Discussion Post #2: Nat’l Educ Tech Plan
The authors envision a future in which ubiquitous technology is used by students for learning purposes. Many students are continuously connected to their devices today for two purposes: entertainment and communication. The authors envision all students having access and using their devices not just for personal use but for educational purposes. I would argue that ubiquitous access alone will not achieve this goal; students must be motivated to expand their personal use of devices outside the school facility to include educational purposes. This will require students to be engaged within their classrooms first, which requires - as all effective programs, plans, curriculum, and instruction - that students …show more content…
First, the concept of assessing non-cognitive competencies (p. 6) is new to me, and I would need more information to understand the implications. My reaction after a first-read of the NETP (2016) is that this would be government as “big brother.” Do I want my school testing my daughters’ non-cognitive abilities? I do not. Garcia (2014) lists non-cognitive traits and skills that education must address: “critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control” (para 1) and while I do want my children to hone these skills while at school, I do not want their social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control to be assessed. I do not want any data collected and stored about these traits. Critical thinking and problem solving skills are already tested. I do want teachers to help my children grow in their non-cognitive abilities and teachers who are aware that they teach more than just the academic standards (or sadly, whatever is the next lesson in the textbook), do help students in this arena. I like that the NETP (2016)featured a Growth Mindset as “a key part of non-cognitive development” (p. 9). This is a buzzword I’d like to hear and read about more, not just in relation to educational technology but to student’s non-digital lives as …show more content…
It would be interesting to look at the NETP 2010 to learn the impact that document may have had on education. What buzzwords and concepts were introduced that have become part of our conversations when we talk about technology and learning? During a quick glance at the 2010 plan, I saw the phrase “Always-on Learning,” described similarly to the 2016 phrase , all-the-time-learning. “Always-on learning... enables seamless integration of in- and out-of-school learning. It frees learning from a rigid information transfer model (from book or educator to students) and enables a much more motivating intertwinement of learning about, learning to do, and learning to be” (NETP, 2010, p. xiii). Seems as if this vision from 2010 remains to be realized; students today primarily (based on entertainment and communication. Perhaps the 2016 plan will take us further to the goal of everywhere, all-the-time
The authors envision a future in which ubiquitous technology is used by students for learning purposes. Many students are continuously connected to their devices today for two purposes: entertainment and communication. The authors envision all students having access and using their devices not just for personal use but for educational purposes. I would argue that ubiquitous access alone will not achieve this goal; students must be motivated to expand their personal use of devices outside the school facility to include educational purposes. This will require students to be engaged within their classrooms first, which requires - as all effective programs, plans, curriculum, and instruction - that students …show more content…
First, the concept of assessing non-cognitive competencies (p. 6) is new to me, and I would need more information to understand the implications. My reaction after a first-read of the NETP (2016) is that this would be government as “big brother.” Do I want my school testing my daughters’ non-cognitive abilities? I do not. Garcia (2014) lists non-cognitive traits and skills that education must address: “critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control” (para 1) and while I do want my children to hone these skills while at school, I do not want their social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control to be assessed. I do not want any data collected and stored about these traits. Critical thinking and problem solving skills are already tested. I do want teachers to help my children grow in their non-cognitive abilities and teachers who are aware that they teach more than just the academic standards (or sadly, whatever is the next lesson in the textbook), do help students in this arena. I like that the NETP (2016)featured a Growth Mindset as “a key part of non-cognitive development” (p. 9). This is a buzzword I’d like to hear and read about more, not just in relation to educational technology but to student’s non-digital lives as …show more content…
It would be interesting to look at the NETP 2010 to learn the impact that document may have had on education. What buzzwords and concepts were introduced that have become part of our conversations when we talk about technology and learning? During a quick glance at the 2010 plan, I saw the phrase “Always-on Learning,” described similarly to the 2016 phrase , all-the-time-learning. “Always-on learning... enables seamless integration of in- and out-of-school learning. It frees learning from a rigid information transfer model (from book or educator to students) and enables a much more motivating intertwinement of learning about, learning to do, and learning to be” (NETP, 2010, p. xiii). Seems as if this vision from 2010 remains to be realized; students today primarily (based on entertainment and communication. Perhaps the 2016 plan will take us further to the goal of everywhere, all-the-time