2007 TechEd Annual Conference: Conference Report
| Pages | 8-11 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050710823256 |
| Date | 10 July 2007 |
| Published date | 10 July 2007 |
| Author | Mitchell Brown |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
2007 TechEd Annual Conference: Conference
Report
Mitchell Brown
8LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2007, pp. 8-11, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050710823256
The 12th TechEd International
Conference and Exhibition was held in
Ontario Convention Center, Ontario,
California, March 25-28, 2007. The
conference was held over three days
with a day of pre-conference programs
and is among the largest of such
conventions and one that has sustained
itself this long. The participants seemed
to be primarily regional community
college and K-12 representation than a
national or international roster. There
were many half-and full-day workshops
prior to the start of the conference
www.techedevents.o rg/2007/conference /
The keynote speaker on the day I
attended was John Garamendi,
Lieutenant Governor for the State of
California, who talked about a Los
Angeles Times’ article (dated) on
educational support as a national
security issue. He made the comparison
of Treo and Blackberry use as a
challenge or opportunity – if these
technologies allow wireless web and
text access, what is their use in teaching?
As a government and elected official he
sees technology as an opportunity and
questioned how should the state
government interact with technology in
education or should government ‘‘stay
out of the way?’’ What applications are
forthcoming and what role should
government play in funding issues? He
acknowledged the need to differentiate
communities.
A second pair of speakers was part of
a special presentation titled ‘‘Three
decades later: what we do well and what
we can do better.’’ The presentation
went in tandem with speakers talking
then commenting on each other’s topics.
Speaking were Jeanne Hayes, President
of the Hayes Connection and Founder
of Quality Education Data, and
Kenneth C. Green, Founding Director of
The Campus Computing Project and
Visiting Scholar at Claremont Graduate
University. Hayes spoke about
America’s digital schools and Green on
the impact of technology in education.
Green used a metaphor of education
development as coding, where binary
thinking (ones and zeroes, yeas or nos)
is influencing the direction of
technology use in education. Green
talked about how adoption of
technology moves from ‘‘cute’’ to
‘‘convenient’’ to ‘‘compelling’’ to
‘‘compulsory.’’ The implementation of
technology in education and pedagogy
caught in a balance between ‘‘aspiration
vs assessment and accountability’’ by
administrations and funding authorities.
Expectations of electronic consumer
culture influence on education introduce
‘‘pedagogic mistrust’’ of technology
issues expected to solve education
challenges. Focus needs to return to
technology important instruction/
learning and learning outcomes.
Educators held to measures of
assessment/accountability but generally
lack data to determine the effect of
technology in teaching. Little strong
research correlates impact of technology
on education and its influence. Despite
three decades of spending there is no
strong research demonstrating that
technology necessarily translates into
standardized test score results. The
Federal government is pressing for
national assessment and productivity
measures in teaching standards that
introduce data-driven decision-making.
Green compared the assessment
environment with a quote by Margaret
Spellings, US Secretary of Education,
‘‘In God we Trust, and from everyone
else we want hard data.’’
Hayes describedusing ‘‘assessmentas
feedback’’ and taking a technologytriage
that can provide planning a safe
boundaryfor decision-making. Educators
should ask themselves, ‘‘What do you do
for September? What is important to do
by September 2008? What about 2-3
years out? Afterthree years? Fall terms in
the future?’’ This ordering of assessment
criteria can provide windows for
determining effecti veness and student
assessment at stages of a large and long
process.
Hayes and Green traded comments
on how data about students can be a
source for data mining as the changing
culture of how data is collected and
used, moving from ‘‘data as a weapon’’
to ‘‘data as a resource.’’ Examples of
data as resource included the use of
students’ ePortfolio, ‘‘where proxy can
use the type of material posted to
document student progress.’’ Hayes
described how interactive whiteboards
and response device ‘‘clicker’’ systems
could collect response data of student
involvement in class discussions,
lectures and group work.
Hayes discussed how online learning
and for-profit education is growing,
citing a Sloan Center report that the
numbers of online courses taken by
students is increasing. We are seeing
niche online K-12 and online high
school options appearing. Blended
learning, mixing home school, charter
and public education are emerging. Into
this mix of online and in-person
teachings are teachers and faculty who
are finding professional development a
challenge. In a public high school in Los
Angeles, how can $100 per student for
supply technology parity with for-profit
education with access to greater
funding? Hayes offered educators in the
audience a visualization challenge:
‘‘Can I see myself in the situation where
technology will make a difference?’’
A challenge with bringingtechnology
into education situations is having a
budget to support new purchasing with
hardware and technical support. This
‘‘performance development ’’ needs to
take a difference perspective in funding
To continue reading
Request your trial