It appears to me that some of this most popular sessions at many educational technology conferences are the x apps in x minutes (30 in 30) and the “shoot out” (tech “experts” have a brief period of time to describe apps, devices, and services audience members are unlikely to have seen – sometimes with a winner based on the most impressive presentation) sessions. I must admit that I am a sucker for these sessions and am always curious to see just how many of the supposed novel examples I have already seen or own. The unique, the funny, and the obscure seem to earn extra points.
When I step back and think about my reaction and what must be the reaction of many since audiences seem to be large, I wonder just what participants feel they have gained. Consider that a common mantra among tech facilitators goes something like this – “it is not about the technology, it is about the learning.” This priority could not apply in the cases I describe – many examples have no utility for students and most examples are similar to existing examples already widely known to the rest of us.
Here is my concern. Any new app or service takes some investment of time to become reasonably proficient. This learning time must be subtracted from the time available for application. Of course, we want to use powerful and effective apps, but each time we find something new we must also evaluate just what the value added of the presumed advantages might be. How many times will the better app be used and will there be a cumulative advantage over what would have been used should the educator not have encountered the new opportunity.
What would be cool would be sessions based on multiple, creative ways to use a given app – 10 ways you can use Explain Everything, the versatility of PowerPoint, 20 suggestions for the educational use of the camera in student smartphones. Of course, these sessions do exist, my comment concerns the popularity of the pure “impressive me with your technology” sessions. I am making no argument that any given app or service has limited educational value. I am suggesting that “one time” uses be avoided.
