… so much of what we interrogate in the landscapes of edu_speak would be enhanced by the “however”

Check out the alignmnent of ICTs against student learning outcomes resources (pdf downloads) on the ICT interventions page of the HOT wikispace

It has made a huge difference to the uptake of ICTs by teachers in the clusters we facilitate

But can I say HOWEVER?

However, if the people making the ICT decisions, doing the ICT research @ school at the same ones who won’t look beyond what they are comfortable with, who roll their eyes at the thought that cell phones could actually be used in a classroom (I teach younger children so it’s not really an issue for me in my classroom).

I really believe that until people come to the ‘lightbulb’ point of realising that ICT is a tool/integral part of many people’s lives and they need to approach from that POV in order to ignite them, then there’s not a lot of useful stuff going to happen ICT-wise in the classrooms.

Our senior classrooms are still using computers mainly for word-processing.

When I had computers in my classroom (I trialled a box system – 1 box/4 monitors – for a term) I used them for all sorts of things – anything I could think of – and I have tons more ideas of how I could use them now (when/if they come back).

This is an interesting argument for authority … who has the authority to teach with ICTs or who has the authority to rule or comment on the value of ICTs in schools …

If I read this right you are arguing that only people who are resident in virtual worlds can understand the value and use of virtuality ICTs etc in education…

I looked at something similar on Artichoke with respect to problem based learning … and who had the authority to write the scenarios …

But there is a weakness in arguing that you cannot understand/ represent something unless you are doing it …

The full thing is in the comments against the Artichoke PBL post but will paste in the bit that might fit below

There is an interesting post on Beattie’s Book Blog …that expresses the discomfort I feel about extending this line of argument … and Beattie does this more eloquently than I can
• In November, 2005, New Zealand artist Lyn Bergquist was shown the door. The Warkworth artist’s work, intended to be displayed at an Auckland gallery, was rejected by the gallery owner because… because it depicted Maori flags. Oedipus Rex Gallery director Jennifer Buckley told Radio New Zealand, “Flags are symbols and emblems of a very specific culture. And these are Maori flags. I would have the same issue with a Maori artist using my MacKenzie tartan.” Flags or tartans, art or literature, the issue is cultural appropriation. Of all the dumb ideas to come out of academia, cultural appropriation is just about my least favourite. Why? Oh, let me count the ways. The first and worst thing about it is this: the notion of appropriation strikes at the very heart of what artists — painters and sculptors, composers and lyricists, novelists and playwrights — do. We make things up. We make people up. We make up cultures and countries and tartans and flags. And the only limit we want applied to our characters is the limit of our imaginations. I’m writing a book with three main characters: a Jewish boy from New York, a Montana boy in trouble with the law and a Black girl who’s the catcher on a baseball team. If I took appropriation seriously, two of ‘em would have to go. Second, I firmly believe the world is a better place for “appropriation.” If Annie Proulx hadn’t written about Newfoundland because she was an American, Shipping News would never have won all those awards. If Ted Dawe hadn’t written about living rough because he’s not a street kid, a member of the young urban tribe, K. Road would never have been published. And, really, if Paula Morris hadn’t written Trendy But Causal, I wouldn’t have spent half an hour rolling around in bed, laughing my socks off. All three books reveal the world, perhaps all the better because the authors viewed the place they were writing about with the fresh eyes of someone from a distance. Third, if appropriation is damaging to writers, it’s just as damaging to other arts. Would the world be as rich, would women be better served, if Reubens didn’t paint their likeness? If Picasso had limited his art to white European males? If Titian, if Rodin, if most of the visual artists of our millennium hadn’t followed their own admiring vision? Fourth, and for now, finally, when academic voices call for an end to appropriation as a protection of minority culture, they pose the greatest danger to… minority artists. Why should Black artists be limited to painting Black subjects? Jewish women to writing about Jewish women? Ngai Tahu writing poems about Ngai Tahu and not Ngati Mahuta, Ngai Wai, or white settlers from Dalmatia? Would New Zealand really be better off in Hone Tuwhare only wrote from a Maori perspective, and only about Maori subjects?