- Downloaded and listened to session 3 podcast.
- Took podcast notes.
- Read other scholar's responses.
- Posted comments on other scholar's blogs.
- Worked to develop project ideas.
- Submitted project ideas to Dr. Newberry and solicited feedback.
- After some e-mail exchanges, my project ideas were clear to be posted in my blog.
- posted response to Session 3 questions.
- Finalized project proposals.
- Published project proposals.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
SESSION 3
Can Technology Integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy?
I downloaded and listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast regarding what he termed his technology integration "hierarchy". In his podcast, Dr. Newberry explained what he preceived to be five ascending levels of technology integration in the American classroom. Dr. Newberry described these levels, starting with the lowest as the Adjunt or Peripheral State of Technology Integration, followed by the next level in this case termed as the Use of Computers by Teachers as a Tool. The next level of technology integration was the Non-Integrated Use of Computers. The fourth level was called the Integrated Use of computers as a Student Tool. The highest level of technolgy integration was termed Transformation.
My answer to Dr. Newberry's question as to whether technology integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy, is the following:
First of all, the question of adequacy is to a large degree a subjective one; by that I mean to say that as long as the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross does make sense to the receiving party, namely the students, that makes it right for the idea to be termed adequate.
Secondly, the question of correctness is of no consequence, since there is no right or wrong way to express technology integration. The key point to remember here is that the analogy gives the student a reference point by which the student can grasp the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross to everyone in his lectures. If this method is successful, then it can be deemed correct.
Since there is no right or wrong way to adequately and correctly express technology integration, then any expression that serves the purpose is also just as adequate and correct; therefore, we could conceivably say that technology integration can also be represented as a bell-shaped curve, that technology integration can be represented as a pyramid, a ladder, as different levels of strata, etc.
In conclusion, what someone chooses to describe technology integration is not important; rather, whether the type of imagery used that successfully conveys the key idea is what makes it adequate and or correct.
We scholars see different things to represent the same thing; as long as we end up with the same mental conclusion, we all are in the same page; for there is an underlying common denominator we all can converge to.
In conclusion, to answer Dr. Newberry's question: you perceive a hierarchy and I perceive a strata; nevertheless, we both understand the underlying concept. Dr. Newberry, based on the aforementioned facts, it is POSSIBLE for Technology Integration in the American classroom to be adequately and correctly expressed as a hierarchy.
I downloaded and listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast regarding what he termed his technology integration "hierarchy". In his podcast, Dr. Newberry explained what he preceived to be five ascending levels of technology integration in the American classroom. Dr. Newberry described these levels, starting with the lowest as the Adjunt or Peripheral State of Technology Integration, followed by the next level in this case termed as the Use of Computers by Teachers as a Tool. The next level of technology integration was the Non-Integrated Use of Computers. The fourth level was called the Integrated Use of computers as a Student Tool. The highest level of technolgy integration was termed Transformation.
My answer to Dr. Newberry's question as to whether technology integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy, is the following:
First of all, the question of adequacy is to a large degree a subjective one; by that I mean to say that as long as the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross does make sense to the receiving party, namely the students, that makes it right for the idea to be termed adequate.
Secondly, the question of correctness is of no consequence, since there is no right or wrong way to express technology integration. The key point to remember here is that the analogy gives the student a reference point by which the student can grasp the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross to everyone in his lectures. If this method is successful, then it can be deemed correct.
Since there is no right or wrong way to adequately and correctly express technology integration, then any expression that serves the purpose is also just as adequate and correct; therefore, we could conceivably say that technology integration can also be represented as a bell-shaped curve, that technology integration can be represented as a pyramid, a ladder, as different levels of strata, etc.
In conclusion, what someone chooses to describe technology integration is not important; rather, whether the type of imagery used that successfully conveys the key idea is what makes it adequate and or correct.
We scholars see different things to represent the same thing; as long as we end up with the same mental conclusion, we all are in the same page; for there is an underlying common denominator we all can converge to.
In conclusion, to answer Dr. Newberry's question: you perceive a hierarchy and I perceive a strata; nevertheless, we both understand the underlying concept. Dr. Newberry, based on the aforementioned facts, it is POSSIBLE for Technology Integration in the American classroom to be adequately and correctly expressed as a hierarchy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
