Most recent public comments by Sarah Lewis https://nowcomment.com/users/37194 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997287 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997287 Todd, I like how you give the argument of need vs luxury. That's a really good point when it comes to technology integration and access in 2018 and beyond. We need to know what students have access to and what technologies they will need in the future to succeed. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:50:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997286 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997286 About a year and a half ago, a committee I sit on introduced the idea of digital badging (http://commons.suny.edu/cotehub/online-competency-development/badges-and-certificates/). It's basically a way for students to stand out from others in terms of what they have learned. It could mean take another class our 2 or creating a project that goes above and beyond the normal class work. This idea seems a bit like the credentialing idea she speaks of. It gives a way for students that want to show their expertise of passions and show they they are willing to go above and beyond. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997285 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997285 Hey Julie! I love your mention of how to make an intro freshman course intriguing to multiple learners. Students write in so many different ways other than essays that they may or may not have exposure to in K-12. Tweeting and FB posts may not be the greatest forms of communication but knowing how to convey a message in any setting (even texting) is a useful skill after graduation. I text most of my coworkers and bosses on a regular basis, knowing how to do so in a professional and friendly manner is vital to success and creating proper communication. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:01:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997284 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997284 I like that she mentioned passion in terms of students connecting with content or knowledge. Anything math related always sparked my interest in K-12, anything reading related, not so much. Even with newer technologies, if I had access to an iPad or more tech readings, I don't really think that would have helped me. Knowing what students are passionate about can definitely help the learner connect to content and expand their knowledge. We learned a bit about this in 800 with a 12 or 13 year old who learned code and then taught it to others at a local library. Interest and passion can spark great learning in things that students may not get in school. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:36:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997277 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100539?scroll_to=997277 With the ability to post pretty much anything online in video format, anyone can learn anything that they want as long as it is available. This changes access in both positive and negative ways. Children have more access to things that may cost a lot (any kind of lesson) and can learn on their own like this girl did but there also needs to be some type of screening process to make sure the content is proper and correct. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:16:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990251 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990251 Completely agree, Robert! Or they tend to support certain techs without the buy in from those that are going to have to use it. Making sure everyone is on the same page and being as transparent as possible is key to successful integration from the top of the administration to the students that will be forced into implementing it in their education. Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:56:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990250 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990250 I think the key component of level 2 is collecting data over time at multiple intervals. The educator receiving the PD cannot truly know if the PD was useful right away and may need time to assess whether or not it was useful. So I like that the include possible instruments and time frames to do so. In terms of levels 3 and 4, they seem more long term and more student success driven. These levels can rely more on student success and how they perceive their teachers to be using the new technology/skill that they have been evaluating. The teacher and the student can almost work together on this and the teacher can even go back to the delivery system of the PD and say what did/didn't work and even have ideas that the students gave them on how to better teach what they were supposed to learn in the PD session. Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:39:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990220 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990220 I agree with Robert's point of interviews, getting actual verbal feedback to tie in with grades or ratings is helpful. I also think that you can use PD for teachers on how to teach with new technology but if the students don't know "how" to learn with the technology then it is a waste of time. For example, I can show my mom, over and over, how to use an iPhone but it will just never stick. She has zero tech background and has no need for it. Learners in K-12 often have a hard time understanding how this will effect their learning or how the skills they are learning can be carried on long term. Tying both the educator and student into the PD would be successful in my opinion along with the grades the students are earning and the success of the educator. Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:58:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990204 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990204 This goes back to my other point, what works with one area, does not necessarily work at a district 50 miles away or on the other side of the country. A BIG factor to consider. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990203 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990203 Based on Pages 7-8 it seems like they want replicative studies only... I may be reading that wrong but if the review only allows for the same sample alignment, similar design, aligned protocol and other like standards it seems like their standards are quite narrow. I would think with adapting technologies, many of the ideas would be newer or fresh and may need some testing with skills that are older than 20 years but with new techs and ideas. Also, the idea that "what works" will work for everyone seems a bit narrow minded. There are so many outside factors that create dependency with adapting new technologies and PD, to ignore those seems dangerous. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990196 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100530?scroll_to=990196 First off, I think end of session surveys can be tough, people often don't know exactly what they are evaluating, rightfully so, but it can still make the aggregate data a bit skewed. Other measures could be student success in education long term or perception surveys long term on how effective the PD was or continual follow up surveys to see where they needed more PD Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:06:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=957254 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=957254 Agreed, I think Robert shared a video last semester of a skateboarding game that produced some pretty chaotic moments. Some form of a facilitator is necessary and having the right ratio of student to educator needs to be kept in mind as well. You don't want an entire class losing interest because something stops working and there is no one there to assist them Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:48:22 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=957253 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=957253 Couldn't agree more, Ashley! Even in medical school, our standardized tests are facilitated and created by a company that has zero interest in producing actual productive and intelligent doctors, rather they are in it for the money. Students are becoming more and more aware of this and the frustrating is growing. We used to use more homegrown exams but then we couldn't compare ourselves to other schools so admin chose to move towards the more standardized versions. If you see a scale back at any, district congratulate them :) Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:15:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950640 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950640 So this isn't an education reference, but in terms of being a high school or college football player (the game) the athlete (the student) has A LOT to learn, and they tend to do so because of the intrinsic motivation they have. If someone doesn't like football they're not going to take the time to learn routes and formations. Relating to education, I learned basic math with number munchers and loved every second of playing it. It was a way of looking at something to learn as more than just numbers or letters, it applied to something most kids at the time used/played with, video games. I would assume this applicability has changed a bit with different technologies and almost all students access to phones and tablets. In terms of assumptions of educators, educating educators needs to be done the same way we expect students to learn. If educators are not learning about games in the classroom, the conversation needs to start back at that point to move forward for the student. Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:05:12 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950554 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950554 She uses the terms grants, funding, and economy quite frequently which goes against her argument that the school in NC was successful without a lot of funding. I appreciate that a small rural school is able to do what they did, I can't imagine what Boston or NY city schools would have to go through to implement technologies into their classrooms. She also uses the term novel a bit. I don't think that we as a country are unaware of how to integrate technology, however, we run into the problem that half the students in a school may react well and half might not (leading back to individualized learning/asynch characteristics). If we want to lean towards not teaching students like robots, integrating technology needs to be looked at the same way. Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:09:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950533 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950533 I agree with Todd's point and think the overall issue is how resistant humans are to change. The federal government can set basic standards but for those to be used/achieved by overall 50 million students is, in my mind, an unrealistic goal (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372). Technology is such a broad idea, some schools don't even have tvs in every room or enough functioning computers for their students. I understand her statement about the school in NC that was successful without a lot of funding but I can only imagine the amount of work and time they put into it. Realistic expectations are key, and I think setting basics by the government can be helpful, but funding is a huge factor. Also, making sure students know the basics, like the first gentleman speaking mentioned, some students are behind in 8th grade because of something they missed in 5th. Starting from the very beginning, before thinking about how students should be using technology in high school is a proper process to go through. Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:54:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950419 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96802?scroll_to=950419 The biggest I've seen regarding private companies roles in innovation in education is cost and the ability of an institution to not just say, "do this", but to have the educator learn how to use it and apply it in an individualized manner. Theoretically, the idea should be perfect, but for an educator to be able to still control the learning environment with students at different levels in their learning, I can imagine can be quite the challenge. I also equate it to government telling teachers how to teach, if the private companies are made of current and former educators than I can see there being actual buy-in but without that, I can see some push back happening quick. Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:31:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96348?scroll_to=945456 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96348?scroll_to=945456 Since I have zero background in hypercard, I looked it up a bit and a lot of people said they made games with it and that it was a precursor to web browsing... since it was pre WWW though, could it be shared? I think it could be useful as a personal information storing software program. Or perhaps it could be used to teach and learn code...? Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:48:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96348?scroll_to=945452 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96348?scroll_to=945452 Full disclosure, this product and video are from before my life began :) BUT just seeing how he interacts with Hypercard, it almost seems like the visual version of Alexa or Google Home. Instead of typing "horse", you can now just talk to Alexa or some other device. The capabilities are much more complex with the newer technologies but the HyperCard seems very command/demand based. In simpler terms, it seems similar to a tech based rolodex. I mildly understand his explaining it as a software erector set for personal use but I don't see any collaboration functions. Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:44:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942689 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942689 This concept is a perfect answer to why standard number 4 can be so complex. The definition for student centered learning can mean 100 different things to 100 different people. The words used in the standard, educator, colleagues, students, parents, co-learn, experts and teams all infer working with others. Student centered learning sends a bit of a different tone on the face value but all of these words used in standard 4 need to be taken into account to properly use and collaborate with technology in the classroom. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:56:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942681 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942681 So I've always seen an issues with buying a lot of one technology and hoping for the best with minimal detail. It's almost like a "shiny new thing" phenomena in terms of, fancy new iPads that no one knows how to really integrate with the classroom. ISTE Standard 6 applies here given that the educator should manage the technology to assist the student with their learning strategies and create opportunities for the students to work with the educator on implementing the technology, not just simply saying look up this word on your iPad instead of a dictionary. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:52:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942662 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95761?scroll_to=942662 I have honestly always had a ton of questions about charter schools, I don't know that I have the best understanding of them but I do think that having an alternative to public schooling other than very pricey private schools could be an asset if done properly. The main issue I have always heard with charter schools is that there is little regulation and minimal standards set by the state or other accrediting body. ISTE would be a great place to start with this problem or any form of education standards. The charter schools in the county I live in are quite selective and have classes on Saturdays and have been fairly successful compared to their city school counterpart. I would think that a combination of working with a public school that has standards and structure like ISTE offers would be a good place to start. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:45:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=939661 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=939661 The educator needs to be an leader and facilitator in order for students to learn the technology. If they see the educator being successful with the technology then they are more likely to think it will be helpful and useful. The educators need to inspire the students (citizen aspect of ISTE) and show them the responsible ways to use technology and how to participate appropriately with it. Knowing the extent of the technology and how it plays into cultural norms and safe situations is vital to students working with educators to adapt technologies in all realms. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:13:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=939656 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=939656 This idea relates well to the ISTE standards or learner, leader, collaborator and analyst. In order to do these things, an educator must keep an open mind and know that what they have been doing, or the status quo, may not work well anymore or may need to be reformed. It is hard to be innovative if an educator sticks to their beliefs and ways of doing things. They also need to be learners, when implementing new technology, no one knows every single aspect of a specific technology. A student may be able to teach the educator a different way of doing something or a new form of technology to use, as long as the educator keeps their beliefs fluid. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:13:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=936919 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95753?scroll_to=936919 This idea seems to be the basis for the ISTE standards and what should be happening/what is best practice. The standards are the actions the educators need to take in order to be successful with education within their communities, students, self and with other educators. These idea in the ISTE standards are what seem to make up a successful educator integrating technology, answering the question of how teachers hold their beliefs. Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:15:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934327 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934327 I love the title he uses, "we teach who we are", this relates to a piece of the other article from 2004 about biases in technology. We all have biases and teachers will have biases, as they should, they should not deny them because that is why certain students gravitate towards particular teachers. This idea seems a bit different from 21st century to TPACK but similar in some ways. The overarching concept that these 2 frameworks/ideas on how to use technology in the classroom seems counteractive to being creative. This may work for half of all teachers but not the other half, I think that is OK and teachers should not be forced to do things one way if it simply doesn't work for them. Using TPACK and 21st Century Literacies as a basis or starting point are a great idea but being able to manipulate them and be creative with them is a great idea. Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:57:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934325 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934325 I may be simplifying this again (my lack of K-12 experience is showing), however, what scale are we using to say that children are less creative now than 20 years ago? With the the new technologies we have, clearly there is creativity out there and there is risk involved. I am self-admittedly not creative, I am very black and white about things. To me, a framework like TPACK takes creativity out of the scheme and gives one way to do things and one way to use technologies. The 21st century literacies seems to do the same thing, 3 components with other ideas branching off that can fit into any way of using technology in the classroom. I do agree that somewhere, creativity is changing, but we need to know much more detail about this idea just explicitly say it is diminishing. Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:51:50 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934324 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=934324 I feel like I may be simplifying this too much but 21st Century Literacies seems like an update of TPACK, which is appropriate. In my mind they are equal but different in terms of adaptation. TPACK could be adapted today's education system but 21st century literacies probably would struggle a bit to adapt to education in the mid 1900s. For instance, the "to know" components of core content knowledge and cross-disciplinary knowledge could be used in the mid 1900s but digital/ICT literacy not so much. Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:43:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934322 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934322 This is a really interesting paragraph that I think fits well into today's world and will continue to. In many cases, those that create a certain technology, more specifically an app for a phone or tablet, often cannot imagine all the uses that the user ends up using it for. This can lead to some good things but sometimes really negative issues pop up. I would venture to guess that most people first use a piece of Microsoft Office before they reach employment, whether they actually learn how to use it is one thing but they know the basics of how to use the technology for the purpose they need Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:24:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934321 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934321 I agree greatly with this statement but wonder if we are and have been beating a dead horse so to speak with trying to fix the current problems in education. In NY at least, the state government implemented common core in a way that has not worked. Who's responsibility is it to make these changes? Is it logical to think that one framework can fix everything within education? I love the framework they set out, and agree that it can be useful. But if there is one framework that works for all things, the education of educators would be quite simplistic. At this point I don't think it is that easy Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:17:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934320 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934320 I completely agree, the course I administer is 5 weeks, repeated 9 times throughout the year. Without fail, every single group reacts differently to the exact same content and mode of delivery. I think this idea they state here holds true and most likely did previous to 2004 and will continue to past 2018. Everything is very fast paced now and students change year to year, even month to month. Teachers need to have their head on a swivel in a sense to see how a current group is reacting to content and pedagogy being used and see if it is effective now. It may not be but the next group of students may be fine with it. To what extent to we keep tailoring things to certain groups of students? Can it ever be perfect? Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:17:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934318 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934318 I'm thinking big picture here and outside of the box, but can we think as broadly as we want about technology or do we risk speaking specifically about something to help people understand things at a very specific level, knowing that it may be extinct in a year or 20? In terms of medicine, there are new guidelines for an endless amount of disease symptoms and testing that are reviewed every few years and change constantly. Is it irresponsible to admit a mistake and change guidelines? Or offer a new idea after supporting an opposing one? I think they the broadness in this article is good in that sense. We don't want to pigeon ourselves into one form of tech but need to make sure those reading the research are aware of the day-day changes within technology. Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:10:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934317 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934317 I think that this idea of PK can apply to any period in time but specifically relates currently to those that have been teaching for awhile to understand how students are learning now. It seems that it just isn't the same and there is a lot to learn for everyone involved. The idea of PK seems like something that would always need revision with new updates of technology and basic schooling set up or background of students. Sat, 27 Jan 2018 20:05:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934316 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94522?scroll_to=934316 I would argue that these things have changed. A chalk board changed to a white board or an overhead projector which changed to a smart board of or form of that system to put information in front of students. The same way these things manifested into computers, which changed to tablets or other forms of technology to convey information to students. Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:02:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=922805 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=922805 A little bit off topic but relating to what we are discussing with applicability, just came across this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/digital-technology-must-empower-next-generation-workers-not-alienate-them-ncna838806 Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:42:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017385 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017385 A little bit off topic but relating to what we are discussing with applicability, just came across this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/digital-technology-must-empower-next-generation-workers-not-alienate-them-ncna838806 Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:29:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93678?scroll_to=921007 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93678?scroll_to=921007 In medical education, flipped classrooms are the latest and greatest teaching idea. However, taking the students out of social interactions with each other and with educators has shown us that when it comes to their communication skills, they are lacking. In medicine, you will ALWAYS be interacting with humans that you may or may not like, that you may or may not have a connection with. Taking students out of the classroom and simply giving them a blackboard site and PowerPoints as Jenny noted, "Death by PowerPoint", definitely needs to be looked at further. In online education, this is obviously a but different but in integrating technology into face to face education, taking away that human interaction can be detrimental to those that will soon be in careers that are purely human focused. Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:51:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93678?scroll_to=921006 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93678?scroll_to=921006 I remember reading an article back in 811 when I did a paper on podcasts and it mentioned the same thing your Princeton article did, those students that took hand written notes along with listening to the podcasts scored higher than those that did not. Also, in the example he gave, having the students work together rather than individually in the augmentation phase with maps, I have always wondered if there is a real issue with students working together and why it seems to be something that needs to be forced currently. I watch kids ages 6 weeks to 7 years and if you put a bunch of 3-7 year olds in a room with some toys they will without a doubt interact with each other. It may take a little bit of time but children are very curious. Again, I am not a K-12 teacher but I've been curious of the need to force students to engage. I also am an only child and from that perspective, never liked being forced to talk to or work with others, things kind of work themselves out in a way. Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:13:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017382 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017382 Is this true? Perhaps in high school and college it would be applicable but does this apply to elementary and middle school aged children, or preschool? Is a learning outcome as simple as a student understand why WW1 began or how they can apply world history to their interests? I like this Triple E framework but I could think that the learning outcomes and what educators want students to be able to achieve would need to be constructed before being able to measure these ideas related to technology Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:29:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=921001 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=921001 Is this true? Perhaps in high school and college it would be applicable but does this apply to elementary and middle school aged children, or preschool? Is a learning outcome as simple as a student understand why WW1 began or how they can apply world history to their interests? I like this Triple E framework but I could think that the learning outcomes and what educators want students to be able to achieve would need to be constructed before being able to measure these ideas related to technology Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:13:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017380 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103403?scroll_to=1017380 This kind of relates to both students and teacher assumptions, but, I would think it would take time to understand from a teachers prospective if a students is engaging and not just "busy". I would think that it would take months to understand all students in a classroom and know if the technology is working. Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:29:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=920999 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=920999 This kind of relates to both students and teacher assumptions, but, I would think it would take time to understand from a teachers prospective if a students is engaging and not just "busy". I would think that it would take months to understand all students in a classroom and know if the technology is working. Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:58:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=920998 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93675?scroll_to=920998 This framework assumes that students need help integrating technology into their education and will continue to have this need to reach high levels of achievement and learning outcomes. It also assumes that students need tools to learn things. In my opinion, 2+2 is the same thing whether it is done with pen and paper or a calculator or excel… the same point gets across and I wonder if integrating technology for basic concepts can end up being detrimental. I also believe, like all learning theories/technologies/standards, this idea assumes all students learn the same. The questions of, does the technology motivate/engage/change behavior of students may fit half a class but not all or maybe students in NY react differently than students in CA. Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:48:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92741?scroll_to=918225 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92741?scroll_to=918225 Sun, 14 Jan 2018 16:51:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918224 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918224 That's a great example, Robert! If anything, projectors are more universal than TVs in classrooms. All of our classrooms where I work and where I worked previously, have computers and some form of a projector system but rarely have TVS anymore. It's an interesting parallel that the projector has "changed" in many ways but stayed the same as has the idea of the topic, old wine in new bottles. From the perspective of New York State common core, somehow students cannot do math or multiplication tables even though basic math has not changed one bit... Sun, 14 Jan 2018 16:40:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918223 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918223 I think this relates greatly to culture change that I am sure many have seen, more and more elementary school children and older have phones and access to technology at their whim. Not there this is a positive or a negative, but in the 90s and early 2000s access was an issue. Today, if you don't have wifi or internet you can go to McDonald's or Panera and gain access. It's less of a question of if a student knows how to use technology but rather, how well can they use it. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918222 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918222 That's interesting, Ashley. The only way my department was able to buy iPads was through a grant and I am not privy to how much they purchased them for. $200 definitely seems reasonable, quite comparable to what a textbook can cost and not be updated like a chromebook can be. Sun, 14 Jan 2018 16:32:17 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918221 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918221 Hi Robert, My background is in 2-year college as well and couldn't agree more. In my experience, those that teach at 2 year colleges tend to start their careers there and stay forever (this may have been an 80s, 90s early 2000s trend and changing now). These instructors had great resistance to this idea as well, but the ability of community college to reach more and more students and create programs for 2+2 programs forced the change. Community college started out as being the only education many people needed, which still holds true for some degrees, but that idea has changed greatly and the CC professors role has changed dramatically as well. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918220 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=918220 This idea relates greatly to a current issue in medical education. To graduate with an M.D. many schools require that students take Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) and Step 2 CS (clinical skills). This test was initially created to make sure that students could communicate medical terms and scenarios in the English language properly. Currently this is not much of an issue anymore and the test has become quite irrelevant and the company that puts it together has zero need for English to be tested and makes a great deal of money from the exam. Is it good to know if a student cannot pass this outdated test? Of course, but spending thousands of dollars on a test that could be adapted to current issues in medicine is a great point of contention. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=914133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92738?scroll_to=914133 In medical education, there is a big push towards flipped classrooms and interprofessional education. Both great ideas in theory, but need time and effort to be implemented properly. I think that it takes a special type of student to be able to do this. Active learning is not necessarily an inherent trait and students may need to be guided to get to that place in their education. I think it relates well to people who haven't taken an online course before, many think you just teach yourself and are left to your own devices. Everyone needs guiding in education, especially at an experimental/pilot level. Also, with the idea of grouping students together with diverse backgrounds and learning styles, a facilitator is necessary to begin the idea. Personally the idea of the student constructing their of knowledge is a stretch for me (based on the student body I work with at least). Without testing these teaching strategies on groups before impulsively just seeing in a study that it works well and doing it is a dangerous idea. Students can definitely learn different ideas and concepts from the same teaching strategies but I believe that happens naturally. Just trying out the latest strategy without investing a lot of time and effort and faculty development does not help the students in the longer term. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500