technology business. As such, my perspective on this evolving topic is =20=
largely informed by what I see as an potential employer and someone =20
deeply involved in the technology/software business.
Bill makes some great points...
My test of computer-literacy has little to do with what 'programs' =20
people know. R=E9sum=E9s that list specific word-processing program =
skills =20
(e.g. Expert in Word, Excel...) actually suggest something negative =20
than positive. =46rom my perspective, it is better to expose students =20=
to patterns-of-use then to application-skills; that one is an expert =20
in MS Word but untrained in OO Writer or Google Docs or The Next =20
Greatest Word Processor has very little relevance on this side of the =20=
industry. We use it all, and we expect a meta-fluency in software =20
programs, not fluency in specific toolsets. A skills-based curriculum/=20=
approach may actually be counter-productive in my experience, though =20
I'll submit that my personal experiences do not make for a statistical =20=
case.
Alex said:
Though there is certainly a point of infinite regression, I think we =20
need to look for change in tools, when that change makes sense, and =20
push for it. Our students need to get used to new systems, new tools, =20=
new processes. That is the only certainly for which we can prepare =20
them. Today it is Office 2007 or GIMP. Tomorrow it is something that =20=
hasn't been written...and maybe by one (or several) of our students.
We don't teach students to play video games, yet they learn to play =20
the next greatest game without our need to offer video-game-playing =20
instructions. I'll posit that we don't have to worry preparing kids =20
for changes in software, though we should support the free and =20
unhindered exploration of whatever enables them to be better learners =20=
and thinkers. Nonetheless, I do understand that schools have real-=20
world administrative, political, or budgetary demands. We want =20
students to use computers but we want to do so in a such a way that is =20=
administratively tenable. We like uniform environments, common =20
practices, things that keep the chaos of change at bay. Yet, I wonder =20=
sometimes if the need to standardize on platforms or curriculums have =20=
less to do with any real pedagogical outcomes than on the impulse to =20
satisfy these those business-demands.
To be clear, these non-pedagogical reasons may be perfectly valid, but =20=
it seems to me that we ought not to confuse the them with the business =20=
of teaching any sort of computer literacy.
But the original poster asked if anyone had a good curriculum for =20
OpenOffice. Regrettably, I do not. However, I think any sort of 'good' =20=
curriculum should have the following features:
* it is grounded in problem solving, not in learning particular =20
features or skills
* it is about good writing, thinking and communicating, not about good =20=
word-processing or slide-making
myVeryHumble2Cents( )
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Bill Fitzgerald wrote:
> Hello, all,
>
> I'm reading this thread and coming at it from two places: first, an =20=
> ex-technology director who had the responsibility/pleasure of making =20=
> technology decisions regarding platforms and applications for =20
> schools; and second, from the perspective of an open source =20
> developer --
>
> The argument about "preparing students for the real world" falls a =20
> little flat when it comes to many technology issues, especially when =20=
> it comes to productivity suites like office. The basic skills =20
> required are common among *any* platform; employers also offer =20
> training for new employees; and besides, many entry-level tasks are =20=
> moving to the browser as companies find they can save money by =20
> moving to web-based tools.
>
> I argue that we do students more of a service by teaching critical =20
> thinking skills that can be applied cross-platform, cross-tool. More =20=
> importantly, we do students a disservice by tethering their problem-=20=
> solving abilities to the options presented within one software =20
> package. If all you have is a hammer, every problem's a nail.
>
> And with that said, I do understand one piece of the argument that =20
> identifies Macs as the tool of choice for video editing.
>
> But still, using tools as the basis of our technological decisions =20
> will not serve us well in all cases. The choice of tools should =20
> start with a clear analysis of educational outcomes, and we should =20
> select the tools that best support those outcomes -- and, as TCO =20
> relates to access to computers, which relates to ability to achieve =20=
> some educational outcomes, Open Source has a role to play in these =20
> discussions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> [ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
> Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, =20
> attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
> RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=3DISED-L
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=3DISED-L
