On another note, I completely agree with the integration of applications, authentic experiences, and relevant context. Doesn't this just make sense that we would use these tools to facilitate learning and support individualized exploration? I sometimes feel like these kinds of ideas are held as innovative and "out of the box," when they should be common, everyday experiences. We KNOW that every person learns differently. We KNOW that prior experiences and knowledge play a foundational role in assimilating new information. We KNOW that "one size doesn't fit all." I feel like it just takes too much time, effort, and money to facilitate individualized learning and experiences, therefore, we settle for the mass format, streamlined learning and assessment, and running our population through the cattle-shoot of a P-16 system.
Technology will change the way we "educate" our society, just as the industrial revolution changed education in the past. Pereiman said it well, "Our future is drastically different from our past, or anyone else's past." I believe that throughout history, human beings have been challenged by many events that force change in the way we life life - whether it was a historical event, a natural disaster, a human tragedy, an industrial revolution, or a world-wide conflict. Ongoing, life-long learning is really the reality of life. Some choose to embrace it, pursue it, and develop it - some do not.
I was especially struck by Dr. Faverty's idea of the future and personal education vouchers. He points out that the future would value education as client-centered and market-driven. Also, education would facilitate communication skills, employment desires, possible career changes as well as personal recreational skill development. Wow! What a concept! Shouldn't education be doing that NOW??? Shouldn't we be "student-driven?" Shouldn't we be facilitating a system of access to all successful school models???