this month I asked
if we educational technology advocates could articulate a
clear vision of what lies at the other end of all of this change for which we’re
advocating. In other words, what does the end result look like? Can we
articulate the desired state of things in a clear, concise manner that’s easily
conveyable to others?

Here are a few responses to my post:

  • Mr.
    : The end result is a classroom in which students’ personal needs are
    first recognized and valued by a teacher who takes the time to learn who each
    student is as an individual and then uses the limitless reach of tools, 1.0 and
    2.0, to create a learning experience that encourages shared ownership and
    elevated expectations.
  • John
    : A motivated student will learn in spite of us, in spite of how we
    teach. The vision at the end of the tunnel is a student who can enter society
    knowing who and where he/she is and where he/she is going. . . . My vision would
    be a classroom full of kids teaching and learning from each other. Teaching is
    changing almost as rapidly as technology and the kids know far more about how to
    use it to arrive at their ends than we do.
  • Alice
    : we should teach Three C’s: critical thinking, creativity and
    continuous learning. I suppose it could also be critical thinking, creativity,
    and collaboration.
  • Margie
    : I believe Scott’s ideas are, indeed, what an engaged classroom looks
    like. An engaged classroom being a place where student’s experiences and
    learning last longer and have a deeper impact than the upcoming state test.
  • David
    : What McLeod is looking at is important, what the teaching and
    learning experience should look like. But I wonder if this is a bit premature,
    that perhaps we should go back to his question and take it out another notch,
    What should the end result, the person who graduates from our schools, look
    like? It seems that with the answer to this question, we might better envision
    what their schooling experience should be. First of all, I see graduates who can
    teach themselves. I’m starting to call this learning literacy, and I think that
    it is THE literacy we should be teaching – the skills to resourcefully use your
    information environment to help yourself learn what you need to know, to do what
    you need to do. I would also want to see graduates who know who, what, where,
    and when they are. They need to have developed a comfortable and confident sense
    of their culture, their physical environment, their geographic environment, and
    their historic circumstance – a context for their experience, one that they hold
    in common with people they will interact with, collaborate with, and enjoy the
    company of. They would also be skilled in adapting to new circumstances – able
    to learn, unlearn, and relearn (Alvin Toffler). Then we think of what the
    classrooms, teachers, textbooks, technology, blah blah blah, need to look like
    to accomplish this.
  • Jeremiah
    : I agree with David’s point that the metacognitive process is key.
    Metacognitive literacy — understanding of how one/others learn. Social literacy
    — understanding how to peaceably navigate the changing world. (From the
    playground to the floor of the UN.) Environmental literacy — understanding our
    place in the earth, and that of others. Literacy — oh yeah, and understanding
    how to read and comprehend.
  • Heather Ross: The tools
    and rules are rapidly changing and will continue to do so. Our goal should be to
    do our best to make sure that the learners know how to find the information they
    will need, but also what to do with that information.

These are all fabulous posts/comments, but here’s my new question:
what if these visions aren’t compelling enough? What
if people in our organization listen to these carefully, treat them seriously,
and then say, “No thanks. Not interested?” What if we give it our best
shot and people don’t buy into it? Then what?