As I mentioned in one of my posts, so many great quotes came out of the readings, that I had no idea where to begin. I shared with my colleagues the view points on PowerPoint. Most of them found them to be realistic and appreciated that someone, not myself, had actually challenged the validity of PP.

I myself, was very much drawn into the Heidegger article. His notion that technology is a revealing mechanism, tied directly to what we do, could not have more articulated my long term belief that our technological discoveries are/were somewhat “designed”. I found that there were too many interconnectedness(es) between what we had known, what we know now, and what we will discover in the future.

On a side note. I did appreciate the news that nerds/gamers were able to crack a code in three weeks that scientists could not crack in 10 years. http://gizmodo.com/5841782/gamers-crack-code-that-could-lead-to-new-aids-treatments

I was hoping to getting to this earlier on in the week, but I feel a little behind.

I very much enjoyed the readings from week one. I found the trouble of settling on a proper definition (or theory of) of educational technology to be as honest as expected. The dynamic nature of technology I believe will always be shifting the view of what ET is or will be. I always like to remind myself that technology is just a tool. It cannot take the place of what a teacher is possible capable of doing. I was fortunate enough during the first week of school to have a discussion with my librarian about the purchasing of overhead lab cameras. He ask me my opinion on them. I told him, think of the steps you need to make this work. First, you need the camera, then the LCD projector, then a computer as a medium between the two. And unless the LCD/computer/camera is constantly on in a fixed location, it is time consuming to put it all together. Would it not be easier just to create a station/display for the students to come and explore? In the end, for me, ET needs to be unobtrusive, much as chalk is.

Cheers,
Ryan.