The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification offers a model code of ethics for educators. The final section of the model concerns educational technology. This resource makes a great starting point for staff discussion.
I listen to many podcasts but have had difficulty finding educational podcasts I like. The Wired Educator podcast (Kelly Croy) is well done and the host seems able to get interview with ed tech luminaries.
I am not a fan of Twitter chats. These seem an example of the “I only have a hammer” mentality.
Twitter facilitates. It is the means to various ends. It may motivate the engagement some need to pursue certain ends. It may help you identify (discover) resources related to ends you want to achieve. However, if all you do is follow Twitter and maybe even tweet now and then, I would argue you are missing out on most learning opportunities.
The 140 character limit is the culprit here. Within this limit, you can be directed to meaningful content, but not experience meaningful content directly. You can direct others to content that you have learned from composing. However, the composition must occur elsewhere.
The 140 character limit combined with the time to post and read posts limits the efficiency of group conversations. I say this in reaction to what I have observed in group chat conversations. Limited time to think, limited time to produce, and a limit on what can be stated are a combination resulting in little accomplished. I think people like the experience of interacting in real time. They fail to take stock of what really gets done.
I think a tool not limiting input would address some of these challenges. So, for example, google hangouts allows both interactive audio and text chat. As long as participants come prepared my experience has been the conversations are richer.
It is my perception that preparation is an issue in most chats. Once lack of preparation becomes the norm, both the number of responses, the depth of responses, and even the questions posed change. If this is to be the situation, an old-fashioned discussion board makes more sense. There is no pressure to “shoot from the hip” and there is the opportunity to use earlier responses to generate ideas in new responses. An hour spent with this format while typically not synchronous would typically be more productive.
I just read a post lamenting the changed funding model for Kidblog. The post offered advice on other blogging platforms for kids now that Kidblog limits what can be done at no cost. I think $29 for a class for a year is pretty reasonable.
While I think I understand the financial pressures facing educators, I also would argue that individuals or companies cannot provide resources for classrooms without compensation. I think adults forget that many “free” resources they use are supported by ads and/or their own willingness to provide data in trade for use of the resources. These options are not allowed when offering opportunities to children.
There is a type of egocentrism in expectations regarding free online opportunities. Those of us who make a living as administrators or educators sometimes seem to forget that individuals working for these companies have to have an income as well. In theory, competing companies should offer other products should costs be out of line.
Politics is regarded as a touchy area for classroom discussions. As college profs, we were officially warned to be careful when we discussed issues and to be sensitive to taking sides. I must admit this “advice” was difficult to follow. When you are in the business of bringing data to bear in resolving issues, it is impossible to ignore positions that have political affiliations and the data may argue for a position some want to reject.
Anyway, my goal here is to recommend an examination of Google’s politics page. This Google+ page organizes posts and images related to political issues. Data visualizations are particularly impressive.
Returning to my initial personal comment concerning politics and education. Google states:
This page will focus on impartial data and digital trends surrounding the political process. We are non-partisan and don’t support or endorse any political candidates.
Like so many political positions, I suppose this claim is taken seriously only when the information provided fits your personal perspective.
It is late in the “hiring season” and some schools have yet to staff their classrooms. This challenge has reached the level it has generated coverage by the NY Times (North Dakota was not mentioned, but it appears the state has a similar problem).
I have relatives involved in both the education and health care “industries” so inconsistencies sometimes jump out at me. Remember before the compensation for nurses jumped how the health care industry was concerned about staffing challenges? I don’t remember that bringing in “community experts” to fill positions normally held by those with training was considered a solution. So, a nurse might teach biology, but a biologist could not be a nurse? A pharmacist could teach chemistry, but a chemistry teacher could not count out pills? Is this kind of the way things work?
Yes, this post is over the top. But, my point is that we accept ideas when applied to the profession of education we find ludicrous when applied to other professions.
