iSean

i coordinate the undergraduate ed tech course at a public university in michigan with over 22,000 students. the students who take our ED 205 Computers in Education course are all studying to become teachers and the course covers the ISTE NETS standards. we have over 450 students a semester taking our class, which turns out to be about 20 or so sections a semester. i tend to teach 2 or 3 sections per semester. we have 3 full time affiliate professors who each teach 4 sections. in fact, one of our affiliates finished her PhD and is off to a full time tenure-track position. so, if you know anyone interested in her position, it’s open.

i end up having to hire about 6 (+/-) adjunct instructors each semester. and, i realize that adjunct instructors are not paid as well as i’d like. instead of having each adjunct recreate the wheel, i try and provide curricular materials to all instructors. even if i wasn’t doing it to be nice, i would do it just to ensure that our students are getting the same key course objectives regardless of the section they end up taking. so, i have a secret website that is password protected where PowerPoint files are provided that supplement the textbook chapters. the website also has lab activities that instructors can assign to help meet course objectives. finally, i place curricular materials that supplement everything else just in case an instructor wants to study something more in-depth. nobody is forced to use any of these materials; however, i encourage them to be used.

well, the labs that were a part of the program when i started were fairly diverse and they do meet the NETS. that being said, we’ve been slow as a group to update the labs. individual instructors change a lab here and there and add a lab to take advantage of current trends in technology. the past few years, i’ve had a lab that was focused on web 2.0 issues. but, this one lab was covered in one week. i am thinking of creating a web 2.0 series of labs that cover 1/2 of the class. i won’t call it web 2.0 in title, but the labs will focus on technologies that take advantage of web 2.0 features. i think we could change our digital photography lab that we currently have and add a feature to the lab where students upload photos to Flickr and use tags, etc. Rather than learning about MS Excel, perhaps the students could try Google’s spreadsheet. Personally, i dropped the spreadsheet lab from my class a while ago and made it a part of another Office-type lab, but i still have that component and what we do would work just swell in Google’s spreadsheet. i could also see students mashing up Google’s maps (or, another online service).

the thought of making this shift is exciting, but i have to ensure that i meet the NETS standards as they are written . . . or do i? perhaps i think my students would be better served to focus on one standard much more than others (e.g., demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies). is it fair for my students to spend a disproportionate amount of time on this component as compared to other universities? the NETS standards were written many years ago; though, most of the standards are worded generically enough to grow with the times (so, that’s a plus, eh?). but, knowing what i know about technology in education and from working with graduate students (read: current teachers), i think some of the examples provided to meet various standards are really not as relevant in current educational settings. this PDF provides exemplary examples of how to meet the NETS with regard to social studies and here’s an example that i think is dated:

In small groups, brainstorm and record in Inspiration (Rapid Fire mode) answers to the question “Where Do I Live?”

Label the elements of the resulting Inspiration/Kidspiration diagram with the social studies standards.

i could easily see using Google maps and mash up technology to improve upon this example. then again, if we try and move beyond ISTE then how do we know that what we are valuing is what the field would want? moreover, do i even have the authority to change our course objectives without a vote from the faculty? the answer to that is NO. that being said, the course could just loosely cover material that we think is outdated to make room for the new stuff. obviously, that’s the dilemma that i’ll be wrestling with in the near future. fortunately, the top-level NETS are malleable enough to accommodate the changes that i think are necessary.

Tags: ISTE, NETS, standards, web 2.0, Google, teaching, ed tech