I've not had an opportunity to view the resources you graciously provided, =
but I wanted to respond to some of your remarks. First, you are an excellen=
t horse whisperer, so let's talk about what that entails. My fear regarding=
institution-wide change is that it asks all teachers to respond in unison.=
The net result is that some will dig in their heels, and slow down the pro=
cess of change. My strategy has always been to work with one teacher or a s=
mall group, aiming for incremental progress until that "aha' moment, when I=
no longer push lightly, but simply act as a resource. The progress these f=
ew individuals make acts as a contagion for others.
> Schools that have embarked on 1:1 programs discover that technology does
> change teachers' thinking about pedagogy.
I have a slightly different take on your observation. First, I think the im=
pact you describe extends beyond 1:1 programs to any true technology integr=
ation. Second, I'm not certain the result is always a change in teacher thi=
nking, but IMHO technology integration makes pedagogy explicit - where it w=
as formerly implicit. Putting your cards on the pedagogical table creates t=
he conditions to change one's thinking.
Joel
--=20
Joel Backon
Director of Academic Technology / History
Choate Rosemary Hall
333 Christian St.
Wallingford, CT 06492
203-697-2514
On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Fred Bartels wrote:
> Joel,
>=20
> How do we convince our faculties that educational transformation is a goo=
d
> idea? Many of us have been making this argument for decades. This
> approach also is not a silver bullet.
>=20
> Perhaps our definition of technology needs to be rethought, as Kevin Kell=
y
> proposes in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/770
>=20
> Schools that have embarked on 1:1 programs discover that technology does
> change teachers' thinking about pedagogy. It happens more slowly than man=
y
> of us expected but it is happening. The horses do eventually start drinki=
ng.
> Especially if you have a nice horse whisperer on campus.
>=20
> Robbie McClintock's work provides many interesting ideas related to this
> discussion.
>=20
> http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publicAtions/mcclintock.html
>=20
> McClintock developed this work in concert with Dalton's innovative effort=
s
> to infuse a school with computer technology back in the early 1990s. More
> about Dalton's experience can be found here:
> http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=3D14432=
7
>=20
> Dalton was unable to sustain the technology infrastructure they developed
> because it was funded by a large one-time gift with a stipulation that it
> all be spent over a few years. Now, 15 years on, Dalton is seriously
> considering a 1:1 program. We are indeed slow to change. :-)
>=20
> Fred
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Backon, Joel <jbackon@choate.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> Hi Jason,
>>=20
>> I think you, Bill, Fred, Pat, and others are all on the same team. We ar=
e
>> all working for the same goal of educational transformation, knowing tha=
t
>> each school has its own unique set of challenges as well as common
>> challenges. What has been most fascinating about this thread is its
>> evolution from a discussion of technology to a discussion of education. =
We
>> began with questions such as "Why doesn't every school have a 1:1 progra=
m?"
>> Now we are hearing questions about the quality of education, knowing tha=
t
>> technology is an integral part of that quality and transformation, but n=
ot
>> the silver bullet. I would suggest that if we can convince our faculties
>> that educational transformation is a good idea, they will then buy into =
the
>> real integration of technology. But the converse is not universally the =
case
>> - the technology will not necessarily lead the horses to water - but onc=
e
>> there, the technology will make them drink the Kool Aid. Let's keep the
>> discussion going, even though the conference is over. Spring is all abou=
t
>> renewal. The timing is right.
>>=20
>> Joel
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> [ For info on ISED-L see https://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=3D1288=
74 ]
> 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
[ For info on ISED-L see https://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=3D128874 ]
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
