
Teachers’ powerpoints = “technology integration”
Glorified computer labs = “classroom of the future”
PDF copies of printed materials = “e-books”
Youtube videos = “interactive content”
By creating old meaning using new concepts, educators and policymakers are able to present a semblance of progress where there is, in fact, none, or at best, very little.
My point is this, when actual change occurs it probably isn’t possible, or at least shouldn’t be possible, to describe what has changed using old concepts. Thus, new concepts emerge by necessity. However, the opposite doesn’t hold true, i.e. that new concepts can be, and commonly are, repurposed to describe things that haven’t changed, thereby giving them an air of newness. Insofar as educational change is a preferred goal, policymakers, educators, researchers and stakeholders have ample reason to be weary of those instances where the “new” is little more than a re-creation of the old.
Pingback: What do we really mean by “technology integration”? | Education4site