I really enjoy this conversation around access. I talked to a few friends about the conversation around how Steve Jobs came to be and his garage is always a point people like to bring up. Not everyone has a garage in that already puts him in a place of privilege in people's minds. But I think if you change the narrative around his garage more people think they can achieve what he did.

People assume that when we accommodate for some it is special treatment but in actually everyone can benefit.

I like that Gannon is really saying a call to arms showing that this is what we have been fighting for, this is the direction we should be going.

Peoples different needs branch in many directions. We have the power to give them a space where they feel comfortable learning and really retain the most information.

I can see how self assessment can be so helpful because students can feel that they are on the right path and have full confidence in what they are submitting.

cognitivism is all about building on what one already knows and either altering thinking to fit new info or creating new ideas/schemas to cater to new info.

Behaviorism is more connected to the bottom of blooms taxonomy. There is less room for creativity or personal reactions and interpretations, there is a right and wrong answer only.

From all of this we really just want students to be smart about how they use technology and to be knowledgeable and how to use technology in the world around them. The school is where students get foundational knowledge on everything and technology is becoming so prevalent that it is becoming increasingly important that they learn about technology and safety earlier in the classroom.

I can definitely identify with being frustrated with a digital tool and that's stopping the absorption of the content. I would say it's okay to explore these digital tools and actually be frustrated with them in a technology class, or if it's the goal of the class. This is where the planning of the teacher comes into play and having them evaluate the site before giving it to the students.

I think feedback on assignments is very important but I'm not sure how realistic it is to have such detailed and specific and quick feedback from a site. I mean I guess this is a large part of this chapter is just discussing what we expect from sites versus what they can actually do and how we don't want to be stuck in the idea of the past but I'm still just questioning how realistic it is.

I like that they want to give people the actual option to use the tech. Sometimes it can feel that schools just expect you to opt in but making the language clear that it is 100% their comfort level means people will be making the right decisions for themselves and their child

Who determines what data is considered beneficial?

It must be kept in mind that these are programs that are not subjective and follow algorithms. When they are used to track learning, which is a large part subjective it can be harmful to those it is trying to help.

The fact that Pokemon Go had access to a persons entire google account including things like their calendar and photos made no sense. They want access to information they aren't going to use for their site to sell it. It makes only most sense that they have access only to information that is used in the site.

It is important to involve the children in the conversation when its about their personal information. They should not be the only ones through because understanding what they might be giving away may not be fully clear.

I wonder how many students or parents know this? Where would they find this information?

It would be very helpful for there to be other people besides the teachers checking on if a sites. The only issue would be if they check with IT for everything they might not learn what to check for themselves or they may not have access to a site they want to use because IT is still checking it over.

So not only can they take your information but use it for profit. The profit that you won't even have access to because you agreed to the terms of service.

This seems dangerous. If there is no standard then this allows websites to be very sneaky. it shows a general lack of concern for people's safety on a government level. The websites don't care about our safety and if we don't know what to look for then who's really looking out for the users.

"new or old" stand out to me here. So many student I Know have decent tech but have to buy new ones because the sites and add ons just don't work with their old tech.

I have seen this as my experience, even from the first site that we reviewed using the google form to this weeks assignment. I find myself not only being able to see flaws in sites much better but also being more critical of sites because I have seen what they can do, but just aren't.

I think this is a huge "however" when looking at how helpful an accessibility statement is. If there are huge gaps then the statement is not as helpful but also if it is quite extensive you have to remember that it is still the company writing it up, and they may be lacking in knowledge. I think one day regulations will be put in place for the VPAT but that is not where we are yet.

“ substantially equivalent ease of use” Stood out to me as a statement. Because if the accommodations are outlandish and take up a substantial amount of time or effort what they really be considered accommodations. This definition also emphasizes “equal” but I'm wondering if at times are we working with more equity rather than equality.

I appreciate this. There have been times where someones computer isn't working and they have to use their phone or some people have ipads.

I question how are you supposed to test user interface when you might not have access to all the different systems when finding a source or before a lesson can happen.

If a site does not have this accessibility what should a educator do? Do they transcribe it? Are there services to help them get captions for their students?

I think a road map is not enough. They need trainings, conferences, meetings. This is not something they can learn over one interaction. All students access to their education is the bare minimum

I like the emphasis on institutions. Our educators are not alone in this and should not be expected to do everything on their own. The school should be helping wherever they can.

Just because they have the time doe not mean they know how or have the resources to. It has been my experience that teachers and some professors get frustrated with tech and many have not had to use anything beyond a smart board. Classes like this are not something they have experienced, but they should.

Having this be a free tool is amazing. that could have been the difference between it being used or not. Its holding true to its own rubric.

The whole point of these tools is to get the outcome the teachers are what. Customization makes a tool way more useful to a teacher. not only is it more useful but safer because they can turn on and off certain features making sure it's intended uses highlighted. It can also be distracting for students when a tool has thing where teacher has to tell them to ignore or only look at some features. Giving them full access, but only to what the teachers want decreases the amount of scaffolding necessary talking away a step of work for them during instruction.

A tool you like Britannica that is able to change the reading level of an article is what comes to mind. I definitely like the differentiation that is being accounted for. Differentiation makes a tool more useful to a broader amount of students and also can make it useful for multi year use because once you learn how to use the sources you will not forget. The amount of scaffolding can decrease over time as well.

I immediately thought about sites having a lot of ads. This is a good criteria for if there are constant pop ups it might get people off focus and be more harmful than helpful

its great that the rubric break is ever-changing. With technology things are constantly ebbing and flowing becoming more or less user-friendly and more or less helpful. The fact that the rubric is changing to adhere to those needs shows that it can be a useful tool over time and not stagnant

I like that change is a part of the steps and plans. Maybe the PLN someone had for a while is no longer serving them, so a change/addition can help. It helps me to visualize PLN as a live and changing entity that you have to make work for you.