I must have once again missed something, I went to the link there must be access to 20+ articles and blogs. So, predicting what you’re thinking based on that might be a little tough. : ) I’m sure I missed the article somewhere else and will run across it as I am working this weekend. It is very unlike you to ask, “Hey, so what am I thinking right now?”.

In his comments it appears that he is saying these technologies are very good at producing homogeneous results among learners but that this might not be “education” per-Se. When used as described it may be useful for delivering some of the Foundational Knowledge as described by Mishra previously but would not contribute to the To Act Knowledge as described by Mishra. I think the bottom line is that it is not a complete education as currently utilized.

I see new technology tools come out all the time. This is one of the reasons I feel every school needs an ITF, because researching and learning about these is a full time job in itself. The problem is that many tools are implemented with only minor thought being put into the why. The majority of the time, the reason ends up being to engage students. Well that usually lasts a whole two minutes. Teachers need to focus more on stepping away from the methods they are used to and comfortable doing. Instead they need to focus on allowing the learner to lead, discover, and play to gain understanding. Teachers need to engage in innovation that says, “no, I have never tried this but I am willing to learn it with you.” If teachers only focus on keeping kids at or below their own understanding, then we miss the point of having a next generation. The point is for them to learn and grow beyond us.

I agree that thought process. Most technology is created for profit or for less overhead or for better efficiencies….not for enhanced education and knowledge. It is corporate America that has the money to design and build it for a profit of some kind. What happens is once the technology has been created we try to find other ways to use it …..to make more money. Why you ask? Because there is big money to be made by selling technology to schools around the world!

I listened to this whole segment and really what I took away was his deconstruction of common core which, was probably the best set of arguments against common core I had heard. I also enjoyed how he argued that education follows technology and typically is applying principles and practice to education that will not be relevant when the learners leave the institutions of learning. In the U.S. Army, since its inception it nearly always trained soldiers to fight the last war not the next war. One of the few exceptions was the Gulf-War in Iraq. I am trying to bring myself back to your questions. I think technologies entice us to be innovators in adapting the technologies to uses other than those intended by the designer/developer of the technology.

Automation is easier right? When teachers are looking at over 100 kids each day, trying to differentiate, individualize, or personalize is not fathomable. So we create programs that help us to monitor students and automate their learning. There is a program that my district bought called Actively Learn. It is a tool that allows teachers to upload documents, web content, etc and embed questions, videos, links, etc. Very similar to this program we are currently working in. The problem is that now, instead of the questions just being at the back of the book, they are sprinkled throughout the text. It is very similar to what has always been done, read this, answer questions, move to next text.

Sorry Dr. Troy but I must disagree right off the bat. I do not think that technology entices us to be innovators. I think some people are already innovators and they just use tools around them in different ways to provide another functional use. I don’t think the tools (new or old tech) entice people who are not naturally innovative to be innovative.

I hate to steal an answer that I feel Todd would give, but I think one way is to start with getting districts to adopt OER. This is one way to start a movement of teacher creativity because teachers will have to start to fill in where textbooks once stood. Now, another way is to push ideas to teachers and really provide them time to discuss and work with these ideas. We don’t give teachers time to be creative because they are too busy with the status quo. As for the system, well I think it is about getting early adopters and letting others see their success. The rest will come, and the pressure of these models will compel the system to change. It will be a slow process.

Changing perceptions is easier when people know what you are talking about. If teachers need to personalize learning, create product-oriented learning, and use a globalized context, then they need to see, or better yet, participate in this type of learning environment. Start with teacher preparation programs and professional development programs. Make those fit these parameters and then work with teachers on implementing. I think their enjoyment and curiosity will lead them that direction any way.

Who is to say Dr. Zhao’s ideas that letting the student determine what they want to learn is the best education structure? I or others might think that in today’s society the best skills or knowledge might be X to succeed. The skills and knowledge or the time change from generation to generation and adjust to society’s needs like the economics supply and demand. He is correct in his thoughts of the needs for creativity but there always have been and probably always will be a small set of education knowledge (common core). It just changes to fit the needs of the society it is in. What is important in one location and time might not be the same in another location or time.