This ‘graph might be the key to something rather deep about Apple in education. And about Old School EdTech.

People are focusing on Schiller’s comment about Chromebooks, yet this reference to an old study is perhaps more revealing.

Contrast this with the THE title:

Research: Laptops, Chromebooks and Tablets Most Valuable Education Tools, Teachers Say

Candour may bring us to a new level of dialogue. Sometimes sounds like enthusiasm isn’t allowed, in this scene. Which is a lot of what’s behind the “teaching, not tools” rallying cry. We may be deeply aware of many of the thick, tricky, problematic, thorny issues having to do with tools in our lives. We sure don’t assume that any thing or person or situation is value-free. But we really want to talk about learning. We care about learning. We’re big fans of learning. Cyclical debates about tools are playing in the EdTech court, even when they’re “critical”. Or cynical. Sharing about learning experiences can restore our faith in humanity. Which might be needed after delving so much into the experimental side of social psychology.

Sometimes, this is explicit.

While it’s easy to agree with the thrust of this piece (pretty much a Langdon Winner-style “LMS have politics”), this needs not follow. When we say that it’s not primarily about the tool, we’re not saying that tools don’t matter, that LMS affordances are irrelevant, that the exact same learning experience would occur whether or not we used tools. We’re saying that the tool is part of a broader equation, not the ultimate focal point. There’s a very general “fault line” (in seismological terms), a distinction to be made between technopedagogy and “EdTech”. As with any distinction, it shouldn’t be carried too far and there’s obviously a whole lot of overlap. But there clearly are actions which are technocentred. A common orientation in EdTech is towards the tools themselves (listicles about apps, inspira-/promotional videos, etc.) with sound pedagogy following naturally from “tried and true”, “studies have shown” “best practices”. This may sound like a caricature but “you know the type”. On the other hand, technopedagogy tends to be oriented towards high-concept “think pieces” with enough namedrops (from Freire and Vygotsky to Illich and Dewey) to require an encyclopedia. Again, a caricature. But we also “know the type”. In this “camp”, the #DigPedPosse has been quite prominent over the last little while. Despite being attracted to this sphere of agency, got several hints that “people need practical solutions to solve the simple problems in their everyday teaching”.

Sooo… This is a minor quibble, as the rest of the piece does resonate with me (apart from the serious issue, near the end). But, given its location so early in the post, it’s important to acknowledge.

That kind of wording has come under scrutiny by some. Though the sequence does matter and we clearly want to give prominence to the pedagogical/andragogical/heutagogical side, there’s something to be said about a more holistic approach. But, basically, this is the dividing line between #EdTech and technopedagogy. It can easily be blurred, but some of us are drawing this line, over and over again.

Strong counterclaim to much #EdTech hype. Eventually getting into #Technopedagogy.

Just got to think about our roles, in view of annotation. Using “curation” as a term for collecting URLs sounds like usurping the title of “curator”. But there’s something to be said about the role involved. From the whole “guide on the side” angle to the issue with finding appropriate resources based on a wealth of expertise.

Offering solutions doesn’t tend to help, in most cases. And since “magic bullets” don’t exist, focusing on pathways can help people integrate new practices regardless of tools.

Technopedagogy is people.

STEM+Arts=STEAM

By enabling learners and teachers create their own rich material, a lot can happen.

Interesting claim.

That’s a far-reaching claim, but ok…

Common refrain but important lesson.

We can’t take things for granted.

Sounds like those studies of moderate alcohol consumption and heart diseases. There might be an appropriate degree of technology use or it may be much more complex and contextual.