tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7688749700610571550.post5017559330843874330..comments2022-12-12T03:00:07.288-08:00Comments on The Edtech Curmudgeon: Using Technology Alone Doesn't Guarantee Better Outcomes - So Why Reward It?ambermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18425276052810373738noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7688749700610571550.post-12219434103947730752016-02-08T10:11:56.565-08:002016-02-08T10:11:56.565-08:00Rebecca, agree 100% - but why privilege technology...Rebecca, agree 100% - but why privilege technology innovation over any other kinds of innovation?ambermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18425276052810373738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7688749700610571550.post-27016741618694170532016-02-08T09:17:23.487-08:002016-02-08T09:17:23.487-08:00I guess my concern is that you need to reward the ...I guess my concern is that you need to reward the willingness to try, regardless of its success. If we only reward success, then people will be hesitant and conservative in their attempts - we will not innovate and people will be afraid to try new things. So, we need to make sure there is some form of reward for trying, regardless of the outcome ... but alas, I do agree that using technology without thought doesn't deserve recognition in and of itself. Rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684959311585984577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7688749700610571550.post-37658516863593792622016-01-27T10:42:15.617-08:002016-01-27T10:42:15.617-08:00My subjective sense is that we're seeing a shi...My subjective sense is that we're seeing a shift in many institutions from "technology as panacea" or "technology as disruptor" to a more thoughtful attitude towards technology as a catalyst for meaningful innovation. This may be just my native optimism, but it would be interesting to try to collect data that might support or refute this. I don't think asking about a formal program to recognize technology use is going to answer the question.ambermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18425276052810373738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7688749700610571550.post-7434061078313395892016-01-27T09:08:06.880-08:002016-01-27T09:08:06.880-08:00Michael,
My thanks for your kind comments about t...Michael,<br /><br />My thanks for your kind comments about the work of Campus Computing and for your response to the "Tenure and Technology" post on my DigitalTweed blog earlier this week.<br /><br />For the record, we really do not disagree. I’m not advocating for a pro forma check list about tech in the syllabus. Rather, as reflected in my reference to Boyer’s expansive definition of scholarship in the closing paragraphs of the DigitalTeed post, faculty who make a commitment to the innovative use of IT resources in instruction should be allowed (encouraged!) to present that work as part of the portfolio that goes up for review and promotion. The experience of Randy Bass at Georgetown is a good example of the “expansive scholarly portfolio." (http://chronicle.com/article/With-Web-Skills-Now-/22332/)<br /><br />What’s striking to me is that the tech factor gets no “respect” in “teaching” institutions despite the continuing proclamations of presidents and provosts about the institutional commitment to leverage technology for curricular innovation and to enhance student learning. <br /><br />Casey<br /><br />Casey Green<br />Campus ComputingAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381236855237764015noreply@blogger.com