I totally agree about thinking of teachers as our students! I also agree that we are now able to package poor learning and understanding in such a way that it looks much better than it really is. Whatever we’re doing with classroom teachers should always be about helping students build their understanding – not just showing off what can be done with new tools.

Now what I’m thinking about is being able to demonstrate curricular understanding but also being able to do that in a networked, connected way – who’s responsible for that aspect of the curriculum? And is that the part that needs a name people can understand and relate to? Or is that something we’re just leaving up to the individual teacher?

@emisegadis,

Yes! I love the way you’ve stated this:

I think that as people and educators that are fluent in these areas we almost get tired of hearing these terms by the time the general teaching public is just getting their minds wrapped around how they can be used in education.

I think you’re right on that teachers are afraid of not being the experts, and I think using language that doesn’t directly represent what we really mean definitely doesn’t help them feel more comfortable.

It is interesting that students don’t know or relate to these terms, but I guess it’s similar to the way they wouldn’t really know or relate to the term “pedagogy” or “constructivist” – it’s just learning to them. Just like our new fancy terminology for technology…

I really like the points you made Kim, about using the terminology and then dropping it so quickly that people can’t keep up, and how if the terminology is too vague then it’s too easy to say we are doing something. I think there is a bit too much of that going on, and not enough critical thinking about the content that is being presented with this shiny technology with all it’s fancy terminology. Maybe if the focus is more on the content, which is the thing that teachers can relate to, then the terminology for whatever new stuff is needed won’t be so threatening.

I love the idea of using Dan Pink’s terms – they are definitely readily accessible to anyone. You’ve gotten me thinking about ways that I might revamp my upcoming presentations to reflect more easily digestible concepts, as well as bringing in the bigger ideas from published literature. Love your slideshow too! Thanks for sharing!

I totally agree about approaching my job as a teaching and learning specialist and I usually take the same approach as you when introducing myself and how I can support teachers. I guess I’m thinking more about how we define teaching and learning, how that definition is changing, and how difficult it is for non-edtech-focused teachers to follow. If we don’t come up with language to describe that change that others can understand, are we just leaving them even further behind? Job titles aside, the everyday language of teaching and learning with technology is usually not quite as approachable as it could be (in my opinion).

I personally don’t use my title much when I explain to teachers how I can help them. I’ve shifted my explanation to teachers and focus on the teaching and learning. I usually explain my role by saying something to the effect of “teaching and learning IS changing and my job is to help you meet this change and technology is one way of doing that”. Usually my first presentation to a new group of teachers that I haven’t worked with before is on teaching and learning and I only touch on the technology at the end of the presentation. I try to establish myself from the beginning as a teaching and learning expert and not as a technology expert.

This has worked well for me. I’ve really just let the title go. I hardly use it. I don’t think that is the solution but that is where I’ve gotten. Our titles are ambiguous and the nice thing about that is that you can change the roles as needed.

Thanks! I agree about focusing on the change itself. I guess I’m struggling to figure out how to make that relevant, concrete, and easily understandable – especially for teachers who may not want to change…

@Kelly,

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head (and reminded me that I have another post to add to my list) – this change is more about constructivist, student-centered instruction than about technology or society. If teachers are still teaching in a direct-instruction method, technology isn’t going to help make it student centered. At some point, someone said (I wish I could remember who, because I really want to find that post!): technology is just an amplifier – if you’re not a good teacher, technology isn’t going to make you any better. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@Sue,

Totally a Catch 22…. I wish we could do something about it though!