Final thoughts on IDET

Now that the end of the semester has come, I would like the end this blog where it began: by attempting to define what IDET is. I have to admit, I really didn't know anything about Information Design when I began this degree. Looking back to my first blog entry, I can see that I had a lot to say about what I thought it might be. Now 3 1/2 months later, although I don't have all (or even most!) of the answers, I think I do have a better grasp of what Information Design is all about.

To me, Information Design is the study of how to design instruction for maximum efficiency. Because this instruction is not always delivered by the designer or a subject matter expert (SME), a lot of analysis, followed by a lot of details, will be involved. Evaluation is also of paramount importance throughout the process, especially surrounding the development of materials.

Although we spent a lot of our time reading about and implementing Dick and Cary's Systems approach to Information Design, I think I prefer the simplicity of the ADDIE model. Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. In a nutshell, that is what Information Design is. It is a circular process, hopefully involving lots of evaluations and revisions along the way, and in the end we all hope it produces a workable and efficient instructional solution!

Along with Information Design, we spent a lot of time in class discussing the implications of Educational Technology, especially with respect to when it is appropriate to use this technology in our designs. I think that we covered a lot of important issues in class (and online!), and I look forward to other classes and discussions about great ways to use technology in the classroom. Reading Frick's article a few weeks ago really reminded me of all of the things we thought we would be able to do 20 years ago, as we looked forward toward the more advanced technology that we now enjoy. It is interesting how many of those things are now a reality and also how many of them are making no significant impact in the way we educate our children. I truly look forward to seeing how we all learn to make better uses of the great amount of technology that surrounds us every day.

Presentations

Tonight I have to say, everyone's presentations have been really fun to listen to! It is interesting to hear how many of the groups seem to have had such a similar learning experience: details, details, details!!! I really identified with what Nicole said about the difference between designing instruction for yourself, vs. designing something to be handed over to someone else. Before this class, I didn't realize quite the difference, or have any idea of how to design for someone else, or an independent learner. I really think this class has helped me think through instruction in this manner.

Thanks everyone for your great examples. . .

AND MERRY CHRISTMAS!! (and happy time off of school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Getting more done faster?

This week in class, we again discussed what people use computers for. It is surprising that there is really nothing "new" going on here. . . we are using computers to accomplish the same types of tasks (or entertainment, or creations) that we accomplished before, without computers. Carter mentioned that somehow, with the addition of computers in our classrooms, the expectation levels have changed. We are now expected to do more, with less, and faster. Sounds familiar.

But wait, a little voice in my head shouts out. . . computers do help us do more, with less, and faster!! Instead of going to the library and finding books the old fashioned way (kids in tow as well), I just go online, find what I want quickly, and put it on hold. A trip to the library is now faster and easier. When my husband watches a movie and wants to know more about an actor he just say, he pulls out his ipod and quickly searches IMDB. Bingo, at his fingertips, all the information he needs. Fast! If I want to make a movie of my 4-year-old's birthday party, I just drag the photos into a slideshow, add the movies, insert a disc, and there you go -- a DVD is burning (theoretically, anyway). So why doesn't this work in education?

I am thinking the difference is that the tasks have become faster, but the learning doesn't change. We may be able to gather more information quickly, but then someone still has to sift through it all. We can automate tasks for our students, but they still have to do the work. And most importantly, there is no shortcut to actual learning!! No matter how much information we throw at our kids, they still have to build on it, experiment with it, absorb it. This process cannot be hurried or our children will be shortchanged. Computers can speed things up . . . but they can't (and shouldn't!) speed up our children!

Someone we respect

In all seriousness, I enjoyed the discussion tonight about different types of adopters. It's funny to think about people I know (including myself!) who fit those categories really well! I have one good friend who is my go-to person in almost anything I want to buy. If she is using it, I know I want one too. She is totally an "early adopter" -- well-respected, a role model, and has some disposable income to use on the new "stuff". But when it comes to computers, I turn to my "mac boys" -- that'd be my brothers. They are not quite innovators, but they watch the innovators closely. When the new technology has proven itself, they are among the first on-board (at least in concept; they often have to wait until they can afford the new gadget). Then I have another brother-in-law who is really an innovator, at least where computers are concerned. He is a self-titled "geek", and he has more computer stuff than he can keep in his house. He's got everything, and a lot of it is great (but a lot of it is not). The late majority has to be my parents (well, at least my dad - and my mother-in-law) They are more skeptical, and it takes all of us to convince them that this or that new thing will really impact their lives in a positive way. And for laggards. . . well, I guess in some things that'd be me. . . at least when it comes to some things, like my kids having cell phones, cable tv in my home, and all manner of things that my kids have on their agenda. It's funny how an "early majority" person becomes a parent, and suddenly they are a luddite and a laggard. Ah, the plight of my poor children!

I do think that it is important in light of this discussion to target those early adopters. I was thinking about it on my way home, and a lot of what we do and don't do really is driven by who we see doing that same thing. Christmas lights -- no way am I going to be one of those "environmentalists" who covers their homes in blueish led lights (even though it would definitely save me money) -- Twilight -- am I one of those groupies?? I hope not (but I did like the books. . .) -- Harry Potter? -- you bet! I even have a Mrs. Weasley costume -- and the list goes on. It does seem like it's more about who else does/uses/likes it than whether or not I think it has merit. Even if I do like it, if the people I respect think it is silly, I will usually do/use/like the thing in a more covert way (Star Trek rings a bell here. . . just don't tell that I was a Trekkie even before the new movie came out!)

It's all about getting people that are respected "on board".

Adoptions

I have to laugh at the word "adoptions". I remember when my husband went to the math textbook adoption meetings a few years ago. I had vision of cute little bouncing baby math books.

Just in time!!

The "Just in time" article was indeed "just in time" for me. . . just in time to save me from being overwhelmed with the time involved in making an instructional design!

I know there is a place for making sure that all of the details are in place, and for spending a whole semester solving an instructional problem. Writing textbooks, developing curriculum, and even some corporate instruction may require that level of detail. But I've been wondering for awhile how to incorporate some of what we are learning to a more everyday situation. In essence, I've been wondering how to shortcut this system.

I liked a lot of the thoughts this article had about ways to combine steps, overlap steps, and generally do things faster and better. Yay for Just in Time!

Computers in the classrooms

I enjoyed the reading this week, mostly because it was almost just a list of the different concerns that are "out there" about using technology in our classrooms. No one is saying that technology does not have a place in the classroom, but it is very useful to note some of the things that we all need to consider, and maybe compensate for, as we make decisions about how to teach things.

I thought the suggestions at the end of the article were interesting. The first was what you usually think of: think before you act. Consider the ramifications before you fill a room with computers.

The second suggestion, however, to have a group of people somewhere who evaluate these things and let educators know . . . that is a really good idea!! And then I got thinking about my husband, who is a 4th grade teacher. Every summer he does contract work for UEN, and what he does is find websites to link to the core pages that UEN hosts. He checks the pages they already have listed to make sure they are related, checks links, and finds new pages that fit the topic. It's actually really cool, and I have found myself going to UEN to find educational web pages now that I know they have a good list. But I don't think many people know that this information is out there. It's not quite an independent group of people evaluating software, but it's close -- and it's right there on the web!!

Like Diagramming Sentences

I have to admit, this project contains an incredible amount of detail! I have felt more than a little bit frustrated trying to get everything together.

I went back to the first chapter of the book and re-read what was said there about teachers and this method of instructional design. I am comforted to recall that the book states that most teachers will hardly ever use this process in its entirety, but rather pick and choose from the skills they have learned. The book also stresses that after learning this discipline of instructional design, most teachers find that the way they approach teaching will be forever changed, and that the reader ought to reserve judgement until after they have also implemented the methods.

I am reminded of two things I actually enjoyed in high school - sentence diagramming, and solving complicated math problems. I remember many friends then (and students I tutor now!) saying that they could never see a time when they'd use these very complex skills. Although I did happen to enjoy both of these activities (wierd, I know. . .) I have to admit that both disciplines have changed my way of thinking in very positive ways. I find that, due to diagramming sentences, I understand (and remember!) grammatical structures that others I know barely remember learning. And although math has been useful to me in my life, I also believe that the study of complicated math problems helps us with our logical reasoning skills even if we never formally use the skills in our adult life.

Maybe (I hope) this detailed process of Instructional Design is the same way. As an educator, I don't plan to go through the whole process, at least in the detail we have in class. But I am hoping that the things I am learning will help me as I structure lesson plans and assessments in my future life.

I'm looking for the mouse. . .

As the parent of a 4-year-old, this story cracks me up! My son, of course, much prefers the interactive (his favorite - Legend of Zelda!) to passive media (sadly, too bad for Sesame Street).

I am thinking about how applicable this idea of "looking for the mouse" is to our jobs as instructors. We accomplish so much by being more interactive whenever possible. Especially as instructional designers, we always have to think in terms of structuring our products to be interactive. Without interaction, our learners will become merely passive viewers. With it, they become a part of the instruction.

Kozma vs. Clark

I have found the whole Kozma/Clark debate to be both enlightening and frustrating. I can see what both of them are trying to say, and of course, I think that the "truth" is somewhere in between (or are their arguments really all that incompatible with each other in the first place?) Like Clark, I do think that it is the method that is the most important. However, like Kozma, I think that media can be a positive factor in students' learning. Looking at some of Kozma's other comments in our Learning Theory class (like many others in this class) I was reminded again how important it is to consider the cognitive needs and background knowledge of the students. What we need to remember as teachers and/or instructional designers is to use media where appropriate.

I really liked what Wade Meier posted last Friday in the discussion. He cited a 1994 article from Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson which stated: "this debate should focus less on media attributes vs. instructional methods and more on the role of media in supporting, not controlling the learning process." I think that sums it up really well. Media can be a great tool, and it is incumbent on us to use it well.

objectives

I guess it feels good to be going somewhere other than analysis. . .

However, I have to admit, I am having a hard time figuring out why we need lots of super-detailed goals (and sub goals and sub-sub-goals) and also another even more detailed objective.

They kind of seem like the same thing to me. I can see that the objective is basically the goal, restated with ABCD or BCC or whatever acronym you choose. I guess I'm just wondering what the purpose of writing it any other way was. We did that whole chapter on writing good goal statements; why not just include these specifics in the original goal statements (and sub statements)? Is there some use for the goal statements that is separate from the objective?

And then there are the "ism"-s

Since I mentioned that two different articles spoke to me, I guess I should have mentioned the second one :)

I really liked the article from last week: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism. . ." I liked it for several reasons. First, having a husband who is a teacher (and although I sometimes teach, my degree is in math), I have heard these terms for years and not really completely understood them. This article was a really great concise explanation of the prevailing "doctrines" of education, and as I read it, things began to fall into place. Especially as I read about how those different groups of people (behaviorists, cognitivists, etc.) would use Instructional Design, I began to understand how I will use Instructional Design as I teach. I was especially intrigued that there are some things that a "behaviorist" and a "constructivist" would do the same, but for different reasons (like feedback -- either to reinforce behavior, or as a learning tool) Of course, in practice, we would hope to use all of these philosophies where they fit best, but it was very helpful for me to understand all of these different approaches to utilizing ID.

I also really liked the article because I realized where I lie on the behaviorist-congnitivist-constructivist spectrum. It is useful for me to realize this about myself -- where I am coming from, and what style of teaching I naturally gravitate to. This is especially useful because I can now see the great value that is in the other two "camps" and when these techniques might also be of use to me. Wow!!

Back in town . . . so what is technology??

Well, I've been out of town for 10 days having hands-on history lessons (and science lessons and life lessons. . .) in Boston with my 4 kids. We flew in last night at midnight, so today I am trying feverishly to get back into "my life" (and also my school work).

I did try to take the opportunity on those long airplane rides to read some of the articles for class. I have to say that two of these articles spoke to me in different ways.

I really liked the various definitions of terms in "Educational Technology A Question of Meaning" (Gentry). I found several that I thought fell closer to my "evolving" definition. I liked Paul Saettler's definition of technology (page 2):

"any practical art using scientific knowledge"

and also Admiral Hyman Rickover's definition (same page):

"technology deals with tools, techniques, procedures: the artifacts and processes fashioned by modern industrial man to increase his powers of mind and body."

I like the breadth of these two statements, and I like how Saettler uses the word "art," because I think that there is always an art to using any technology well. But mostly, I guess those definitions just "feel right" to me.

What is your goal?

You know those days when it seems like you are just not getting anywhere?!

I have spent most of today working on something that was supposed to be fun (planning my upcoming trip to Boston on my new spreadsheet program) and yet I feel like I've gotten nothing done. My husband came home, and I was trying to explain to him why I was feeling frustrated. I couldn't quite verbalize where things had gone wrong -- I mean, generally speaking, spending time organizing, trip-planning, or working with my new computer is fun!

As we talked, it came to me. I had not defined what the goal of my spreadsheet was! I was unsure what it was supposed to look like, what success would be, and what I was after! Somewhere between wanting to "play" with the cool template and wanting to organize my upcoming trip, I had been trying to design something useful with no defined goal in mind!! And as I thought about this, I realized that this is kind of a pattern with me and designing things. I spent all summer working on websites, and thinking back on it, I was doing the same thing. In the end, I think I got things mostly figured out, but I could have saved myself a lot of "development" time if I had spent a little more time in the "analysis" and "design" phases. Writing stuff on 3 x 5 cards and rearranging them all over the dining room table just seems like so much work -- but I am now seeing that it is way more work to have to keep reinventing your design every time you come upon some new information that doesn't quite fit in right.

Wow. Information Design. Hmmm. . .

Understanding by Design

I think I am feeling a little bit frustrated.

On the one hand, I really like the idea of backwards design. I can definitely see how this applies to education, business, and life in general. Any time you venture out to do something without a plan, you end up haphazardly getting nowhere specific. The more I look around, the more I see examples of this everywhere. In all areas of my life (family, personal, educational, etc.) I would like to employ this idea more often.

On the other hand, when I read the article and looked at the sample pages they showed, my reaction was "no WAY . . . I would NEVER have time to do this for every lesson!!" And besides the worksheets, I have been thinking about the reality of teaching this way. When I do teach, I am a math teacher, usually in algebra, geometry, trig, or calculus. I know firsthand how many kids struggle with math because they can't relate to it; it seems like something they will never, ever use. And as a math tutor, I have the luxury of trying to address that concern. But as a teacher, life is different. You don't decide your curriculum; it is mandated by the federal government, state government, or district. You have no choice but to cover the book, which takes all of the time you have available in class. And as great as it would be to teach each lesson with an eye towards what will be useful for the student to know, it is just not realistic. Those students who eventually study in the scientific fields will need advanced mathematics to solve physics, chemistry, and engineering problems. Those who will go into social fields will use mathematics in statistics. And any of them who are college-bound will simply need to "get through" calculus to get their degree (and whether or not that is a good idea is outside of my realm of influence). But the thing is that kids who are learning algebra simply don't have the skill set to comprehend what algebra is useful for! Yes, there are "smaller" applications -- they are called story problems! But when you teach with lots of those, you loose lots of students.

In the end, I am left wondering if there are some subjects that just need to be taught the way they are, with no specific application in mind. It's like long division. Is it important to be able to do? Yep. But although I can tell you why you need to divide things, I can't tell a child specifically why they need to be able to do it longhand. There are reasons -- preparing for standard testing, exercising your mind, learning the logical rules of mathematics, and just being able to follow your teacher, for example. But are these reasons that matter to a fourth-grader?? I hate to say it, but in the end, they just have to learn the algorithm, step by step, just like we did when we were their age. Without it, they will be handicapped.

Is it an instructional problem?

Boy, I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I agree with the people tonight in class that were having a hard time imagining a problem that is not instructional. We're teachers (by and large) and that's what we do -- instruct! It's hard to imagine a discussion with, for example, a principal that goes like this:

"Jim, your kids' test scores are low. Your kids aren't getting long division. What do you think you could do about that?

"Well, I don't think it's an instructional problem. . ."

Ok, maybe that's an oversimplification. But I almost raised my hand and asked for an example of a non-instructional problem that might come up in schools.

However. . .

Then there are the cell phones in Carter's class. You mean the kids don't know they aren't supposed to have a cell phone?? And I have to be honest, I am really wondering about the kids who don't know how to find files or programs, or where to save. Sure, they are having that problem in class -- that I believe! But do I really think they haven't been instructed in this before? I know that in my kids' elementary school, they work with files and drives all of the time. They have a shared drive they can't leave stuff on; they type, save, and print stuff; and I'm pretty sure my 13-year-old occasionally lost things in elementary school that he didn't save in the right place. So is that an instructional problem? Maybe. . . Maybe partially, anyway.

I keep thinking about a bill (I think it was a bill. . . the legislature is not is session yet, are they?) they were talking about on the radio the other day. Without getting too specific. . . let's just say they are concerned about a certain content area in high school health class. The sponsors of the bill are worried that our kids aren't getting enough information because they have so many pregnant teens every year. Um. . . excuse me?? Do we really think our teens don't know how they are getting pregnant? Sorry. This is not a lack of information!!

Maybe there are more "non-instructional" problems in our schools than I was thinking before.

Of course. . .

Technology in Education

So what is the role of technology in education?

We talked tonight about a quote from Seymour Papert, from 1984: "There won’t be schools in the future…
I think that the computer will blow up the school. . ."

I don't think technology is changing the basic structure of our schools -- most of the time, anyway. Certainly there are some exceptions -- some people take things too far, by way of whatever "technology" is currently the rage. (Grading writing assignments using computers comes to mind. . .) But by and large, I think technology is useful in education as a tool that can facilitate learning.

There are just things you can do with technology that you can't do without it -- not without a whole lot of work and time, anyway! It is using modern technology that I quickly pulled up tonight's lecture notes and grabbed the previous quote. My son's English teacher used the convenience of email tonight to give me a heads-up about the assignment that is due Thursday. I personally welcome the addition of smart boards in his new classroom that is currently under construction (Hillside -- they are a bit behind schedule now because of the fires a few weeks ago). As a math tutor, I know how helpful it is to be able to see the teacher's notes from the day (in their complete form).

Has modern technology changed education? Sure! But since when was "education" a static thing? In my own discipline (math), think of the technology that has been made available over the years. In terms of calculators alone, consider the changes. When my grandparents were young, they used slide rules. My grandpa was a mathematician like me -- he taught math, starting in a small school house in Idaho, and then eventually became the Superintendent of Granite School District. He was no intellectual lightweight. But "advanced mathematics" to him was algebra, and maybe some trig. I think he probably did some calculus at the university. My parents used the newest and the best: calculators!! They had some disadvantages, though, even compared to our cheapest and smallest calculators today. For example, students of that generation learned a concept called "logarithms" by looking up values in a table in the back of their book. Since the tables could never contain all of the possible values a person might need, the students learned to be adept in "interpolating" -- that is, finding a more precise result by narrowing down neighboring results. This all took considerable time, though, and energy. By the time I was in school, we just pushed a button on our calculator to find a logarithm or a trig function. I thought I was pretty advanced as I painstakingly found roots of complex, higher-order polynomials that my grandpa probably didn't even comprehend! But now, my math students find approximations of these roots at the push of a button, shortening their work time dramatically! In the end, our math students today are using technology that I only even saw as a senior at the U. I wrote C+ and Fortran programs to find the best fit line to a group of data. Now in high school, they push a button and find immediately the equation and then use it to predict future behavior in a system! It's crazy!!

I know, I'm rambling. Blogging is fun for me because I have a captive audience to listen to my rants. Bottom line: yes, education changes with every new technology. Yes, some people take it too far, but that rarely lasts the test of time. Eventually, though, we refine our education process as we use the tools that are available to us to teach what the students need to know -- better, faster, and easier. And it's really cool!

Learning

I'm really excited about this blog! It's kind of fun to have a place to reflect on what is discussed in class, and add my own thoughts.

We talked on Tuesday about the nature of education. What is it? Dr. Monson listed several metaphors that could be used to describe the process of education/learning. The comparison was between a mind and:

1) A muscle that needs to be exercised
2) A garden that can be cultivated
3) A dark cave in need of illumination
4) An empty vessel to be filled to overflowing

I said that I liked the first metaphor, but I guess in reality, my definition is somewhere between the first and the second. I like the muscle idea because I think that learning is individual, and unless the student is engaged, they won't accomplish anything. Knowledge is built by the learner stretching their mind, making connections, and putting information into place along with the information and experiences they already have. A person can increase (or decrease!) their own ability to learn and retain information as they exercise (or don't!) their own mind.

The second metaphor, a garden, is also appealing to me. I think that students have potential, just like fertile ground. We as teachers can plant seeds and nurture them, and depending on what is planted in each person's mind, they will each develop into a unique and prolific garden.

I guess my difficulty with the garden metaphor (and actually, with the cave and vessel as well) is that most of the work is being done to the learner, instead of the other way around. Having worked with many students over the years, as well as my own children, I know that learning cannot occur without effort on the part of the student. A teacher can present information (metaphor #4) but unless the student is truly interested and/or motivated, they may only "learn" in that they memorize enough to satisfy minimum expectations from the parents or teacher. Similarly, an instructor may try to illuminate the dark crevices of the student's mind (metaphor #3), but unless the student also finds those corners dark and in need of a little bit of light, the change will be only momentary.

This brings up the question of what exactly learning is, and how it occurs. I guess I'd say that learning can be as simple as the acquisition of information. However, I think I would add that this information has to influence the learner in some way. Some part of their behavior or cognition has to change, as a result of the new information.

As for how this occurs, as I mentioned before, I believe that the student has to play an integral part in the learning process. I don't know much about educational theory, but from my understanding, I would say I'm a bit of a constructivist. I think that students learn best when they have to build some part of the knowledge themselves, and then find a way to fit it within their existing thoughts and ideas.

My personal example of this (within my own discipline, naturally!) is learning math equations. I have taught or tutored math for 17 years, so I have worked with a lot of students on this topic. Frequently they come to me with a list of equations, not really sure how each one works or what they are even supposed to do. In some cases, sadly, there is nothing to do but tell them to memorize the list, but most of the time, I try another approach. I spend a minute explaining to the students where the equation comes from and what it is used for. If it is possible, I give the student a problem that will naturally lead to the equation, and then ask them how to solve it. As we work through the process together, the student finds a meaningful place in their psyche for the particular equation, and then often finds that they've arrived at the answer themselves. In this manner, rather than telling them how to do the problem, I try to help them do it themselves. The students then leave with the self-esteem of knowing they can do the work, and the knowledge that if they get "stuck," there is a way to think the problem through. Furthermore, the student now has a scema to put this new information into; it is not just a random bunch of letters and numbers rattling around in their head. It has become meaningful and they have found a way to "attach" this information to other things they know and understand.

Now that I think about it, this brings up a question. Do I believe that learning occurs this way because that is the way I learn? Do different people learn in different ways? Would I be a poor teacher, then, for someone who was looking for illumination in their dark corners? Hmmm. I am interested to see if we can answer this (and many more!) question(s) this semester.

IDET -- what is that?

Last week was the first week of fall semester, and the first week of my new IDET program!! What is IDET, you ask? It's Instructional Design and Educational Technology. Wow! That's a mouthful!! What does it mean?

Well, I actually spent the summer working on classes in the IDET program, so maybe I have a different perspective on what exactly Instructional Design is (than I otherwise might). I don't know much about educational theories and principles yet - that's my Thursday class - and although I have spent time in a classroom as a teacher, I am not a trained educator. To me, IDET is made up of two things: Infomation Design is the first; Educational Technology is the second.

"Information Design": The word "design" makes me think of art -- designing something, like a beautiful lanscape, or a scrapbook page (yes, I am a "scrapper"). Design is something that generally alludes me, as in my previous life (at the U anyway!) I was a mathematician. I proudly tell people that I am a math person, and not in any way an artist. And although I love to scrapbook, I sometimes feel woefully inadequate as I watch my sister-in-law, who was an art major, and who can somehow sense what elements of design fit best on her pages.

"Information Design", however, I think, has a broader scope. We are now talking about designing the presentation of information in a way that is appealing, engaging, and understandable to the user. I don't know if this field is generally used by other disciplines, or if it is usually oriented towards education. For my own purposes, however, I intend to study with the ultimate goal of improving my ability to teach and present information.

"Educational Technology", then, must be the study of the technologies that are available, appropriate, and useful in an educational setting. I spent the summer working with technology as I learned how to design and program web pages, make photoshop and fireworks images, animate things with flash, and put it all together into a useful product. I have to admit, I really love technology! It was great to learn how to use the adobe suite. But as we discussed in class last Tuesday, the word "technology" has a much broader definition as well.

We usually think of "technology" as an electronic or computer-oriented product that we can use to get something done. But what about all of the other disciplines out there? Artists might talk about using the newest "technology" much the same way they might teach a new "technique". Are the two words related? (I don't know. . .) What about other areas, like gardening, construction, or decorating? I'll bet they use the word technology too, and not always (in fact, I'll bet usually not) in the sense of a computer program. (I wish I had some specific examples, but in my own field -- mathmatics -- the technology is generally computer-dependent!) Dictionary.com lists technology mainly as a word dealing with "technical" implementation, but it's last definition is interesting:

3. Anthropology The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

Hmmm. . . I look forward to more discussion in class about what exactly technology is.