TQ#1

After reading Jonassen, et al (chapter 1) and Koehler & Mishra (chapter 1), I present some comments about my points of view. Briefly, my impression of Jonassen, et al is that in order for students to get the most out of the learning process, they have to learn "with" technology. For them, technology is a partner. Students ought to be encouraged to use technology in devising solutions to problems that are presented by the teachers. In doing so, students engaged in using technology will come across different ways of learning and thinking.

On the other hand, Koehler & Mishra, present a thorough framework for considering technology-mediated educational activities. They think that the basis of effective teaching with technology is to follow the TPCK framework. In addition, they also support the fact that teachers cannot merely be told what to do. Instead, they should be given autonomy and power in making pedagogical decisions. Moreover, for Koehler & Mishra, teachers are constantly negotiating a balance between technology, pedagogy, and content in ways that suit their needs.

One of the things that I found different about these chapters is that Jonassen, et al chapter's 1 focuses on how technology impacts the learner, not the teacher. Their work all throughout the book focuses on demonstrating ways that technology can be used to engage and support meaningful learning when students learn with technology, not from it. Conversely, a different view is presented by Koehler & Mishra by directing their study on the teacher using technology in the classroom.

Based on my experience, many teachers in schools use canned curriculum programs that may or may not have technology integrated in them. The truth is canned curriculum gives a false sense of reality because teaching is one of the most difficult jobs on the planet. When schools acquire new technology and the school administrators request teachers to incorporate these into their classrooms, they don’t take into consideration that most subjects need to adjust to this novel technology. In this sense, I agree with Koehler & Mishra when they state that teachers have to decide how things are to be done. I also partially agree with them when they state their view of teaching with technology as a “wicked problem.” Honestly, I still have my doubts with respect to this term, but it sounds to me that they are referring to something distressing.

Most of the information that I read in the Jonassen, et all chapter is based on Constructivism which argues that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences. There is also some influence of the theory of Ausubel’s meaningful reception learning.

It has been difficult to compare these two readings since they focus on two different audiences. However, I do have some questions about the Jonassen, et al chapter 1, with respect to how students can be made to willfully engage in a learning task. I have seen that female students in school tend to lose interest in technology as they go through middle and high school. Gender issues are not mentioned in this chapter. The other observation is based on the Koehler & Mishra chapter 1, where I would have liked to have a better understanding about particular technologies that have affordances and constraints. It would be handy to have the complete source of this document to get a true taste of what they are trying to convey to the reader.