Educator or Technologist?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stu on April 29, 2008 at 3:24pm

I think back to MOST under grad classes...be happy if you think only ONE class seems pointless...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erik Johnson on April 29, 2008 at 4:20pm

Thank you for this simple point.

Also important is that graduate degrees are not always supposed to be predictable. My courses that surprised me and offered the greatest options for development were those that I gave my energy even though I didn't see the point. College courses are unfortunately rather simple lately and contain more hoops than I would rather count. Personally, I would rather have an advanced program that offered options when I was finished than a class of hoops that I could have predicted from the beginning.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by CIndyLane on April 29, 2008 at 6:57pm

I'm in your shoes here in St. Louis..yeah, I found out I have to take a course about xhtml and dreading it...can we focus on EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY please! I think the graduate programs should be reassessed...I'm sure, back in the day, that class might have been important...I soooo agree!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by indigo196 on April 29, 2008 at 7:34pm

What do you define as educational technology?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Barbara Wright on April 29, 2008 at 8:24pm

I'm in library school, and took classes that did both. I found the class that taught about using creative Internet tools more immediately practical, but I'm glad I also learned to code. You can make better sites when you can code it yourself.
We are a small district, but our Tech specialists just help us with computer problems. We get sent out for extra lessons.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nlowell on April 29, 2008 at 8:55pm

The real job of the Educational Technologist is to advise teachers on which tools might be appropriate for the teacher to use to reach a particular educational goal. Toward that end, the Educational Technologist needs to know a LOT of technology in order to be able to advise the teacher. Not just computer technology but all kinds of tech. How to make a good bulletin board, for example.

Educational Technologists need to know a lot of Educational Psychology. Not just child development, but actual learning theories, applications, and how those various theories and models are applied in a variety of settings. Classroom, for one.

Educational Technologists need to know a lot about learning and the neurophysiology of the brain.

Educational Technologists need to keep up with current research. Did you see that study that indicates that boys and girls *process* lessons differently? The research team used CAT scans to examine the activation centers in the brains of boys and girls. Major implications for lesson planning.

Educational Technologists need to know about the financial implications of platform selection. Too often those decisions are left in the hands of people who are being swayed by advertisements and pretty pictures without understanding the wider implications and costs of what it is they're buying.

Educational Technologists need to know about books and other print based tech. How obsolete are the new texts? How can a school protect itself from the costs involved.

Educational Technologists need to know about the law. Title 17 is critical. There's a movement out there that is claiming that education really has a lot more "right" than "copyright" seems to provide. Are they correct? What are the rules of thumb and how can you be sure you're not breaking the law? "Fair Use" is a defense and can only be determined after you're in court. Who's paying the lawyers?

Oh, and yea, they need to know a variety of code, hardware, tools, and applications so they can advise the teachers who rely on them to provide the kinds of specialized knowledge that a *teacher* shouldn't have to worry about because they have Educational Technologists to advise them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by indigo196 on April 29, 2008 at 9:11pm

Very well said.

"Educational Technologists need to know about the financial implications of platform selection. Too often those decisions are left in the hands of people who are being swayed by advertisements and pretty pictures without understanding the wider implications and costs of what it is they're buying."

Especially that part.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Durkan on April 30, 2008 at 4:38am

I so agree with that. I recently reviewed a colleague's review on development tools. One product made me laugh; it had styled itself as an e-learning management system. It was clear from a quick reading of their blurb that they were peddling an unremarkable CMS and had written a spiel to try and tie it in with e-learning development. I couldn't shake off the image of the Simpson's Troy McClure delivering this spiel complete with 'air quotes'.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Greg Thompson on April 29, 2008 at 9:54pm

nlowell,

While I appreciate what you had to offer, I think a number of the aspects you identified are part and parcel of what one could identify as a teacher. I spent a lot of time learning about the neurophysiology of the brain, learning styles theories, and Ed Psych while I was a classroom teacher . . . I would not ascribe these areas as merely the realm of EdTechs - but all teachers (and I am going out on a limb here thinking that many EdTechs are teachers . . . or am I).

I see your definition as an equation of teacher + IT = EdTech. Not sure I can buy that scenario. It is entirely possible for an EdTech to work with their school/district IT staff to arrive at the best solutions and plans - drawing on the expertise of the IT staff for the final decision on platform, legal issues, licenses, and coding. Knowing code isn't going to help the classroom teacher - most are not going to find the time, much less the desire, to learn to code pages. It would be superfluous for an EdTech to know a variety of code as they would find little need to educate the rest of the faculty in this area.

An EdTech needs to be able to see the big picture in terms of available tools and learning theory. They need to have a clear vision of education that takes it from the current status quo to something that doesn't yet exist. They need to be able to assess the adoption quotient of any given member of their staff in order to pair them up with appropriate hardware and software that the teacher themselves can see the benefit of - being a matchmaker if you will.

I feel to often leadership confuses IT with EdTech. Some of what you have identified is about the management/maintenance of available hardware and software - which is the realm of IT. Some is applicable to all teachers regardless of tech issues. The EdTech leader needs to be a visionary who sees the possibilities that tech can afford the classroom teacher in the process of "architecting" the learning environment. The EdTech is going to provide a new vision of learning and help teachers take the steps toward that end - being a visionary is the most crucial quality.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by indigo196 on April 30, 2008 at 4:07am

"The EdTech is going to provide a new vision of learning and help teachers take the steps toward that end - being a visionary is the most crucial quality."

Is this not the province of the Director of Technology and the Asst. Super of Curriculum?

How visionary can a person be when all they know is the 'end user' experience and sales pitches?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nlowell on April 30, 2008 at 4:44am

I wouldn't argue that these notions and ideas are the sole property of the Ed Tech, either. Forgive me if I gave that impression. I listed that not-comprehensive list of disparate knowledge base ideas to try to dispel the notion that an educational technologist's role is as limited as the discussion-starter post indicates.

You're absolutely right. It is possible for a school district to arrive at the best solutions even without the aid of any trained Ed Tech people in the equation. I would suggest that having somebody fully informed across a variety of levels -- micro and macro -- increases the probability of a "best solution" and expands the universe of "best solutions." That wasn't really the question.

We keep coming back to the generalized blanket statement, "It would be superfluous for an EdTech to know a variety of code as they would find little need to educate the rest of the faculty in this area." Using that logic it's superfluous for an EdTech to know anything. The idea of the EdTech is NOT to 'educate the rest of the faculty' but rather to teach EACH faculty the piece they need to know.

Personally, I happen to think that HTML and CSS are really valuable tools for certain classroom applications. I could see them used in middle school math classes. I could see them used in high school computer classes. I could see them applied very handily in a variety of contexts. No, not the only tools and maybe not the best tools, but still very good for teaching logic, layout, and process. It would depend on the context, but the point is that if I don't know these tools, how they work, and how they might be applied, then I can't recommend them in *any* context.

It's true that leadership confuses Information Technology with Educational Technology. It's happening in this thread, actually.

Finally, I agree with your statements about being a visionary. I would submit that having a firm grasp in both domains would yield better results than suggesting that limiting the knowledge base would, somehow, produce a better vision.

JMO. YMMV.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Greg Thompson on April 30, 2008 at 7:47am

There seems to be a sort of generalized picture that occurs within the arena of technology in education. Network Admins/IT staff tend to see the "1's and 0's" side of things and how to connect teachers, learners, and classrooms with the infrastructure to use technology as a means to facilitate learning. Educational Technologists tend to see the ways in which technologies can facilitate learning and transform the learning environment. I would not argue against the idea that there can be a blending of the two along the edges in some situations - and am sure that happens often.

However, for the classroom teacher the most personally valued commodity is time. There is never enough of it. I am not going to launch into a soapbox tirade about the overworked aspect of teaching as that should be obvious to even the most casual observer. The connection here is that learning HTML or CSS, while with unarguable benefit, isn't necessary for a teacher to implement technological change in their classroom. The few earlier adopters are going to learn HTML, CSS, or even Java on their own because it is in their interest area and they will make it fit into the limited time they have. They may very well find wonderful applications for these languages in their curriculum development. Most teachers, however, are not early adopters and can't fathom taking the time to learn a mark-up language much less see the value in learning it. For this majority someone with a basic understanding of 1's and 0's, an expertise in hands-on usage, and a vision for the transforming power of educational technology is needed.

I appreciate the picture of where you see things like HTML and CSS might fit. I won't argue that there are direct applications for these tools in those curricular venues, and maybe many more, but the issue is providing teachers with the most comfortable avenues into the Educational Technology world. Since most teachers are not early adopters, or even part of the second wave, the Educational Technologist's most effective approach is creating a vision for teachers using tools that don't require a level of expertise in the underlying infrastructure. While it is nice for a school/district's IT staff to have "big picture" vision of educational technology it is essential that the Educational Technologist have it. To be able to understand the learning environment of the teacher they are working with, understand the complexities of the neurophysiology of the brain, learning styles theories, and Ed Psych are all necessary in the toolbox of the Educational Technologist.

The Educational Technologist needs to be able to see the application of, Twitter for instance, within the context of a curricular opportunity and be able to guide the teacher through; learning about Twitter, developing a level of personal comfort with it, seeing the possibilities, and building on that as they use it to architect learning opportunities in the classroom. Too often I have heard stories about a constant battle between the classroom teacher and the IT staff. The teacher is frustrated because they see an opportunity to use an available resource and their school/district network blocks it or filters it so heavily that it can't do what they had envisioned. The Educational Technologist needs to be able to articulate the vision to the IT staff so they can see the need to find a way to securely and safely allow the implementation of Twitter with in the learning context. (Twitter is just one of many possible options - feel free to replace it with the tool of your choice)

I don't disagree that understanding the underlying languages or the 1's and 0's doesn't have some benefit, all learning as some benefit to the learner - but it isn't necessary. The Educational Technologist can, and often does, have a wonderful vision of how technology can change the learning environment - not just re-gentrify it, but really change it into something living, fluid, dynamic - without a breadth of knowledge of the underlying code. My comment about this level of knowledge being superfluous was predicated on the reality that within a school environment if an EdTech comes across a teacher desiring to learn HTML or CSS they have found an earlier adopter, and as I mentioned earlier, someone who will probably go out and learn that for themselves. It is, of course, is a plus if they (Educational Technologist) can provide some direction, but that teacher is probably already on their way. So, an EdTech is more effective if they have the ability to build, facilitate, and nurture a larger vision of how technology can be used to reinvent schooling, as opposed to being able to teach a small minority of teachers to code or use mark-up languages.

And of course, this is all JMO. : )

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5