Module 5 Blog Discussion

This diagram represents the difference between static and dynamic technologies as discussed in Moller’s (2008) article. Static technologies emphasize content and rely heavily on text applications. These technologies include web 1.0, print, and one-to-one restricted correspondence. On the contrary, dynamic technologies empower learners with interaction with information and social networks to conceptualize real meaning and experience wisdom. Characteristics of dynamic technologies include synchronous communication, problem-based simulations, collaboration tools, web 2.0, and mind tools (Moller, 2008).

As far as my level of familiarity, I am in the middle of the static-dynamic continuum. Static technologies do not provide high levels of interactivity with information to construct knowledge as it relates to my area of work. However, I do rely on my textbooks and journal articles to obtain the majority of content. This is an area that I would like to see improve with more real world applications through conversations with experts and visual representation. Also, static technologies do not promote collaboration with my classmates. These technologies are highly dependent on individual accountability and rarely construct personalization in interaction.

On the other hand, dynamic technologies are new in my technology repertoire. I am beginning to use wikis and blogs to participate in collaboration with peers. I have also recently chatted with classmates through Skype to reflect on class discussions and build a deeper understanding of their content discourse. Although considered middle of the road for many, these technologies are dynamic in the sense that they provide continuous opportunities to recreate information and internalize information (Kirschner & Erkens, 2006).

To move towards a more dynamic approach to learning, I must continue to reflect on information and reconstruct content to gain deeper understanding. As static technologies plagued most of my undergraduate and part of my graduate career, embracing this higher-level thinking has been a real struggle. Yet, the constant risk-taking approaches involving technologies and learning modes unfamiliar to me will supply the best learning experiences that emulate practical situations and behaviors. I am in constant conflict with tradition and innovation but courses such as this one are earning my respect as the best approach for authentic learning.

References

Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in crtical thinking. [Electronic Verson]. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.ecls.ncl.ac.uk/webprimary/elearning/ICT_Tools%5EComputers%20as%20Mindtools%5Earticle%20by%20Jonassen.pdf

Kirschner, P., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199-209. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic tools. [Unpublished Paper].

Slangen, L. (2005). Mind tools contributing to an ICT-rich learning environment for technology education in primary schools. [Electronic Version]. Int. J. Cont. Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 15(3-6), 225-239. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/608/1/050830IJCEELL%2015(3-6)%20Paper%2008%20Mindtools.pdf

Using mindtools in education. (2005). Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/2005/04/01/using-mindtools-in-education.aspx