Technology is a huge factor in the evolving future for teachers and students not only in the classroom, but outside it as well. You referred to technology as a “key driver” of skills that are needed in the 21st century, which is completely true. As a recent graduate, I often felt during my schooling that technology was well emphasized and presented. I am fortunate to have some technology in my district (smart boards and wikis are often used), but upon entering a technology class for my masters degree, I have realized how quickly technology is becoming more and more a part of the education, including student and teacher evaluation.

I believe that as educators, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves about technology in order to prevent ourselves from entering that world of “boiling frogs”. By doing so, technology and other forms of assessment and data that are mentioned in other responses to your blog, can aide in evolution that improves the “…individual, school system, and societal level…”. Teachers and others in the educational field need to look to technology as the driving force, which you recognized, as a tool for creating the “next generation of global benchmarks”.

I concur wholeheartedly with what you say about (even attempting) making a link between student achievement and the need for new curricula. NCE what? Student achievement is all teachers are hearing about right now. But then that’s all that’s been driving secondary education since the beginning of this century.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

Thanks for the data. It’s funny you should mention that without data you are just another person with opinion. I liked your Schliecher’s quote too.

There are many ways of using this idea. Goethe said, “if you go looking for evidence (data) to support your claim, you’re sure to find it”. Obviously there’s more to it than just gathering data.

BUT . . .

early last year when I (with the rest of my colleagues) was introduced to the New Curriculum we were told that there was a need to improve things about the Curriculum because learner achievement was not as good as it could be. I asked two questions when these were solicited.

The first was, “how do we know that learner achievement overall cannot be improved more than it is already, whatever the Curriculum contains?”

The second was, “what evidence was used in deciding what changes made to the (old) Curriculum would improve learner achievement?”

I was dismayed that the answers to these pertinent questions were, “we don’t know” and “none”. I took my hat off for them coming clean about all this when what was said was quickly paraphrased with, “but there is still a need for change.”

I wonder about this approach to addressing change. It’s not scientific. It’s not logical. It could be argued that it’s not even moral to impose change in the hope that the results will be an improvement.

I’d be interested in your opinion on this.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

Narrative inquiry provides context in a way that quantitative data does not. It tells a story about a living breathing human being, from which others can learn. It asks the question “How do I improve my practice?” and allows the reader to reflect on their own unique circumstances.