Well, our first week is nearly done and almost everyone is aboard! Thanks everyone for your introductions and conviviality. It looks like we`ll be a fine mob. It also seems that everyone has revved up on our blog workspace without any trouble, but if you have any problems or questions, don`t hesitate to ask. Tonight […]
Continue reading A Good Crowd Posted in: Announcements, Uncategorized, Week 01: Introductions A first greeting from your instructor along with some information about the course and an outline of your work for the first week.
Continue reading Welcome to ETEC522! Posted in: Announcements, Week 01: Introductions General instructions about posting to this weblog.
Continue reading Your Postings Appear Here Posted in: Announcements
Before you publish your posting, please make sure that you select a category (eg. Introductions) as well as assign some meaningful tags (keywords).
Jim 3:35 pm on September 7, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi David,
I am really looking forward to this course. You invited comments about the New York Times article so here I go…
I completely disagree with most of Randy Yerrick’s points in the New York TImes article. It appears as though Yerrick is citing research that is looking at engagement and test scores. What I think is always the missing, but most important piece, is how the *teacher* is using the technology within a solid instructional design. You can’t just dump millions of dollars of technology into schools and expect it to have an effect on learning (as measured by “test scores”) but this article makes it sound like that is exactly what they are looking at. The Maine study should have been a clue–they had difficulty separating the effects of the technology from the effects of the teaching. I think if you really think about this, the teacher’s instructional design will always have a significant effect on learning… if technology is used effectively in that instructional design, then that is great, but it is still the teacher’s decisions regarding implementation that counted, not the technology per se.
Where I do agree with Yerrick is in his assessment of “engagement.” It is a fluffy term and I wish educational technologists would stop using it when trying to justify technology in classrooms.
The article notes a lot of dollar figures about the millions spent on technology but it doesn’t really say how much, if any at all, was spent on training the teachers to use the technology effectively with students, in ways that would maximize student success.
I really like Mark Share’s point that he makes in the signature of each of his emails: “It’s not the stuff that counts — it’s what you do with it that matters.” That’s exactly right.
David William Price 12:05 pm on September 9, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Re the importance of design, the fluffiness of engagement, the failure to separate pedagogy from technology in producing results… Amen Brother.
bcourey 9:48 am on September 10, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You are speaking my language! If I ever use the engagement term in my office, my Director winces…he agrees that it is a fluffy word that rarely translates into improved achievement. As he stated, “if I walked into a classroom in a clown suit, they would sure be engaged too…and I would not have had to spend much money at all…But would they learn…not likely”…same with the technology. If learning theory understanding and sound pedagogical practice do not accompany the technology, then you have wasted a lot of money and time..