It’s Not About The Wires
I attended the EARCOS Teachers’ Conference in Manila a few weeks ago. I was struck by the fact that most (though not all) of the technology sessions offered focused on the technology and not on the learning that is enhanced through the technology. They focused on learning the software rather than applying the software to teaching or the underlying thinking that could be taught by using the software. Perhaps that’s the way it has to be. Perhaps that’s how we learn. In other words, we must first learn how to use the nuts and bolts of a piece of software or hardware before we can apply it to a learning environment. Perhaps only once we know a piece of software and use it in a familiar way can we then innovate and begin to apply it to new situations and fundamentally change teaching and learning. If this is true, then when do we take the focus off the wires–the software or hardware–and put it on the learning and thinking? Too often we explicitly teach how to use a new piece of technology or software and just expect teachers to figure out how to apply it in a learning situation. Educators should be explicitly taught how to use new software as well as why and when to use it.
[...] More NECC Reflections Filed under: , technology education, NECC06, — Rob @ 11:59 pm I’m still thinking about some of the things I heard at NECC. Perhaps it’s because I’m still working through blogs and podcasts from the conference. (It’s been great to catch sessions I was unable to attend while I was there.)Some time ago I wrote a post entitled It’s Not About The Wires where I suggested that technology education is not about gadgets for the sake of gadgets but about the thinking students do as a result of using technology. I think that is why Alan November’s session Teaching Zack to Think resonated well with me. My ideas were challenged by Gary Stager during his session Preventing Your One-to-one Dreams From Becoming Nightmares. He said it is about the technology. At first I wasn’t sure if his thesis contradicted my earlier thinking but upon reflection I realized it didn’t. The thinking that goes into a technology project is fundamentally different than the thinking in another type of project. For example, the thinking involved in a Lego robotics project is the way it is because of the technology being used. I am not a programmer. When I first started teaching I taught programming in Basic but that was a long time ago. I know enough to know that there is a way of thinking that fits programming. Programming necessitates a certain “approach” to a problem. That approach is a way of thinking. I agree with Stager. The technology is important. It’s important because of the way it shapes thinking. It’s important because it demands a discipline of thought that is not used in all other areas of education and life. [...]