In the Charlie Chaplin video a few creative minds came up with a contraption that looked impressive but actually had no useful purpose. When they tried to convince the owners of a company how great their idea was, they failed miserably because they had not delivered something that would "solve a problem" or "enhance what was already in use". Not to mention that they didn't even have the training to use their machine properly. This parallels what happens in our schools with technology. The standards state that teachers must incorporate technology but when they do, quite often it is done without using it as a tool to enhance learning. Kind of like shoving something in students faces and expecting them to embrace it. In other words, they are using technology to use technology. The fellows in the video should have approached their situation with a vision first. What does the customer want to accomplish? How can we make his company/school more productive, more profitable? Then create a contraption that will meet those needs or solve that problem and if they're lucky, the business owner ends up purchasing that contraption. In a school environment, this scenario would translate the idea of profit into more active/productive learning and better results on assessments. In reality, quite often schools make purchases in technology before it is known whether it will produce positive results in learning. Perhaps this is due to the fear that schools are not delivering enough when it comes to meeting the demands of the 21st century.

Janet Yunker

Like many of my colleagues here, I can appreciate the similarities between technology implementation and the Charlie Chaplin video. I find it quite interesting that

the majority of the responses feel that the man in charge of the machine represented administration. Seems like we like to point fingers at the bad guy! I agree that Charlie

represents teachers/students who have the technology forced upon them. However, Charlie is restrained. He didn't volunteer to see if this new

technology was effective; he was forced to participate. Could this then show how some people feel about change, and have the new technology thrust upon them?

Our district is implementing Infinite Campus this year which is an all encompassing administrative online program. We do attendance, grading, progress reports and final grades all in one entity. Although I'm not the

Charlie Chaplin in our school's situation (I welcome the change), I know there are quite a few who feel that this revolution is too demanding. There seem to be some willingness to participate, like

when Charlie drinks the soup and eagerly chews the food. He's not baulking at the process, but is apprehensively amazed at what the technology can do. When he is overfed, or his soup spills, is the time he realizes that he's not ready to willingly commit to this experiment.

The man introducing the new machine could also be a technology committee as well as the administration. As key implementers of new technology, we need to be more aware of how the “Charlie Chaplins” of our schools feel.

Lastly, the group of men who walk away at the end and state, “It’s no good…it isn’t practical”, represent the standards. It seems that even if the schools are willing to change, and are trying to implement new technology that suits their individual district, the changes may not meet the standards as deemed fit.

After time and energy wasted, it was evident that the schools/administration/tech committee need to go back to the drawing board, while the teacher/students sit idly by, waiting to be manipulated again only to see if they can meet the appropriate requirements the next time.

Peg Meddaugh

The schools:

The gentlemen trying to get the eating machine to work represent the schools. They have the responsibility of implementing limited technology into the curriculum. They get one aspect figured out the server goes down or a virus enters the system. They work franticly to rectify the problem just to discover that what was working is now infected as well. They continue working at a feverous pace trying to meet the ever changing expectations of an outside policy maker.

The students:

Charlie Chaplin represents the students. The students are caught in a sometimes overwhelming position of being pulled and pushed in many directions and having no voice in what is happening to them.

The standards:

The gentleman that claims the machine is impractical represents the standards. He is not sure what he wants but is convinced he will know it when he sees it.

Jim Nelson

I see Jim's points and I understand what he is saying. I came away with some additional feelings.

I believe the technology standards are well thought out and well designed by people who have a lot invested in the area. I believe they have the best intentions, similar to a machine that is designed to feed you. They both are meant to help and /or make life a little easier. (I'm not going to discuss eating versus technology-I don't think thats the point of this discussion).

I would bet that some feel like Charlie Chaplin did in this video. They're just standing there doing their job when someone comes along and says "here, try this, it will make your life easier and better". At first, everything is quite nice until the first problem arrives. Things can spiral out of control pretty fast. Pretty soon, people may stop believing in the new idea / technology even thoug all it needs is a little tweeking.

One could make the argument that we as educators are force fed integration when we're not ready, but I don't see anyone in our class feeling that way. To the novice learner it could be the case however.

--Jamie Beckman

I found the segment to relate rather well to technology. In terms of the standards, I think Charlie was feeling a bit overwhelmed when so much food was coming at him, just like some teachers feel overwhelmed when they try to make sense of the technology standards. Also, I truly believe that sometimes teachers don’t feel equipped to use the technology that is given to them. They, like Charlie, are being force feed to use things that their administration sees as valuable. Often the administrators don’t even know how the technology truly works, but they hear it is good so they feel their teachers must use it without proper training.

As I watched I also considered the fact that sometimes we don’t need technology just like Charlie did not need a machine to help him eat. On the contrary, I feel it is important that we as educators are open minded about technology and the impact it can have on education. If we adopt the “it’s no good- it isn’t practical” and scrap it before we can truly know its impact, we are jeopardizing our students’ learning. Remember, effective technology enhances the pre-existing curriculum.

Amanda Simon

My thoughts on this video in relation to the National Standards for Technology were varied. In some respects, I believe that (like the video) we are sometimes shoving skills or approaches on people who are not ready or able to handle them. Much like Charlie, having a tasty treat pushed into your mouth is one thing, but when you get a steel part instead, your system is not ready or capable of handling it. The corn on the cob autoroller was analogous to the way that some students may feel when a particular standard is presented to them, and repeatedly covered even though there may not be understanding OR need for further coverage.

I also thought that, when the text came on the screen with "Let's start with the soup again", it was similar to many technology integration efforts in that, if at first you don't succeed, try again with the same thing and hope for different results. The basis of good integration is to assess what didn't work the first time and make modifications to the way the content is presented until the best method for covering the material is discovered.

The best advice that I can think of is to remember what we heard earlier in the class...the jobs that we are preparing our students for mostly do not exist yet. Finding ways for all students to become familiar with and comfortable using technology will only help them in their lives beyond the K-12 universe.

• Bob Boyd

My thought is that the feeding machine is like the standards we are incorporting, the actual food is the technology, Charlie is the teachers/students using the technology, and the people running the machine are the administrators. The feeding machine represents the standards because like the standards it was designed to work but who it was designed to work for is the question. Standards are created for the general population and are meant to be tweaked for anyone using them. The machine was designed much in the same way but didn't necessarily work for Charlie. Also, in comparing the standards to the machine, neither sometimes have been tested several times before using, making their success a question.

As for the technology "being" the food and Charlie representing the teachers, Charlie at first was comfortable with the pace at which the food, "technology", was being pushed at him. But as time went on he became overwhelmed when the pace picked up and things went wrong. Much like teachers who are asked to incorporate technology, they are often comfortable if it is done at a slow pace and they are fully prepared for it. Once the pace picks up or unexpected things begin to happen, like the machine malfunctioning, teachers get frustrated.

Finally the people running the machine represent the administrators. When everything is going smooothly they are happy. But when the "machine breaks", the administrators first say "try again" maybe it will work without fixing it. Then sometimes after several failed attempts they give up and move unto soemthing new to implement.

~Kristin Hubmann

It is my thought that the feeding machine represents technology, the food represents the standards, Charlie represents the teacher and students using the technology, and the people running around the machine are the administrators.

At the beginning of the movie clip, Charlie was eating his apple. Then, he was approached, strapped into the machine, and fed by the machine. I think Charlie eating the apple represents a teacher in a classroom without technology. Charlie was then strapped into the machine--I think this represents teachers being forced to use technology. It seemed as though Charlie was caught off guard by this. He didn't seem to know what was happening. I think this sometimes happens in education. Teachers are sometimes forced to use new technology, without any prior knowledge of the change. For example, at my high school we were forced to change grading programs. Only 2 teachers were invited to be part of the decision process, everyone else had to "go with the flow".

At first, the machine seemed to work quite nicely---the machine was properly feeding Charlie. This represents technology effectively helping the teacher/students meet the standards. Then the machine starts to go haywire. The food no longer makes it into Charlie's mouth and Charlie even is fed a few bolts! During this time, the machine keeps going, with sparks flying. I think this represents how technology can get in the way of meeting standards. If the emphasis is placed on getting the technology to work properly, rather than meeting the standards, the standards won't be met. In fact, teachers may be teaching things not addressed by standards (feeding the students bolts). During this time, the technology keeps going at the same pace. I think teachers are often expected to keep plowing forward with district directives, even when things aren't working.

Finally, someone steps forward and says that the technology isn't working---that they need something else. Sometimes technology or a plan has to completely fail before the administration realizes that the technology isn't meeting the needs of the students and it's back to the drawing board.

-Kristin Haefke

Many similarities and differences can be drawn between the use of technology in this clip and the way technology is used or viewed in a classroom. I think we would be hard pressed to find a teacher who doesn’t agree with the fact that students need some knowledge of and experience with technology before graduation high school. The National Standards do, in fact, support the use technology. This, however, is a pretty vague statement. Whose responsibility is it to ensure students meet the technology related standards without a “technology class”? All too often teachers try to reserve this responsibility for someone else because life is easier that way.

This video clip showed an experiment in trying to use technology. I don’t believe this is a bad thing. You will not know if it works if you don’t give it a try, the same can be said for education. It’s okay to try something new that uses technology and if it doesn’t work then tweak it and try it again, just like they did in the clip! The problem however comes in when the characters continued to try to force the use of this technology and it continued to become more of a disaster instead of help. We, as educators need to take the same approach, we need to know when to try again and when to not try again. It’s ok if things go wrong when using technology; it’s going to happen, especially on the first try. What we need to realize is that technology is not a good fit for everything. Possibly the feeding machine in the clip would be a great way to use technology but it doesn’t need to completely replace using hands and utensils. The same can be said for education, technology can’t completely replace a teacher however it can be a great supplement.

-Melissa Schuett

As always I agree with my esteemed peers in this class thus far. When I watched this video I thought of Guinea Pigs for some reason. The administration says we are going to try out a new piece of software like Jamie said, "It is going to make your life so much better." The only problem is you don't know what is about to hit you as Charlie Chaplin experienced in "Modern Times." Last year I was the Guinea Pig for Webgrader. I thought this would be great. The kids would be held more accountable, it would be easier to enter grades wherever I go, and there would be better communication between parents and teachers. Then the first problem hits you. Since I piloted the software in the 4th quarter everything I entered for 3rd quarter and the beginnng of 4th quarter had to be redone in webgrader. Then, I found out I had a new email system I needed to be aware of. Next, the program doesn't allow you to play with the numbers without pressing "SAVE." The list goes on and on. This year the staff is piloting a new web page builder. The administration again has called for more guinea pigs. Should I do it or not that is the question. Especially for the older generation, I think the video trully applys. I only wish I could show it to them at school, but "you tube" is blocked and they don't have a computer at home.

I think as future technology specialists we need to do as "Modern Times" suggests. Ask if the technology is practical and if not it is no good.

DANIEL SIMONSON

I feel that the standards are often pushed upon teachers and students by administrators, just like the food was on Charlie by the machine. At first it seems as though everything is going well and then we run into problems. The machine breaking down represents to me how often we try something related to the standards and it doesn't work, so some minor changes are made (often by administration) and we try it again and don't meet the standards. The machine part that pats the face I think represents the administration trying to smooth things over, but when it goes out of control at the end and Chalie get beat up, I think represent the teachers and students boiling over and getting upset that the system isn't working.

As teachers we keep getting new thing pushed upon us, with out being able to give our opinions. Some teachers just sit back and go with what is going on. As future graduates of this program, we have to become the leaders and give our input on the right teaching strategies and technology standards to use with the students that will use technology that has not yet been invented.

Rob Grisar

While I am fully aware that technology in schools isn't a "new" trend, I have this strange suspicion that the timing, the audience, the advancements in technology, the demands of society, and other factors place us at this interesting threshold of change in education over the past few years (maybe decade). The research of the 90's is trickling through the system is suggesting that educational reform is not only recommended, but it is necessary. The working world is no longer begging for change in schools; they are financially investing in the reformation of schools. Students in schools today have come to expect technology as an integral part of everyday life, including their school lives.

While the outcome of the demonstration in the Chaplin movie was humorous and disasterous at the same time, I cannot help but wonder what the final product was that was developed from that prototype. Perhaps it was something ridiculous. Maybe it was something more important, however. Maybe that contraption was the predecessor to today's life-saving medical advancements that allow someone to be nourished by a machine.

While that seems ridiculous, I can't help but wonder if the state/national standards are really nothing more than a prototype for future standards that will be brilliant standards by which all educators guide their classroom instruction and districts align significant portions of their curriculum by. I guess it could be said that Chaplin's experience with the machine was similar to the experience many teachers have with technology today, but the momentum of the progress technology is making assures me that there will a point when the future "Chaplins" of education decide that the technology is not only worthwhile, but essential to effective instruction (something akin to the evolution of screw, nail, and staple guns in the construction business).

-Brian Yearling

When looking at Chaplin’s “Modern Times” through the lens of contemporary American education this funny satire on Industrialization become in a single word: depressing.

While the opening scene is different- here Chaplin is successfully eating without help, whereas Education is not succeeding and requires intervention, from there notable parallels mount.

The eating contraption does not allow for differentiation. The subject must consume what is put in front of him at a predetermined pace. Similarly, the reform movement does not take into account the true abilities of students, but rather the idealized abilities. While students are being force-fed a curriculum that focuses on test-taking and concrete knowledge, their teachers are jumping through required hoops of training that does not train and crushing classroom requirements that are as ever-increasing as they are impossible to achieve.

Neither the eating contraption nor Educational policy focuses on the big picture. Eating is not merely satiation, but also pleasurable, social and human. In the same way education is not test-taking. Education is designed to improve the lives of those who study by making the world broader, more accessible and more vivid.

Boiling these concepts down to their core, both the film and the current educational environment take the humanity out of the processes they propose to help. Unfortunately, it is the humanity they hope to remove from the process that essence of their function.

- Anna Lardinois

The excerpt from Charlie Chaplin’s movie, “Modern Times” can exemplify the way technology and technology standards are integrated into the classroom. The movie begins with a group of people choosing Chaplin to volunteer to try a new piece of technology. While the people who have created the technology have an idea of how it works, Chaplin is only given a brief explanation and then expected to adapt his eating habits to that of the machines. While Chaplin has success at first, the technology begins to malfunction and Chaplin is unable to adapt as quickly. When the professionals and creators of the machine try to step in and assist with the problem, they are unable to fix it. The onlookers, the people who are evaluating how the machine works, decide that, in the end, “It’s no good…it’s just not practical.”

My interpretation of the piece is slightly different from other members of the cohort. I see Charlie Chaplin symbolizing a teacher that is either chosen to pilot or utilize technology in his/her classroom or has volunteered to work on integrating technology and technology standards into his/her classroom. Chaplin represents a person that is willing to try something “new”; however, he has not received all the proper instruction in making the machine work for him nor has he been involved in constructing the machine. This situation relates to a teacher that has been provided technology and standards to integrate into his/her curriculum but has not received proper staff development and training opportunities to make it completely successful in the implementation. As in Chaplin’s case, teachers are often able to adapt their more simple instruction to integrated technology. Chaplin can easily drink the soup, just as a teacher can have students create a PowerPoint instead of a poster. Similarly, Chaplin can eat the various bits of cake, just as a teacher can create a WebQuest instead of assigning different book resources. However, when it comes to more sophisticated tasks – in Chaplin’s case eating corn and in a teacher’s case creating a online classroom for example – sometimes the technology is too difficult to adapt to without assistance (i.e. staff development or a more strategic integration plan). When assistance is needed – as is seen in the “Modern Times” clip – they do not always know how to solve the problem. While technology coordinators and library media specialists may try to help a teacher integrate technology and the standards into the classroom curriculum, it often falls into the hands of the teachers to adjust and adapt on their own. I see that final group of people and their decision that the technology is “no good” and “not practical” as other teachers looking at the pilot program. If technology doesn’t work or doesn’t show results in the “test-run” then it automatically fails in some teachers’ books.

While the clip can be interpreted in many ways, I believe the point relates back to the crucial need to needs assessments, teacher involvement, and visionary goals in the planning process of technology integration. We should consider not only how this technology will be used in a “practical environment” (the classroom), but also involve the people who will be utilizing the technology (the teachers) in the planning process. Technology standards provide a nice direction for technology integration; however, there needs to be support measures in place (like staff development and trainings) to make the technology integration truly effective.

- Heather Slosarek

After reading Jim’s response, I would say I agree with much of how he interpreted and compared the symbolism of the clip to education today. At the same time, I think there is so much more. Educational politics is shaped by special interests, (business men). SI looks for a politician (inventor) within the government who has developed a policy (machine) that is the next best thing in education. Right now there is a push for standards, accountability through testing, high expectations, common assessments, and many others promoted by No Child Left Behind. Many are based on common sense expectations of schools. Many sound and look good on paper. Change is being demanded of the schools (Charlie Chapman) by the government. One way to guarantee obedience (harness), the government attaches strings to funding (food). At first the policy takes hold and seems to be making head way with positive results. Due to unexpected events, eventual resistance, poor planning, or an outright backlash the policy starts to bog down. After flaws in policy are exposed, instead of stepping back to retool, the politician and his backers forge ahead and force their agenda down the throats of schools. Schools become hostage of the policy due to the fear of losing funding. Eventually the SI will withdraw support from the politician and policy. They are losing patience, prestige, and money. The policy collapses underneath its own flaws and arrogance. (Not a part of clip) The politician avoids any real consequences because he uses the schools as the scapegoat. Schools once again get bashed in the court of public opinion. In the meantime, the SI are working behind the scenes to find a new politician and policy to support to start the cycle all over again.

Paul Pulvermacher

After watching the video and reading the previous responses on this page, I agree with Jim that the students are like Charlie Chaplin in this segment. We as teachers are asked to try new things to improve their learning, and sometimes it feels like we are tying things just to try them. While the number of things I have been asked to “try” has decreased in my opinion over the last couple of years, I wonder how things are going to be in the future with more technology available for teachers and students, as we strive towards our goals, meet standards and stay off the NCLB list of schools in need of improvement.

I also agree with Jamie’s comments about novice technology users. We have all decided to be in this cohort by choice, and in doing so, we think that technology integration is a good thing. In my opinion, what we are lacking is the administrative support and knowledge in the area of technology. I am reminded of a situation back a few years ago when they were first marketing the online school. A camera crew and several administrators came into our language lab to do some filming for promotional materials, and in the process of making everything “look right” proceeded to unplug almost every cord available to get them out of the way of the shot. After this, we spent weeks communicating with tech support trying to get everything working again.

We are in the process of change and adding more technology, but need to be careful with using technology in a way that will be meaningful to students, and not just using it for “technology’s sake”. Like the machine in the video, just because something is different, does not necessarily make it better and a more effective way of accomplishing tasks. It is up to us as professionals and teachers to make educated choices on what we are going to do and use with our students on a daily basis.

Angie Jurisch

Christopher See

I can understand so many of the comments made by other members of this class, but not so much from personal experience. Many of the comments talk about how standards are forced on the users without much understanding of their purpose. From my perspective, the adoption of standards has been just the opposite. When I was just a student teacher (those many years ago), the first thing I did with my cooperating teacher was map his sociology class to the state standards for social studies. We then got together with the other social studies teachers to see where the social studies department was falling flat.

The results were not used to force the social studies teachers to change their curriculum or practices, but to let them see how they did or did not match up with the standards. Over the next year, we were encouraged to work together to see where we could fill in holes, but none of it was forced or mandated. This approach gave the teachers a chance to see how they might benefit from the standards, and then adjust to them, without feeling like they were under a microscope.

Likewise, in my current district, teachers worked in committees to develop their own standards for content areas - which actually extend the state standards. They had all the say in the development and adoption of the standards. There are no real technology standards enforced, but we do encourage teachers to strive for them in their content areas. While the end result is spotty and progress has been slow, there has been some progress.

Discussions with others, and some experiences in the business world have given me a window on to the concept of forced standards. I guess I have been lucky there.

I do see the question of need as a real issue, especially with technology. Was the machine necessary for the Charlie? Did it more effectively fill a need he was already meeting? Was the technology being introduced for its own sake, rather than for the sake of its users? I do see teachers and administrators, and even some parents scrambling for technology just to say they have it in the classroom. I am constantly having to ask teachers "does it improve what you are already doing?" Sometimes they say "yes". Just as often they say "no". I have tried to show them that the technology standards, paired with their content area standards, can provide some guidance when looking for technology that is appropriate for their needs and their students.

After watching this clip it was easy to make many connections between the clip and my school districts technology integration efforts.  First, I think the way they chose their participant was interesting.  It was as though they just walked down a line of people and chose Charlie based on characteristics unrelated to the project.  In many cases, when we deal with technology integration we deal with many types of people who get involved for various reasons but not necessarily to support the main purpose.  Second, when the experiment first started and there were problems the inventors made changes they think would work but never asked Charlie who is experiencing the new technology first hand.  This is the same thing that happens in our district where we seem to lack communication.  Many changes come from the top down and it seems that once again no one asked what the needs of Charlie were.  Just as in our district where no one seems to ask what we need.  Finally, when the inventors felt that the technology was not working they just gave up. They seemed angry and unwilling to check the opinions of all involved to see if it is possible to change things and try again.  It seemed that because the communication wasn't there that the whole situation was a waste of time and money. 

 Kim Struve

I agree with the reviews of the master’s class. The relation with the video relating to the technology, standards, teachers, and students are apparent. I believe that at various points in teaching we shove technology upon the students that are not ready to handle the challenge, such as Charlie was thrown in. As Charlie was using the piece of technology it starts out smoothly, but eventually malfunctions and continues to operate without truly working to its capability. It could represent that students do not understand what is covered and become frustrated. As the technology efforts continue the scientists try again hoping to get a different result. Trying to modify the apparatus the scientists make modifications and view if it makes a difference. This represents presenting information differently hoping to discover a method that would best suit the students. Eventually the supervisors, the standards, turn and state how it does not meet the needs and not meeting expectations.

Carl Dehne