1. The personal opinions and ideas expressed at this site are those that the author feels are “good enough to criticize.” Please do so.
2. None of the ideas expressed here are wholly original. The author will make every attempt to give credit to those who have helped form his ideas. (Case in point: The “good enough to criticize” phrase above comes from Alan November.)
3. The author reserves the right to change his mind about any of these ideas based on further reading of trusted sources or personal experiences.
4. The author has no real certainty that any of the ideas expressed here hold water. He’s hoping you’ll help him figure that out.
5. Therefore, the author suggests the ideas expressed here should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
6. Among the questions the author struggles with are:
7. The author freely acknowledges that the extent to which he has embraced and integrated these technologies into his life may signal some dysfunction and may totally cloud his perspective. The author feels the quote “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” is worth remembering here. (See the comments to this post for the source of this thinking.)
8. The author neither expects or suggests that readers should embrace or integrate these ideas or technologies into their lives to the extent that he has. In fact, he would strongly advise against it.
9. The author does expect, however, to continue to read, write and learn every day, and hopes that in some way the ideas and technologies discussed here will move others to do the same.
Will, I’ve posted a response to AutonoBlogger. However, I believe that educators must discuss the introduction of new technologies, to decide how they may–or may not–be used in education and why. Otherwise, we will be unaware of the motivations of powerful forces that seek to transform teaching and learning environments, but not to the benefit of our students. While we may often disagree as a community of educators, it is that spirited debate that we must model to our students…otherwise, we will raise generations of consumers who live their lives of quiet desperation, with no idea of why they feel the way they do…slaves whipped by an overseer, follow the beat of a drum that they had no say in choosing.
Some other thoughts at:
http://www.mguhlin.net/blog/archives/2005/12/entry_747.htm
Thanks and keep up the mindbloggling work,
Miguel Guhlin
Did I sound like I was saying educators SHOULDN’T be discussing this stuff? Thanks to Will, Miguel and Brian, I now see I meant that we need to also consider the context of the conversation(s), including who is shaping the conversations. To be frank, I have not read much among the edubloggers I read about the context of power within which which these conversations about read/write, Web2.0, etc. are taking place. Which was why I felt prompted to post. We write “we” or “our”. But who are “we”? If you don’t include the others in the equation, it’s just pie-in-the-sky, utopian day-dreaming, as I wrote here http://autonolearner.blogspot.com/2005/12/people-make-individualization-possible.html
And I, too, have benefited enormously from Will’s honest, insightful and regular blogging! Thanks, Will.
I really liked the “good enough to criticize” description of blog entries. I picked up on it in my I blog therefore I think post.