Group items tagged

Students have often more seamlessly integrated technology into their lives than their teachers and didn’t even need to take a class on it.

Some teachers assume that clicking on a SmartBoard or having students type their papers mean that they are “integrating” tech.

There seems to be no urgency when it comes to actual technology integration into the classroom, but more of an urgency on how to buy the flashiest gadgets and then offer limited training or support.

Briefly, Education 1.0, 2.0. and 3.0 is explained as: Education 1.0 can be likened to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.  It is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking standardized tests which in reality is all students taking the same test. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics.  All are viewed as the same.  It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education. Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert.  Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves.  Education 2.0 has progressive roots where the human element is important to learning.  The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process.  It focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating. Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available as is characteristic of Web 3.0. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists.  These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0.  Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-directed learner rather than doing learning as facilitated by the educator. Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education

Fortunately, in a classroom where students already use technology, it’s a simple matter to incorporate a digital citizenship component into any lesson — all while meeting both the ISTE Standards and the Common Core. For example, teachers have the opportunity to address digital citizenship whenever students: 1. Create digital presentations

2. Study historical figures or literary characters Prompt students to think about how they present themselves online — and what it means to leave a digital footprint — by creating fake social media profiles for the characters they’re studying in history or English classes. “If Lincoln had a Twitter feed, what would he tweet? Get students to think about how these characters might present themselves online,” Mendoza said. “Reframe social media to look at how the characters might have exemplified themselves in a digital world and how it might have impacted them.” Add another dimension to this activity by using characters that have two very distinct sides to their personalities, such as Jekyll and Hyde. “It helps them think about how sometimes people present themselves online in a whole different way than they really are in person and why we might share things about ourselves that might not really be in line with who we are in person.”

Anytime students create content to share online, teachers can supplement the lesson with an age-appropriate discussion about copyright and fair use. Mendoza suggests going beyond simply showing students how to properly cite ideas and images. “Flip the tables on them. When they’re creating and sharing their work with the world online, ask them: How do you want other people to use your work? Would you want other people to make a profit off it, share it or alter it? That’s when it really hits home,” she said.

Edtech Priorities for Educators: No Shiny Toys! In addition to the above issues, educators clearly stated that the purpose of edtech should never be to replace a teacher. Instead, edtech products should: Relieve administrative burdens; Increase the efficacy of teachers; Deepen the relation among students and teachers; Embed assessment directly into daily learning experience; Amplify the reach of effective teachers; Empower students to become creators; And ultimately, keep the humanity in education and create more equality of opportunities.

Here’s a combined list from all 18 groups: The best interests of students must always be first and foremost. Tools should fill a REAL need for teaching/learning (not solutions in search of a problem). Ask teachers and talk to administrators at every stage of the design process. Have open, balanced conversations among all stakeholders. The introduction of edtech should include ongoing targeted meaningful staff development that is preferably teacher led. Student data must be secure: edtech companies should be open and clear about their use of data and information. Education technology should continually be tested in classrooms. The larger community should be included in the selection and implementation of edtech. If solutions claim to be research-based, they need to be truly research based. We need to know more about what works based on real data. Access should be reasonable and appropriate for all stakeholders. Compensate teachers who are product developers for their works. Similarly, compensate educators for providing extensive feedback and help with product development. Structure the ways teachers can provide feedback and interact with new tools as forms for professional development. Research should include recommendations that address the socio-emotional implications of using technology products. Districts should provide thought leadership on their theory of learning to help drive appropriate product development that aligns with district priorities.

Everything should revolve around the learner.