Task #1 and #2: My Initial Rant

So, it seems that Task #1 and #2 are inextricably linked. My initial thoughts I composed on Writeboard:

I have seen videos like the ones shown in Task #1 (maybe the same ones). Although I agree, I often find this type of presentation too critical of traditional methods. What does it mean when it says much of what is learned is “not relevant”? I found many topics irrelevant when I was a teenager that I later discovered help me develop important thinking skills. Also, this type of wording frightens me:

“Ms. L’s class essays are turned in as blog entries, because she finds that their conversational nature encourages students to think and write in more depth than traditional formal essays or short answer assignments.”

I have not found this to be true. In fact, I think students struggle more with formal writing than any other skill. They know how to write in a conversational tone, but they do not know how to develop formal arguments. That takes thinking! Although I see value in a blog, I am not sure it encourages "more depth" in thinking and writing.

I am interested in integrating technology more heavily into my curriculum, but I only want to do so if it really challenges students and promotes critical thinking. Students know how to express an opinion, but I want them to know how to evaluate historical evidence and formulate opinions that are supported….not just to think any opinion is equally true.

(A few weeks later, fickle Cullen wants to temper his comments)
After re-reading my initial post, and reviewing the blogs of some of my colleagues, I did not want my initial comments to read like angry reluctance to join the 21st century. I am eager to learn new ways to engage students and integrate technology. I just find that articles like the ones from task #1 often fall victim to creating a false dichotomy between the evils of traditional methods and the virtues of technological advances.