This is somewhat relevant after the webinar this afternoon, about how we should really be looking beyond the technology (nee chrome) to see how the means actually delivered the “meat” that is learning. I’ve mentioned before that one of my peeves is the whole e/i/(d)igital prefix on things, but then it struck me that there are just an enormous number of people who are just getting on that bandwagon. How did it hit? I’m reading a proposal that I submitted with others on campus for “e-Learning Days” and the term dropping with regards to technology just stood out like a sore thumb.
If we are truely serious about integrating or profiling the learning that is made possible by the new environments that technology opens up, should we not look at the end result? But then I’m thinking that with so many people just now figuring the entire i/e/d thing out, that if we show the process and how it’s merely a “magic” step that can be done as part of a normal workflow, maybe the focus is in the right place. The trick though is selling people on those small steps and that workflow integration. I wonder… was it this hard to sell the first mass produced cars to cart owners or pedestrians? Or are we really only offering water to fish?
Leave a Reply