I have had some great conversations and email exchanges with many of you since posting my concerns about keeping the new MLTI RFP focused on learning. Some of you have asked if you wanted to reach our to the Commissioner to express similar views, what might you say?
Here are my talking points:
- Instead of tech specs, the RFP should describe what we would like to do with the devices (what is the change in learning that we would like to see?)
- Technology is expensive, and we should not invest in it if we are simply going to use it to do what we do without it (what is the change in learning that we would like to see?)
- Looking at the work in Maine, perhaps that change in learning should be Customized Learning and the Education Evolving recommendations
- In keeping with the components of Customized Learning, the learning activities described should include both those for low level learning and for high level learning.
- Low level activities (recall, understanding, simple application) could include the following: access to online resources, information gathering, note taking, communicating, studying, accessing online educational tools, etc.
- High level activities (non-routine application, analysis, evaluation, creating) could include the following: creating simulations, project-based with multimedia, coding and programming, writing for a purpose and audience, digital storytelling, engineering and design, etc.