ePortfolio-week 2

 This week we focused on looking at how the ISTE standards have changed from 1998-2017. It was interesting to see what I found compared to what my classmates did. Looking more in depth version 1 focuses on technology at a basic level. I believe this is because in 1998 computers and the internet were just becoming common. The creators of the standards were focused on students being proficient in the use of technology. When I read that I though it related to the surface level of for example a computer. In the second version (2007) the standards shift from the basics of technology to more in depth standards because technology is more common. The 2016 version of the standards seem to be a lot more focused on the collaboration technology can bring to a student’s education.

What will the 4th version look like? I think that is a very interesting question because I find it hard to predict where technology will be in 2025. I can definitely see the use of assistive technology expand. This will create a need to determine standards that will help students understand how to effectively use these to aid in their own education. Another possibly far reaching idea is implants. I recently watch a video about a man who had a smart chip implanted in his hand that allowed him to pay for items by just swiping his wrist over the credit card machine. I would be curious if a similar application may start appearing in schools. The chip could include information like standardized test scores, contact information, allergy information, IPE information. All these would come with a lot of legal conversations that I think would need to be written into a new set of standards.

A common theme throughout the other posted responses to this weeks question is the need to be aware that technology is always changing and as a result educators need to be aware of the best technology to help students learn. It does no good for students to be exposed to a world saturated with technology outside of the classroom, but when they are in school it not used as a tool instead viewed as a possible hindrance to learning. I witnessed this in classrooms where teachers use technology like Promethean boards as simple projector screens ignoring the boards full potential.