You'd think that after years of struggle to integrate technology into the curriculum, the folks behind the LOTI wouldn't just throw up their hands and walk away...but that's exactly what it appears like in this blog entry, The Many Faces of LOTI:
Thirteen years later, the question often surfaces: Is LoTi relevant today? To answer this question, one needs to consider the current state of the LoTi Framework itself as well as current curriculum models/initiatives being considered by school systems throughout the nation.What? Thinking Integration or Teaching Innovation? Give me a break! The truth is, LOTI is shedding it's technology implementation approaches because it's been unsuccessful in achieving its goal. So, rather than re-brand with a new name, keep the old brand but change what the letters stand for.
Given the fact that we are no longer tracking student-to-computer ratios on a national scale, focusing on single application usage in the classroom, or finding creative ways of storing images on floppies, it doesn't make sense to dwell on the technology aspect of LoTi. Rather, it is critical that we focus on its better half--instruction and assessment.
In many respects, LoTi might be better portrayed as "Levels of Teaching Innovation" or "Levels of Thinking Integration" because the foundation behind the LoTi Framework is grounded in powerful teaching and learning (e.g., learner-centered instruction) and higher level thinking processes.
At a time when 21st Century instruction can't be accomplished without technology, the LOTI folks are abandoning the field. Can we honestly believe that instruction and assessment are the BETTER half of the picture? Why do we keep dividing things into irrelevant parts when the whole is much more important?
The LOTI folks make a great point in this section that doesn't require abandonment of the Levels of TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION:
What is missing from each of these curriculum models/initiatives is a focus on the powerful role that learning technologies can assume in the implementation process. This situation creates two problems. The first problem is that since none of these models/initiatives individually address technology use in the classroom, it is not surprising that when the innovation is fully implemented technology is often missing from the equation.This has ALWAYS (almost) been the case in K-12 schools. I guess when frontal assault fails, it's time to get subversive.
The second problem is more systemic; since technology is not modeled as part of the implementation process, educators as well as district and building administrators often perceive technology as a separated curriculum or initiative by itself, and therefore, not an integral part of the innovation's implementation.
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin's blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure