Search this site
Other stuff

All banner artwork by Brady Johnson, college student and (semi-) starving artist.

My latest books:


        Available now

       Available Now

Available now 

My book Machines are the easy part; people are the hard part is now available as a free download at Lulu.

 The Blue Skunk Page on Facebook


EdTech Update




« Flattening world | Main | Totally divorced from reality? »

Are we moving ahead or backward?

It took me awhile, but I finally found the webpage "77 Ways Teachers Are Using Technology in the Classroom in District 77" I created 10 years ago. What spurred the search was a "gee whiz" article on students following some online expedition somewhere. I thought. "Why are we still exclaiming about things like this after having been doing them for a decade or more?"

As I look at the list, I can't help but think we may well have gone backwards in the past 10 years. The focus in classrooms today is so tight on reading, writing, math and test scores fewer teachers seem willing to try something new (and exciting.)

Plus our tech efforts still seem so scattershot. Why do we not have the same level of sophistication regarding technology and information literacy curricula as we have for reading, math, writing and the content areas - or commitment to implementing such a curricula?

Big sigh... 

(Oh, I finally found this webpage on our isd77 server when I accidentally typed the search term "77 ways" into Google when I thought I was typing it into Spotlight. Amazing.)

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

I hate to say it, but "scattershot" is too often the way other curriculae are approached, too. The number of times I've heard "We need to take a K-12 approach in....." is too large, especially when the curriculae we DO then develop are often great paperweights.

Cynically, Sara
March 5, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterSara Kelly Johns
I did a 3 hour presentation yesterday at the Nevada State Educational Technology Conference here in Reno. I had them doing things with Flickr and Filamentality and and some digital video. I asked how many out of the 22 participants had a digital camera - (3) How many had taken pictures of class activities or trips (1) The good news was that they all seemed to be enthusiastic about FINALLY really doing some of this. Your 10 year old list would be overwhelming for most teachers today - they would be aware of many of the activities on your list - but not aware of many also.
I've just moved into the bloggosphere myself as of yesterday - only 1 posting so far - but it's a start!
Keep up the good fight!
March 5, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBrian Crosby
Think it must be the synchrony of being "another year, and another year,and another year, more fabulous" Doug.

I work with the "Magnet for Misadventure" who makes the same noises about "student inquiry" and "students as researchers" initiatives, as we work our way around schools in New Zealand -

and I am just tweaking a position paper which in part states

"Learning to think through gaming has been around so long it ranks as traditional pedagogy. “Cutting edge” initiatives and claims of innovation when looking at learning through educational computer gaming are put in perspective when you realise that Scriven (1988) argued over 17 years ago that

<i>"Computer games, including arcade-type games, represent the most important educational software resource available today. If one includes reasonable extrapolations from the present examples, they could become the most important educational resource (for the schools) of all kinds, not excluding books. Even the most-condemned commercial games are strongly focused on educationally significant skills and attitudes and offer unique opportunities to teach them. (Scriven, 1988, p1.)""</i>
March 6, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterArtichoke

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>