That said, I think he will look at the factors which lead to successful integration. First, it seems important to have strong teachers in regards to their abilities so PD and training becomes imperative.

It’s about the teacher improving test scores at the same rate at the same time; what the teacher can impose on the student to improve achievement (not learning).

If you look at the ISTE standards, they are encouraging innovation that allows students to research on their own, make their own choices of tools and products, and share what they find. All-too-often, thanks to the driving curricular standards, we don’t let students do this, and instead we force everyone into the same processes and tools to stay on the same timeline.

Eventually, your decisions become intuitive, as smooth and rapid fire as the computer’s own machinations." Zhao begins to talk about school as a factory trying to churn out identical students, which evokes an image very similar to what Selwyn painted in his critique about games. Interesting that one argument would be against technology, and the other for it.

Taking your comment into consideration, I think time is likely to be a constraint. Once a teacher has been labeled ‘outmoded’ there aren’t a lot of ways to come back from that. Technology redefining the value of talents would likely be more useful to children who may have previously ended up in a repetitive-task job, but through technology have the opportunity to discover a talent that would previously have laid dormant. Does that make sense?

An interesting point here… what are the ways in which we think about our own guiding principles, our “north stars” that help us make decisions about technology use? How do we help model, for students, the kinds of intentional, purposeful decision-making that we want them to take up in their own technology use?

In order to not be “substitutable” the middle class needs to learn collaboration, innovation.

Traditionally, creativity has not been valued in education, but technology has the potential to change that if used appropriately, effectively.

Too often, teachers do not have a say in what they learn, nor do they have the opportunity to observe others or collaborate (coaches, teams, mentors). Can teachers change their beliefs? Of course, but they need to see effective integration in action, not just hear about it at a one-time conference. They need guidance, ongoing support, time, and help adding creativity in a productive way.

The best way we can then make this change is school-wide. It will not be enough for one or two teachers in a building to be the pocket of change. There will be pushback, distrust/dislike, and eventually dismantling of the program in order to go back to the status quo.

I’ve seen innovation (through and with technology) work really well in schools, but it’s been the whole school and the design of it from furniture, class schedules/setup, tech availability, and types of work and grading.

Someone who has been teaching for 10 years has likely never received the types of training that current undergrad students receive. They are only 1/3 of the way into a career but don’t have the skills to move forward for 20 years. Why don’t we give current teachers more time and abilities to better themselves? By helping the future teacher, we rely on them finishing their degree and finding a job before those skills make it into the classroom. Why don’t we do a better job of helping those who are already there?

In the article we read by Zhao this week, he discussed the influence of the “innovator” or the teacher on how effectively technology is integrated, and I agree. Of course, there are other sub-variables within this, but I like that there are different ways this can be approached: instructional strategies that match the individual teacher’s pedagogy, PD, relationship with students…they have the power to learn and the power to inspire, teach students to take control of their own learning. When students are empowered, they can work WITH the teacher to make choices regarding how to develop skills and learn content. Sometimes those skills and content will be mandated, sometimes not, but choices should be a part of that as often as possible. These should reflect the student’s interests and future plans.

Looking at the element of school culture is important to make these bigger changes. Students know they go from one class to another every day, every year, for four years and are told what to learn. But if the culture itself shifted to an autonomous learning environment (maybe even with growth mindset) we could better meet the first element of the new paradigm. If all classes cultivated students’ interests and abilities (or even overlapped and stopped having 55 minute periods in sequence) we could better encourage creativity because this expectation would not be different from the “norm” of the school.