I just re-read Sunday’s blog post and the 18 comments that have been added to date. My own comment, responding to many of the criticisms, is number 19. But the one criticism that resonated most with me, which was probably most directly implied by Vejreska — well, I’d like to talk here on the surface of 2¢ Worth. What does this technology as platform look like in a classroom? …tomorrow?
The seminal statement in that blog post was something that I added as an afterthought — that
I’m talking about a shift from technology as gadget to technology as platform.
When we try to integrate the gadgets into the classroom, and, we, as one example, tackle problems like critically evaluating content found on the Internet, our tendency is to contrive a lesson(s) that teaches critical evaluation skills.
However, if we are thinking about the Internet (and most other things that have risen out of the personal computing revolution) as a platform, then our response might be to integrate into the everyday conversations of our instruction, questions like, “how do you know that’s true?”, “How might we prove that this information is relevant to our task?”, and statements like “I found this information by… and I validated it by…”
The conversations and show-and-tells that spring from these questions and statements become integral to the learning and to the development of a learning lifestyle.
Absolutely no need for apologies, V. My blogs are meant to be criticized. Sometimes they seem ready-made for it. As I said in my comment on your blog, none of us can say it all in a single blog post — especially me, Mr. A.D.D. It’s not what blogging is to me. If my ideas are criticized, then it is good. I’ve generated conversation and I’m learning from that — and there’s much more chance of it’s all being said if smarter people than me engage in the conversation.
Thanks for continuing the conversation…