After the panelists finished their opening remarks the floor was open for questions. As Phil points out in his post there were some interesting points arising from the discussion. There is a little quote from Phil that stuck with me. He said, and I am paraphrasing, "the complexity of the problem has surpassed our ability [as educators] to teach students how to grasp it". Myself, as a student, found it fascinating to witness a room full of highly educated collegiate professors without an answer. The tone was almost uneasy as I observed the room. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it was almost as if the attendees were left with a heightened sense of, dare I say, fright.
As I watched the audience leave the room, almost appearing to have seen a ghost, I began to wonder where we, the students, belong in this discussion. If we are the most affected by these discussions maybe we belong in the room. The discussion spoke heavily on the idea of convergence (instead of "integration"). Perhaps the convergence of students and teachers will provide the answers?
As Phil notes in his post the very last questions left much food for thought. The concern of one professor was the absence of the "visual" in the discussion. I am going to argue that with the introduction of visual, energetic, hopeful, and technological aptitude of the student will not allow the "visual" to be forgotten in such discussions.
