom and juggler of roles. By day, I’m an early childhood educator at Hopes Home, surrounded by tiny voices, sticky fingers, and spontaneous hugs. By night (or whenever life gives me a quiet moment), I get to watch some Facebook reels, Netflix , read academic texts, do some reflecting and assignments as a TLL student at the University of Regina.

Technology isn’t the star of my day, but it’s the thread that ties everything together.

At work, I use the ADP app to login and clock out, I don’t spend hours staring at a screen. My focus is on the children, their play, their questions, their growth. But behind the scenes, tools like Lillio help me document their learning journeys and keep families in the loop and I mostly use sportify to play calming music in the room to create an entertaining environment for the kids . Communication with colleagues happens mostly through email, often squeezed in between diaper changes, lunch time and snack time.

Once the workday winds down and my little one is tucked in, a different part of my brain lights up. That’s when I pull out my laptop, usually for coursework, writing, or catching up on messages from classmates. I rely on Google Docs to draft assignments, and WhatsApp to stay in touch with my family back home through chats and vide calls.

My learning style leans into the interactive: videos, hands-on tools, and discussions energize me far more than static pages of text. There’s something powerful about engaging with others, sharing ideas, and learning from different perspectives. It reminds me of the same collaborative spirit I encourage in my young learners.

And now, here I am writing my very first blog post 🤫.

To be completely honest, I still feel weird when I think I’m a “blogger.” This is my first time doing this. But it’s growth and something new, so I’m going to take it. It’s a new way for me to learn to reflect, share, and communicate not only as a student and a teacher but as a life-long learner. I have been able to use so many educational websites and apps that helps transform my teaching and learning in the space of 3 years such as the KAHOOT, CANVA, PADLET and many more.

Some days, it feels like I’m walking a tightrope between lesson plans and literature reviews, circle time and citations. But technology, though sometimes frustrating, always evolving is the balancing pole that helps me stay upright.

So, cheers to tiny fingers that pull me into play and big thoughts that push me to deeper understanding. And cheers to tech tools that create space for both.

Welcome to Education Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!