I found after I submitted my actual Teachnology Philosophy, that it consisted mostly of keeping up with technology, using technology purposefully rather than as flash, and teaching students to approach technology in the same manner. I remember looking back at my blog as I finished up and making notes about ideas to include. Keeping the philosophy to around 750 words naturally limited including everything a philosophy could contain, but I do wish I had said more about the teacher as a “crucial component”, and the ability of technology to lead us out of ourselves to benefit society. I’m not fully sure why I didn’t include these topics. I think I got wrapped up in what my first draft had addressed, and I didn’t move too far away from that.

This is what is nice about a teaching philosophy though. It is in flux. At times we focus on one aspect of the profession, at another time we become intrigued with another piece of the life. Hopefully we don’t lose either one, and we generally experience more of a snowball effect. One piece begins to inform the other as we develop our professional approach. Even if we never pulled in new considerations, the pieces we already hold on to would synthesize to a degree, but by continually adding to our philosophies, the synthesis will grow to be a more full and informed philosophy. We will become more professional practitioners of our field. This is part of the teacher being the “crucial component” in the classroom. Technology at this point is only capable of doing what it is programmed to do. Teachers have the ability to read widely on a variety of matters that affect the classroom, and to manufacture solutions to address the issues that arrive in our classrooms daily. Our teaching philosophies will inform those decisions, and should never become stagnant assumptions, but always living entities with whom we work.