Blog+response+2

In response to Matthew's blog post, Contrived, I think it's a somewhat arbitrary idea. Most of the curriculum is contrived, certainly in science and I suspect also in other KLAs. It seems inevitable that the use of tech in a contrived syllabus is going to seem contrived, at least some of the time. Also, the idea that the use of tech is contrived sets up a default of non-tech approaches, which is not my experience or that of many (but definitely not all!) students. How is using a whiteboard to present the model of the atom, for example, any more or less contrived than using a Power Point or a simulation? I know that there is an idea that you shouldn't use tech if it could be done just as well without it, but why? I use tech to do things in my life that could be done without it every day, why should the classroom be any different?

Having said that, I've seen utterly inappropriate use of technology in schools. Students in one school were asked to create a database about a natural disaster. It was ridiculous - the information wasn't relational, so a database was an inappropriate tool. Students had no idea why they were doing it (nor did the teachers). It didn't enhance the understanding of the material, nor did it teach a useful skill (who needs to know about databases anyway, unless you're headed for a career in them?).

Perhaps the point is that using tech when you don't understand it is the real problem. If you don't know how the tool works, what its strengths and weaknesses are and how you might be able to exploit them, trying to use the tool in the classroom is fraught.