>Drawings, fingerpainting, can make up a multimedia presentation. We have
very young students here going beyond paper and using drawing and >pinting
programs to tell a story.
I would fully support drawing and fingerpainting for 5 and 6 year olds. I
don't agree that paint programs are the same learning experience as
fingerpaints, crayons, paper, and scissors. Interacting with a mouse and a
computer screen is, in my mind, and entirely different experience than paper
and crayons. My argument is that 5 and 6 year olds need the latter, not the
former in order to properly develop.
>"Telecommunications" includes telephone. Anyone who has had to waste time
with a rude and clueless youngster on the phone would agree that >training
in that area is not a bad idea.
Do you really think it is a telephone that ISTE is talking about here?
>>>Is multimedia and internet fluency a goal we need to spend a
>lot of time or money on when we have large percentages of our children who
>can't read, write, and cipher?
>YES! If they are being used appropriately as tools to help those children
better read, write and cipher. Please do not also fall into the >fallacy
that technology skils are isolated and self-justifying. It is our take here
in Barre, that they MUST be integrated into the wider >curriculum and not
treated as a separate curriculum. That is why we involved grade-level and
content area teaches in formulaing our >technology GLEs and also why
grade-level and content area teachers will deal with their assessment.
I definitely don't think that technology skills are isolated and
self-justifying. But I do think they very often get in the way of learning
instead of enhancing it. I would even argue that they have a crippling
effect on many learners, especially very young students. Even integrating
technology into the core disciplines still begs the question: Does it
enhance learning in all situations and for all learners at all ages?
Bellows Free Academy