Comments on: Technology in Meet Space

By: Teachin' on the Information Highway

Teachin' on the Information Highway — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 06:44:44 +0000

K12 Online 2006 Convention…

K12 Online 2006 Conference…
Announcing the first annual “K12 Online 2006″ convention for teachers, administrators and educators around the world interested in the use of Web 2.0 tools in classrooms and professional practice. This year’s c…

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:59:18 +0000

The Pew Internet and American Life Project’s research suggests that technology in the schools is somewhat irrelevant. Students, in general, assessed the attitudes, access, availability, and knowlede base of the “provider” and found it lacking severely on all counts. They stated clearly in the research that their technology use is not at school, but at home – where the service is better and the technology is not as antiquated or filtered. Students reported their “school use” of home technology approaching something like 85%. Obviously the results are different for households without, but if we want technology to be relevant to education…it has to be relevant to education’s customer.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/158/press_coverageitem.asp (in case I didn’t do my html link right above…still don’t have that memorized with all the html editors…argh)

By: Weekly Roundup (7 September 2006) - 2 - Practice at teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk

Weekly Roundup (7 September 2006) - 2 - Practice at teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:17:51 +0000

[...] Will Richardson – Technology in Meet Space [...]

By: Joel Backon

Joel Backon — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:56:49 +0000

I like Quigley’s comment about the speed at which technology changes. When you stand on the side of the road, the cars appear to move very quickly. But when you are in one of those cars moving at about the same speed, the motion is almost not noticeable (Einstein’s theory of relativity?).

Optional, irrelevant, and other words are rationalizations just as the speed characterization is. This blog consistently points out that current technology is operating in a new paradigm; call it a flat world or whatever you like. Most educators are not operating in that paradigm. Until they do, technology will appear optional or irrelevant on a macro level (certainly some teachers and schools get it and are have incorporated technology into teaching and learning).

By: Kimberly Moritz

Kimberly Moritz — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:49:24 +0000

I understand that leadership is important for technology integration. I understand that I have to walk the walk and I’m trying lead by example. In the ten years that I taught, I tried new methods in my classroom and integrated those things that worked into my teaching. I constantly thought about what was necessary to engage my students and to make the content “stick” with them. Forget it, this is becoming a post. . . I’m moving over to a post on ghsprincipal.edublogs.org. Please stop by and think about the real responsibility of technology.

By: Borderland » Blessed are the Irrelevant

Borderland » Blessed are the Irrelevant — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:04:18 +0000

[...] Will’s Richardson’s and Miguel Guhlin’s posts today about the rate of uptake for read/write web integration in classrooms suggested a reading of the The Eight Beatitudes. The word irrelevant, that Miguel used, made me think about the benefits of being overlooked and passed by. [...]

By: Brian Crosby

Brian Crosby — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:04:13 +0000

New techers right out of college that I interview have practically zero tech experience – maybe that is not true elsewhere in the country, but where are the “new leaders” going to come from if so few have any experience. I am part of a program in my school district piloting Activboards and a few other pieces of interactive technology – because of the grant money being spent we had to have a consultant from the local university – the professor has almost no ed tech experience at all and close to no tech savvy whatsoever but thinks this will be “neat.” (This is the person that is supposed to consult us on effective technology integration)
I agree whole-heartedly with Miguel – tech is still seen as an irrelevent add-on that would be “cool” when we have the time after we get our math and reading scores up.
“You can’t show me much – if any real proof that any of this tech stuff does anything to raise test scores.” End of discussion.

By: Joe Poletti

Joe Poletti — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:48:38 +0000

“Technology” is about tools and procedures. “Information” is about as global as it gets. Our relevance in schools and districts will be determined by our ability to de-emphasize those two isolated words and plant ourselves and our skillsets squarely in some curricular (and extra-curricular) contexts.

Instructional Technology Facilitators (as they are called here) and Media Coordinators will continue to evolve more as curriculum specialists whose greatest value is professional adult collaboration. These people are curriculum people first and foremost. The most successful collaborators among them will join forces with teachers in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of units of study.

As we know this is easier said than done and dependent upon scaffolding factors.

By: Daniel Quigley

Daniel Quigley — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:21:25 +0000

I think there is another aspect of Miguel Ghulin’s “irrelevance” may stem from the speed at which these technologies develop and the feeling of helplessness that many faculty, particularly at this time of year as the pressures to prepare for another term mount, feel in the face of all this new technology. It would be helpful if we just take a look back at the last 24 years (’82 being the year most noted as the beginning of all this PC business. In that relatively short time span, just how many “newest and greatest” technology based teaching tools have flooded the market? And how much fac. dev. time and money has been spent trying to keep faculty up to snuff? While many reading your column (myself included) would see something truly different about the read/write web, why would the average teacher believe that wikis and blogs and RSS and…you get the point…would be any more trans formative than, say, the Mac’s “Hypercard” circ 90-92. Or perhaps they have already heard about the “transformative nature” and the incredible amount of information that can be gleaned through a “gopher” program. Each of these was to be transformative, and each is now collecting dust in computer museums. I once had a colleague who was thoroughly convinced that ALL college educators (particularly English professors as we were) would need to learn HTML within a year to stay relevant. Of course, what really happened is that some one invented a program to do it for you, and the hours I spent trying to learn HTML seem “irrelevant.”

By: readerdiane

readerdiane — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:03:39 +0000

Do you get the NEA published magazine? I wanted to scream when I saw the opposing views section about integrating technology. They don’t get it, and until more teachers come on board we won’t see big changes.

Of course there is the testing excuse, NCLB doesn’t leave much time, and it is soaking up the tech money for testing equipment. Teachers need equipment, instruction and time to develope lessons. Until all 3 things happen, you won’t see changes in the classroom.

Intel Teach to the Future was a great program because it did all 3 but the local school districts couldn’t sustain it because of lack of funding. A few of my teachers doggedly continued to integrate technology but they were few and far between. We have started again with a little start up money and again I am hopeful…..
We have some technology, some teaching and some lesson plan development and I am crossing my fingers. We have administrative support but I would have liked to have seen them in the classes so they truly know.