Tag Archives: tools

No longer tool agnostic?

I wrote and believe that we should be ‘tool agnostic‘ in schools,

“We should ensure every student has a good tool available to them, and we should ensure we use these tools when it benefits to have the whole class on the same tool. However we should also give students choice when we can, and be tool agnostic… as long as the tool they use does not hinder their ability to accomplish the tasks they want or need to do.”

I still believe this, but I’m noticing that the suite of tools we are providing are locking kids in to a degree. If I am in a Microsoft district and I’m going to collaborate on a presentation, I’m going to find it easier to use PowerPoint since everyone already has collaboration accounts. Likewise with Google and their slide presentation tool.

A Microsoft using teacher doesn’t have to leave OneNote to mark and give feedback to a PowerPoint, but does need to for Google slides. A Google school might also be a Chromebook school, reducing choice of tools even further.

It’s one thing to say we are tool agnostic, and yet another to realize we are pushing students into using common tools for ease of use for both students and teachers.

I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, it provides equity with ever improving tools, but I am recognizing that we are moving students away from being tool agnostic and it’s something to think about.

Tool agnostic

One of the most influential posts I’ve written on my educational blog was Transformative or just flashy educational tools (written 9 years ago). It led to multiple presentations, including this one: Transforming Our Classrooms – Ignite

In the original post I said,

A tool is just a tool! I can use a hammer to build a house and I can use the same hammer on a human skull. It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.

The tools we use and what we use them for matter. But more than ever we should be agnostic about the tools being used… as long as they are being used well! For example: We are a Microsoft school district and so we use Teams, OneNote, Word, PowerPoint, and MS Forms among other tools in the suite. This is an excellent set of tools that allow us to know that if a student wants to collaborate on a document or create a presentation, then they have what they need to do the job well, with a great tool intended for that purpose. That said, we are also a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) district and students come with other tools, or like to use other tools that they prefer.

Should we make a group of student collaborate on OneNote or Teams, if they all want to use Google Docs?

Should we make a student present in a PowerPoint if they want to use Apple Keynote?

Should we tell students Microsoft Forms are the only forms they can use?

No.

We should ensure every student has a good tool available to them, and we should ensure we use these tools when it benefits to have the whole class on the same tool. However we should also give students choice when we can, and be tool agnostic… as long as the tool they use does not hinder their ability to accomplish the tasks they want or need to do.

 It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.

___

* Related to this, at Inquiry Hub we’ve had a couple students at the school create their own presentation software, which has been used at school functions like our Open House presentations!

What should we do with tools to make them great? » Online Sapiens

What should we do with tools to make them great?

November 6, 2010 by emapey

David Truss (via @sabridv) suggests what we can do with tools to make them great

1. Give students choice
2. Give students a voice.
3. Give students an audience.
4. Give students a place to collaborate.
5. Give students a place to lead.
6. Give students a digital space to learn.

Compare this list to:

– Stephen Downes Connectivism Principles:

1- Autonomy
2- Diversity
3- Openness
4- Interactivity and Connectedness

and to

– Chickering and Gamson Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education

1. encourages contact between students and faculty,
2. develops reciprocity and cooperation among students,
3. encourages active learning,
4. gives prompt feedback,
5. emphasizes time on task,
6. communicates high expectations, and
7. respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

As George Siemens posted, It’s not about tools. It’s about change.

It’s the change underlying these tools that I’m trying to emphasize. Forget blogs…think open dialogue. Forget wikis…think collaboration. Forget podcasts…think democracy of voice. Forget RSS/aggregation…think personal networks. Forget any of the tools…and think instead of the fundamental restructuring of how knowledge is created, disseminated, shared, and validated.

 

Posted in Connectivism, Learning 2.0

via onlinesapiens.wordpress.com

Eduardo did a great job of putting together several ideas around the same theme such that the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts!

On my post David Warlick added, “Give the learners a sandbox.”
I like the idea of ‘Play’ and also that he changed ‘students’ to ‘the learners’.

elearnspace › It’s New! It’s New! › George Siemens

It is my main critique with the emotional-feel-good message of Ken Robinson’s focus on creativity. First, we need to get over the view that our generation is astonishingly unique. Hasn’t every generation faced new technologies to solve problems not foreseen? The present moment arrogance that invades much of school reform thinking is frustrating. And, I might as well add, the pendulum-thinking mindset that is evident in Robinson’s view is damaging in the long term. If a view of educational reform is defined by the current reality that it is reacting against, rather than a holistic model of what it will produce in the future, then we’re playing a game of short-term gains, planting in our revolution the seeds for the next revolution that will push back against gains that we make now.

… Developing capacity for complexity. Complexity is the DNA of society. Whenever multiple agents interact, outcomes are uncertain. Failure to account for complexity in organizational design, teacher preparation, and business planning is a short path to frustration. Yes, it would be nice if the world was complicated – like a puzzle where every piece has a right place. But it’s not. It’s complex – like a weather system where changes in one aspect of the system cascades and influences the entire system, often in unpredictable ways. Unfortunately, complexity is not built into the educational system. We seek “general right answers” rather than “contextual right answers”.

via elearnspace.org

The pendulum-thinking issue has been on my mind, but I have not been able to express it as well as George does here. It reminds me of the dichotomized digital native vs digital immigrant issue which can also be counter-productive.

I also wonder how many ‘rules’ and ‘expectations’ are created because of present moment arrogance? Are filters our equivalent of book burnings? Are our subject blocks created by a parochial curriculum? Are typing skills equivalent to quill pen skills of the past? How is our arrogance counter-revolutionary?

In the second section, I love the puzzle vs weather system metaphor! Using a metaphor exemplifies contextual complexity!