I watched my first James Bond movie so long ago that I can’t remember how old I was, maybe around 10. I doold-bond2 remember that it was From Russia with Love and it was on TV early on a Sunday night. My mom, while allowing us to watch, made sure to let my brothers and I know that James’ behavior was not appropriate.

Cool, calm, had the gadgets, had the girls, always with the witty remarks. What’s not to love?

Been a fan ever since.

Later I starting reading Robert Ludlum novels and fell equally in love with his work, particularly the Jason Bourne series.

Both James and Jason get the job done, both win in the end. But they do it in different ways. Up until Casino Royale two years ago, Bond was relying almost totally on gadgets – invisible cars, exploding pens and a watch that turned into a saw. In fact, the gadgets had become the hero. Bond was now the sidekick. And fans of the franchise become disinterested.jason

Bourne does it on smarts, his bare hands and a rolled up magazine. And is still able to beat the bad guys.

Jessen Felix over at Slideshare uses the two super spies as a way to think differently about tech integration in the classroom. Jessen suggests that there are three kinds of teachers. The first two are:

  • luddite – will never use technology as part of instruction or learning
  • techofreak – technology and gadgets will save the world

We’ve all seen teachers like these. The comparison between Jason and James isn’t that much of a stretch.

new-bondPerhaps as Jessen suggests, we should strive to be the third type of teacher – the New Bond. The Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace combines the best of the techno gadgets and the bare knuckles approach of Bourne.

The New Bond.

A teacher who knows that technology is not a silver bullet that will solve every instructional problem. A teacher who understands that technology tools can encourage and support teaching and learning. A teacher that sees that it’s a matter of both/and.

Which one fits you best?