Discussion 4.

2: Tech Integration from 2005-2010

Connections: What connections do you draw between the text and your own experiences or
learning?
The text discusses the increases in accessibility and expansion of technology and Web 2.0 tools,
which connected to my own experiences immediately. As a student myself, and a teacher I have
seen the wider usage in result to wider accessibility, as well as the expansion of Web 2.0 tools.
I have been in school for many years now, and each year we are introduced and become more
familiar with the uses of different technologies and Web 2.0 tools even prior to take Ed Tech
courses. As textbooks have disappeared we have all found ourselves using technology, simply
because it became accessible. Each online course that I have completed required the use of a
Web 2.0 tool, and thank goodness they have because I am now knowledgeable in a lot of
different areas that I never thought that I would be.
Challenge: What ideas, positions, or assumptions do you want to challenge or argue with in the
text?
I did not feel that there was anything in this section of the text that I wanted to challenge or
argue. I feel like I have experienced what this section has discussed through my own technology
research and the papers I have written, along with the experiences of being a teacher as well.
Concepts: What key concepts or ideas do you think are important and worth holding on to from
the text?
One of the ideas expressed in the text that I found to be the most powerful was the statement
There is no area in which well-conceived and effectively implemented research could be of
greater value than in the area of technological innovation. I feel that this is absolutely true!
Technological innovation is our present and our future, and it is not going anywhere. Technology
has the ability to enhance or destroy the learning experience of the classroom and unless we get
everyone on the same page, we could be looking at a disaster. Unfortunately, due to a lot of
resistance, lack of knowledge, and research, technology is gaining a bad reputation which must
be turned around in order for it to be successful. Something else that I feel needs to be verbalized
more often is that new research on epistemic games revealed that they indeed are explicitly
based on theory of learning in the digital age and are designed to allow learners to develop
domain-specific expertise under realistic constraints. I feel that verbalizing this information is
important because we must inform the ones who resist, ignore, and deny technology that there
are ways in which it can enhance and demand the use of logic, memory, problem-solving, critical
thinking skills, along with opportunities of visualization, and discovery.
Changes: What changes in attitudes, thinking, or action are suggested by the text either for you
or others?
One of the biggest changes mentioned in the text that must occur is an increase of support,
leadership, and commitment of all stakeholders in a school system. Without that support,
leadership, and commitment from all stakeholders, technology will not gain the reputation and

recognition is deserves within out learning communities. Also, I agree that educational
technology researchers must collaborate in order to find ways to deepen, expand, and/or push the
envelope on our literature base, in order to develop new knowledge that will add to existing
knowledge.

New research examines epistemic games; they are explicitly based on

theory of learning in the digital age and are designed to allow learners to
develop domain-specific expertise under realistic constraints. They require
the use of logic, memory, problem-solving, critical thinking skills,
visualization, and discovery.
First, if educational technology researchers and journal editors can
proactively work toward a measure of consensus on productive directions for
future research, it may be possible to increase the positive outcomes for our
future colleagues.
o Second, if we can assist in creating a dialogue, stronger collaboration,
and recursive conversation between these two groups, that too would
be an excellent outcome. (p. 6)
85% of submissions to the JRTE were rejected for two main reasons, related to
quality, methods, and focus. Second, because they did not deepen, expand,
or push the envelope on our literature base, nor did they help develop new
knowledge that added to current knowledge.
o Unrealistic expectations for technology-based reform
o Lack of consensus on research questions and methodologies
o Diminished role of research in school reform