This book is amazing. One of the contributors, Judi Harris, is a familiar name to technology and education. Although it’s expensive, all integrationists should read it. This book contains cogent descriptions of what I’ve observed about how teachers interact with technology. A perception that there are different cultures between teachers and technologists, the “wicked problem” of technology, the “protean” nature+functionally opaqueness+instability of technology are some of the ideas discussed in the introduction. I’m struck by “Technology is often considered to be somebody else’s problem;” hence, part of the reason for the split. The idea of two cultures living together like artists and scientists, brings to mind how our teachers may perceive technologists. But I’m far from a scientist, and I would tell them that I’m more like an artist, selecting and manipulating the best tools for the sculpture at hand.  In reading about “wicked problems,” I’m seeing my own experiences with technology integration issues both in labs and in classrooms. It is the complexity of the variables that makes this profession such a wonderful challenge. Add to that, the perspectives all the technology users bring to the interface, and there’s certainly a spiral of complexity taking place. I reflect on how often I like to observe just how students are interacting with the technology as I try to figure out how to make the lesson(s) meaningful to them. It’s amazing to see how students bring such different interactions with technologies. I’m always asking them, “how did you do that?” as I learn along side them. The fluency of information technology (FIT) requires “information processing, communication, and problem-solving” as part of a more modern definition of computer literacy (p. 15). What is interesting here is that this definition is “evolving.” Historically, educators have been used to static knowledge, or knowledge that does not expand exponentially.

Imagine if you could bring a teacher from 1800 through time to today’s classroom. The chances are pretty good that the teacher would know the purpose of the room, be able to read the books contained therein, use the chalkboard/whiteboard, and begin teaching writing, basic math, French, etc.  Now take a doctor from 1800 and bring that person through time to today’s operating room.  The chances are pretty good that the doctor might not immediately know what the room’s purpose was or how to use any of the tools save the forceps, scalpel and saws. In fact, that doctor probably couldn’t function in that room very well at all.

Ok, so you get the point.  Technology in medicine is incredibly advanced compared with technology in education.  But there are some bright spots as some schools do much, much more with educational technology than others.  Today I work in a small, rural school in central Maine where parents work in the woods, in the mill, in the local hosptial, local stores.  Their children’s future is most likely not beyond major Maine metropolitan areas, and they’ll be leaving home to advance financially.  Technology in education can make a huge difference in their futures. Here’s a case in point: