I am listening to a web 2.0 webinar being hosted by Vicki Davis and she just said something really interesting. She said that she would not have teachers use web 2.0 tools with their kids just to use web 2.0 tools. What a great statement. The same could be true for anything. Would you use crayons just to make sure you are using crayons? No. You would use crayons when crayons are needed and when crayons help achieve a goal or objective.
I was recently asked by a principal to create a scope and sequence of tech lessons for our computer labs. She asked me to do this because our classified lab assistants are going to be asked to “teach” classes to help cover teacher prep and they need help with this endeavor.
There are several things I see wrong with this. While I think there needs to be some amount of basic tech training I think this can be done in the context of a lesson and can also be modeled by the teacher during everyday instruction. During the webinar Vicki brought up the thought of using Atomic Learning as a means for students to learn the basics – what a thought.
I am having a hard time putting this into words but Web 2.0 tools and technology in general should be embedded within instruction to help support and extend learning. I would love to hear what others have to say about this. How is technology being “taught” in your school and district? Is it isolated? Is it embedded? A combination?
3 responses so far ↓
(with the caveat that it’s been over a year since I’ve been working directly with the Faculty of Education)
In Alberta, ICT is supposed to be integrated, so there should be no “computer class”. Unfortunately, this is not the case as resources and motivation often tend to be scare so ITC is hit and miss and we often end up with “hidden” computer classes – so Science will have computer time and then Social…
Some districts or schools are better than others, but regardless, it isn’t working as well as the gov’t had hoped.
We struggle with this in the library a lot too–I think the crayon example is a little off because I’d argue the “functions” of a crayon are more evident than some of the technology we’d like students to learn to use, however, I’m with you on the idea that it’s more useful to combine learning procedural skills/knowledge with learning content knowledge. The cool thing about web 2.0 is that it can provide a real-world audience to the work we’re asking students to do–they’re writing (or filming or whatever) for more than just the teacher or even just their class. However, just modeling/using web 2.0 tools doesn’t mean students will think critically about what it means to put information on the web, who owns it, who can change or copy it, how it is validated/checked/corrected, etc.. The technology isn’t really an end unto itself, but it’s not just a means to an end either.
Yeah, I think I went overboard with the crayon analogy but it fit my mood at the time. But I think you get my point. Thanks for the thoughts.
Leave a Comment