1. THEREFORE, teacher education should include traiing on the use of Mindtools allowing them to become competent lifelong learners and continuously improve as teachers.
2. **The idea that the Millenial Generation is a magical, tech-savvy group is a MYTH.** (3-4)
2.1. also know as (AKA)
2.1.1. Digital Natives (3)
2.1.2. Homo Zappiens (3)
2.1.3. Net Generation (3)
2.1.4. Generation I/iGeneration (3)
2.1.5. Google Generation (3)
2.2. There are false assumptions about these digital natives (3)
2.2.1. They understand what they are doing
2.2.2. They are using digital tools "effectively and efficinently"
2.2.3. It's good to design education there they use digital tools.
2.2.4. They develop "the metacognitive skills necessary for enquiry-based, discovery-based, networked, experiential, collaborative, and active learning along with self organization, self regulation, and problem solving skills" (3-4)
2.2.5. They are capable of making their own implicit (i.e., tacit) and explicit knowledge explicit to others" (4)
2.3. Research shows that the above assumptions are false at least in relation to learning, learning tools, and mindtools (4)
2.3.1. Use established tech for learning/socialization (e.g., mobile phones, Google, Wikipedia, media players) (4)
2.3.2. Lack deep knowledge of tech and of the enhanced features of what they use (mostly basic office suite features) (4)
2.3.3. When they use tech for learning, it is mostly passive consumption of info or for distribution (4)
2.3.4. Ubiquitous presence of tech has not resulted in improved info retrieval, seeking, or evaluation skills (4-5)
3. **Mindtools**
3.1. ***Characteristics* or *affordances* of** (9-10)
3.1.1. **Cognitive amplification & reorganization** - allow user to exceed the limitations of the human mind
3.1.2. **Generalizable** - can be used in various settings to facilitate cognitive processing
3.1.3. **Critical thinking** - help users think for themselves, make connections, and create new knowledge
3.1.4. **Intellecual partners** - each partner is responsible for what they do best
3.1.5. **Concept** - a way of thinking about using tech, learning environ, and lerning activities
3.2. **Classifications of** (8)
3.2.1. Sharing
3.2.2. Thinking
3.2.3. Co-creating
3.3. **Types of Mindtools (6)**
3.3.1. Mindtools also include
3.3.1.1. Web 2.0 tools (7)
3.3.1.1.1. AKA
3.3.1.2. tools to facilitate the continual professional development and learning of teachers (7)
3.3.1.2.1. Critical thinking and higher-order learning are necessary in the work
3.3.1.2.2. Mindtools are intellectual partners with teachers because their work and learning are "intertwined"
3.3.1.2.3. Mindtools are important as teachers continually learn and develop their skills
3.3.1.2.4. Therefore, teachers must learn to use Mindtools "to encourage constructive learning in the classroom and as a tool for their own professional growth"
3.3.2. Databases
3.3.2.1. Allows learners to integrate/interrelate discrete bits of content, making them more meaningful and memorable
3.3.2.2. Buillding a database requires learners to organize info by IDing relevant content dimensions
3.3.2.3. Allows users to think critically and more deeply as they require them to use existing rules, generate new rules to describe relationships, and organize info
3.3.3. Spreadsheets
3.3.4. Search engines
3.3.5. Visualization tools
3.3.6. Conversation environments
3.4. The **effects *of* tech **(when used as Mindtool) are long lasting meaningful learning from working with the tech or having used the tech. (11)
3.5. **AKA** "cognititve technologies," "technologies of the mind," "cognitive tools," and "tools for thinking/tools for thoughts"
4. **Pre-service teachers (PSTs) are no different than their peers**, lacking the necessary technological pedagogical knowledge (i.e., TPK from TPACK) to effectively use Mindtools (5)
4.1. Used a limited range of digital tools
4.2. Passive use of social media as a source of info
4.3. Did not actiively create content, interact with others or share resources
4.4. **Conclusion:** It is "highly questionable that PSTs as currently educated are able to "adopt and adapt ICT [information and communications technology} in their teaching" (5)
5. Teachers & *Communities of Practice * (CoP) as Mindtool
5.1. Teachers
5.1.1. Teachers often work in a solitary manner, even as it is segemented into natural communities (12)
5.1.2. Teachers lack their own personal space at work (12)
5.1.3. Teachers have not downtime at work because if they don't have a class they are busy with administrivia (12)
5.2. Teachers benefit from CoPs in combination with tech (14)
5.2.1. Network tech facilitates communication within CoPs
5.2.1.1. reduces teacher isolation
5.2.1.2. support sharing
5.2.1.3. foster reflection
5.2.1.4. Connect PSTs and novice teachers with more seasoned teachers, trainers, and experts
5.2.1.5. Promote sahring of ideas, experiences, feedback, and learning
5.2.2. **Thus,** CoPs play a key role in promoting innovation in education
5.3. CoP has characteristics of a Mindtool
5.3.1. The sum of participants far exceed the limitations of the individual **(cognitive amplification and reorganization)** (12)
5.3.2. CoPs can be used in many settings and are not domain specific **(generalizable)** (12)
5.3.3. CoPs help users think for themselves, make connections & create knew knowledge **(critical thinking)** (12)
5.3.4. Members of CoPs take on different roles, doing what each does best **(intellectual partners)** (12)
5.3.5. CoPs are a way of thinking about using the knowlede of others **(concept) **(13)
5.4. CoPs share similar goals and interests (13)
5.4.1. Members stay aware of the goals and beleigs of the CoP
5.4.2. Members stay aware of the issues and community debates and disagreements, which are a key component of the value of CoPs
5.4.3. Members develop their own **Personal Professional Theory ** of the profession, which must be compatible with the **Group Professional Theory** of the CoP (14)
6. Conversation Mindtools are very important for teachers to create CoPs(14-15)
6.1. They allow meaningful conversations and lead to knowledge co-construction (15)
6.2. They can be synchornous or asynchronous (15)
6.2.1. Asynchronous tools care one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many
6.3. They support networks for professional development
6.4. CoPs for teacher professional development vary in 3 ways (15)
6.4.1. Size of CoP
6.4.2. Setting where the CoP operates
6.4.3. Composition of CoP
6.5. These variations impact which and how conversational tools are used
6.5.1. Example of Hands-on-Work in France, a CoP of science teachers (16-17)
6.5.1.1. Includes networks of scientific experts, professors, consultants, and school teachers, etc.
6.5.1.2. Two important networks are those of scientific consultants and school teachers
6.5.1.3. Using asynchronous tools, the school teachers pose questions as they prepare lesson plans, and the experts respond within days, improving science education
6.5.2. Blogs (called weblogs in the article)
6.5.2.1. Blogs provide several affordances for learning (18)
6.5.2.1.1. allow self-direction
6.5.2.1.2. provide opportunites for reflection
6.5.2.1.3. invite perspective making and taking through audience interaction
6.5.2.1.4. allow knowledge brokering
6.5.2.1.5. support delopment of the author's identity
6.5.2.2. Blog uses (18-19)
6.5.2.2.1. knowledge logs to gather relevant information and ideas on a topic
6.5.2.2.2. recording personal and everyday life
6.5.2.2.3. a forum to express emotions/feeling
6.5.2.2.4. allow interaction between students and student and teacher
6.5.2.2.5. assess learning
6.5.2.2.6. manage tasks
6.5.2.3. Blogs are Mindtools, especially when used as knowledge logs
6.5.2.3.1. facilitate critical thinging and higher order thinking as an intellectual partners
6.5.2.3.2. reflect the author's history of learning and thus are tools of reflection
6.5.2.3.3. harness the wisdom of the crowds (intellectual partners/cognitive amplification
6.5.2.3.4. provide insights on conceptual change
6.5.2.3.5. can be used to model experiences and share them
6.5.2.3.6. Research has documented value of blogging for PSTs (20)