Laurence Baker's Profile

None of this is new. Socrates and Diogenes opposed literacy and writing on the same grounds you oppose phones - they disrupt the learning environment - the cognitive authority environment - preferred by the teacher. Monks opposed Gutenberg technology on similar grounds. Schools long fought the use of film and television, even typewriters. Today, educators continue to fight against utilizing the technologies of communication which define our age. An endless retrograde action which ensures that "ability" and "disability" remain traditionally defined and that power never changes hands.

I'm not a believer in constant progress, but I do know that Gutenberg-era technologies left most people "outside." Your preferred methods are difficult for most people. Only by allowing students to choose their own "containers" do we have any hope of expanding the universe of educational "winners."

So what you are espousing is that the world bend to the student? That the teacher, with all their knowledge and experience, knows less about what a student will need to learn what the teacher knows? Sounds arrogant to me. You make it sound as if no learning can take place if the student can't have their mobile. What did students in America do before 2005?

Sorry, but your phone isn't going to make you a better student. Da Vinci didn't use a mobile. Neither did Gates or Jobs. Phones, right now, are social tools, not learning tools. The number one app on the iPhone is iFart. In fact, the top 10 apps have nothing to do with school, but focus on chatting, music, games, photos, etc.