Musings on what works and what doesn't

I have been looking around for a physics/chemistry teacher that actually blogs on a regular basis with innovative, educationally sound ideas for what works with regards to technological integration in a senior level science classroom. I think maybe this is a niche I might have to try to fill (setting myself up here aren't I?)

A couple of experiences recently (see "why I make kids hand draw graphs") have stimulated some reflection which I will share with you here. First of all, I recently read Mark Prensky's post on barriers to technological adoption and adaption in classrooms and his comments on student's being digital natives reminded me of Chris Betcher's post about how the assumption that today's student is technologically competent is a myth. In a sense I agree with both of them. The "digital native" concept is very real, kids today are embedded in a world much different than the one I grew up in but as Chris points out, that does not mean we should assume they are competent. My arguement about student's own conceptions of "competency" was presented in the post mentioned previously. Sure kids are comfortable with computers but that does not mean they can use them effectively - and it is our job as educators, to integrate basic skills (like how to draw graphs properly using technology) into our classrooms.
A case in point with examples taken from my last batch of lab reports:

My point is any kid today can turn on a computer, load up a capitalist application like MS Word and type in a few sentences (two finger like because we don't teach keyboarding anymore) but I consider that unacceptable when simple features like "insert symbol" and "subscript/superscript" functions elude students. This level of technological adoption is considered doing "old things in old ways" by Prensky, the second lowest level of the progression towards "Edutopia". I argue that if the training wheels are still needed, let's send that message loud and clear and not overlook it in our quest to do "new things in new ways".

My second experience happened quite by accident (most of the best teachable moments do) and came about when I was discussing a recent assignment with a higher level physics student who graduates in June. The assignment was to use a spreadsheet (MS Excel) to model what happens to an alpha particle when it is accelerated through a potential difference. The kids were given no parameters, just an assignment to produce a number of graphs. Most students found it tough, the equations are difficult and added to that, the numbers are extremely difficult to represent graphically. They did however enjoy the challenge and provided feedback that although hard, they really understood the concept.

The product the kids produced is exceptional. For the most part (pat myself on the back here), these students are very competent with the software, and produce highly professional reports. I have spent lots of time helping them and they in turn collaborate extensively not on how to necessarily do the assignment but how to get the software to do what they want. How did this happen?

This is the third of these types of assignments they have done. The first was very simple, and the second a more complicated energy in an oscillating spring system problem. There was no plan for the sequence to be even a sequence or a progression, just me giving them suitable tasks at an appropriate time.

There is nothing fancy about this, no cool hook, no internet gadget - just kids, using a very relevant piece of (dare I say it) 20th century software, in a meaningful manner, that also created a valuable educational experience to supplement a relativity lecture. Why then do I feel like I am not "keeping up with the Jones" of edtech?