You know, every time I host a Voicethread conversation here on the Radical, I walk away professionally refreshed. There’s something incredibly satisfying about joining together with like minds for three days of thought!
And our recent conversation on Teaching the iGeneration was certainly no exception. Brilliant thoughts were shared, y’all, and if you didn’t have time to stop by, be sure to check out the daily summaries posted here, here and here.
But now, it’s time to take action. Good conversations are meaningless if they don’t result in change at the classroom, school and/or district level.
For me, those action steps will include:
Continuing to encourage teachers and principals to focus on teaching instead of technology: One of my favorite comments in our entire conversation came from Dan Greenberg, who wondered whether conversations about tools are actually preventing us from having conversations about good teaching.
It’s hard to believe, but our focused three-day conversation with Adam Garry and Meg Ormiston—authors of Teaching the iGeneration and Creating a Digital Rich Classroom respectively—is quickly coming to an end.
The end result is a conversation that will challenge your thinking! Take a few minutes exploring the summaries from the first and second days of our conversation and then poke through our thread online.
You might also be interested in the comments that I found most interesting today:
On slide 2, Dan Greenberg—who has started a ton of interesting strands in this conversation—talks about all of the devices that today’s students typically own but that we don’t allow them to use in our schools.
Dan’s point was echoed on slide 4 by Renee Moore, who works in a system that struggles to meet the hardware needs of its schools. Easing restrictions prohibiting students from using their own tools in schools, Renee believes, might just help schools integrate technology in tough budget times.
So we’ve made it through Day 2 of our conversation on teaching for tomorrow with digital change experts Adam Garry and Meg Ormiston, authors of Teaching the iGeneration and Creating a Digital Rich Classroom respectively, and I’m loving the time that we’re spending together!
Every time that I stop by the conversation, I have my own thinking challenged, that’s for sure. And that’s what I love the most about the Web 2.0 world: I get to learn from people that I’ve never even met.
If you haven’t had a chance to join us in Voicethread yet and you’re looking for a way to catch up on the conversation quickly, consider checking out this summary of yesterday’s interactions.
Also, here are some highlights from today’s discussion:
Steve Kabachia—a teacher of English Language Arts and Humanities in Central Alberta—started an interesting strand on the very first slide of our presentation when he asked how teachers working with Web 2.0 and mobile technologies in the classroom can best deal with the support and/or interference from stakeholders.
That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? In my experiences as a teacher using technology, the only given is that there is ALWAYS going to be support AND interference from stakeholders!
Our iGeneration Voicethread is off to a great start, y'all! Your comments—which are coming from everyone from classroom teachers to professional development providers and principals—are all fantastic and will definitely spark thinking
Keep it up, huh? By Saturday afternoon, we'll all have a better understanding of the possibilities and pitfalls of teaching for tomorrow.
If you're interested in finding interesting strands quickly, try these:
Becky Goerend starts an interesting strand
on slide one when she points out that students in rural communities don't often have
an awareness of what's possible with digital tools simply because their lives haven't been as heavily influenced by opportunities to reach beyond
the local community.
That makes me wonder how effective digital change
efforts in rural communities differ from digital change efforts in urban
or suburban communities.
There are constant conversations about the urgency of
introducing economically disadvantaged students to technology. Do we
need the same urgency in introducing rural students to technology?