NETS for students are in a way a misnomer, misleading in the sense that these standards leading to skill development should not exist in this form of a separate entity, as if they are almost a curriculum in their own right. These standards should be embodied within all learning areas. This would clearly delineate whose responsibility it is to teach them. Currently, they really are in ‘no mans’ land unless they are mandated by administration. The act of which creates a pseudo recognition and use of, diluting the authenticity by enforcing a requirement external to actually needing them for the act of learning.

The NET’s themselves are painted in broad strokes that can be interpreted in any learning context or grade level. This was the intention of the initial task force that first created them. Early NETS painted a very different picture of educators thinking the technological skills themselves carried a greater currency than they actually did.

Technological skills have a definitive shelf life. Think back for a moment to the earliest version of word that you ever used. For me, Win Word 1 was my first encounter ever. It performed pretty much like a visual type writer and pretty much functioned at the same speed. The early ‘skills’ that we thought were imperative to have are pretty much made redundant with each new release of software. You can compare the difference between the versions of word that you are using this year to the 2003 app. The navigational skills are completely different; each release increases the reliance on visual referencing. In the last two versions the visual navigation has moved from drop down menus in 03 to tabs and icons in 07. Workflow and efficiency of use is fantastic in word 07. Let’s swing back to my point here and that was ‘shelf life’, the skills that you are developing today in the use of digital tools are not the skills of tomorrow. Our input devices are very rudimentary and with the advent of augmented reality the way that we interact with content will drastically change in the next few years. However, the skills that i developed as an early reader are still the same skills that I use today, albeit with slightly more sophistication. The basic strategies of reading don’t change regardless of the type of text you engage with. We still read from left to right as I was taught when I was five and the letter sounds aren’t chanign anytime soon. Proficient digital skills don’t count as ‘lifelong’ skills in the same way that reading skills do. This accounts for the breadth of these 2007 edition of NETS.
The great this is that encompass many things that we as educators are already doing, innovation and creativity, communicating and collaborating, the difference is the means and intents. In the mind of the task force they conceded that it would be almost impossible to efficient perform these tasks without using the empowerment of digital tools.

It still leaves the question mark of whose responsibility. The simple answer is ours, yours, mine all of those who have put their hand up and taken up the vocation of teaching. However, until the requirement is made for us all to include these NETs in our learning units only those, usually the digitally proficient, will see the benefits to teaching and learning.

One simple way to ensure that these NETs are used in our learning units is to view these as ‘essential strands’. Meaning that every learning unit requires at least one of these standards and over the course of the year you must incorporate all of the standards in some authentic context. This is not a new idea; the New Zealand curriculum has successfully embraced this approach for the last two decades. The analogy used is a woven mat. The vertical strands of fiber are the learning areas and the strands of fiber running horizontal are the essential learning components, like the NETs, that must be used in all learning areas where they authentically contribute to the primary learning experience.

NETS for teachers rock, no seriously that is not a facetious comment, I really do think that they are great in establishing a foundation of proficiency in digital tools. Each standard encourages application of digital tools in a contributive nature to teaching and learning. In addition the standards themselves create a construction of professional development that we should already naturally be engaging in. Each standard endeavors to build proficiency as a professional educator.

The drawback, in developing a rocking proficiency in digital tools as a teacher, is the undeniable commitment to dedicating time to develop these proficiencies. That right there is the catch that most of us stumble on, as there is lag between developing digital proficiencies and the pay off in terms of benefits to learners. The timeless factor of time; time to familiarize, time to apply, time to transfer digital skills and time to make mistakes. In addition the possible cost to learning time. Inevitably we have all experienced a time of ‘hanging’ students. When a lesson has folded due to digital tools not working in the intended way and we’re not sure how to move forward into our next intended learning step. In addition it is simply inefficient to plan back up lessons as insurance against possible digital fallout.

Further to the time factor is the frustration barometer which simply peaks at crucial times of learning experiences. Face it; we all know there is sheer frustration involved in the application of digital tools in front of a live audience. The times when Dyknow fails to deliver or a poll only works for half the class or the time when half of your students ‘forgot’ their password to Toondoos since the last time you used it. Or simply the internet goes down.

However even in light of these negative incidentals, the net gain (can I still use this word in this context) is worth it. Check out the comments that were left yesterday on Scott’s ‘Dangerously Irrelevant blog regarding teachers’ use of digital tools in a contributive nature to teaching and learning. Teachers need to be relevant, right here and now it is about being relevant to the needs of today and the perceived needs of tomorrow and our position as educators advocate relevancy simply by our vocation.
Scotts post – We Can’t Let Educators off the Hook
Jeffery Thomas – Edtech is NOT the way to reform