Separate or Integrated: Technology Instruction in the classroom

Should technology (computer skills, typing, software instruction, etc.) be taught as separate skills or as part of an integrated lesson?

As a teacher who has used computers with students for over 10 years this is a question that has guided my instruction from the beginning. I have found that all technology lessons can be integrated it just depends on where the emphasis lies. One skill that I believe should be taught separately is beginning keyboarding (when students are learning key placement and building speed). More advanced keyboarding, dealing with spacing and formatting documents should be integrated with creating and developing documents such as letters, essays, and research papers. Use of software should be integrated with actual relevant lessons or activities tied to the classroom. Internet activities including research, interaction with educational web sites, 2.0, and etc. should also be taught as part of integrated lessons and projects. Use of digital media such as cameras, video, music should be taught in such as way that the introduction of skills and parts of the equipment should be taught independently but putting those skills into practice should be done through integrated activities.

The last AWFUL Professional Development I attended...

When I think about the most AWFUL professional development I attended in recent history I think back to the summer of 2008 when I spent 4 1/2 grueling days going through a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) training. There are several factors the contributed to the awfulness of the experience. Logistically, the space most often utilized was large enough but the seating/workspace was uncomfortable and did not have Internet access. In terms of the format, the facilitators were knowledgeable about the PBL process and the hand-out information was relevant (though some of the audio-visual materials did not work due to technical difficulties); but it was obvious that they had been doing the same a script-like presentation for years. As a result, the presentation and learning activities were in no way tailored or adapted to the audience, teachers from the Technology Academies from all grade levels. The format included large group and rotating break out sessions. Three smaller, but not small groups made up of teachers from grade cycles (K-2, 3-5, 6-8) traveled to the break-out sessions. There was no differentiation for individuals who may have already had some exposure to the PBL process so these individuals were stuck and bored. The content used to illustrate the PBL process was not interesting or relevant to participants so it was difficult to transfer any gained knowledge to the learning activity that groups were supposed to create and possibly use in their classrooms during the coming year. By the end of the training there were few, if any, positive comments about the experience shared by participants.

Overall, I remember thinking that the money spent on the training was not earned because the presenters did not take the time to adapt the presentation to the audience at any point, neither before - when they were surely given the description of their audience - or after the first, second, or third days when they failed to identify and address the disinterest and frustration of a significant amount of audience.