(A slight diversion from the theme of this post: This diversity is a good thing. If students and teachers simply learn which buttons to click on a single ICT system then we must question how “technology literate” are; just like we would have to question the literacy of someone who could use only one series of books or the numeracy of someone who could answer only one type of math problem. My opinion is that a diverse computing experience prepares all to be more flexible and thus more competent and confident users of computers.)
Clearly such a diverse computing environment does pose some difficulties. Whereas most students will quickly adapt to the different interfaces and will understand the differences in capacity of different systems, adults (teachers especially in my experience) find it difficult to understand that not all computer systems are created equal and that different systems may provide identical function, some provide similar function, and some provide quite different functions. Even more difficult for some adults to understand is that the newest computers may not be the ones that provide the most useful function for a particular job.
The question of who is responsible for what in these environments always comes up; and I have been observing some difficulties in this area recently. Reflecting on these difficulties has led me so some conclusions:
Step #1: Curriculum leaders (this groups includes technology coordinators, administrators, technology committees, team leaders, department leaders, and curriculum experts) decide “What is the technology we need?”
The answer to this question is phrased in terms of capacity to plan, create, and implement curriculum and instruction; not in terms of devices or software. So, “access to word processors and spreadsheets” is reasonable for this group to answer, but “Microsoft Office” is not.
Step #2: School and technology leaders (this group includes technology coordinators and administrators) decide how to provide the curriculum and instruction capacity defined above. These decisions are limited by budgets, enrollment, existing infrastructure, and similar considerations.
Step #3: Technology leaders and technicians obtain, install, and maintain the hardware, software, and connectivity that provides the curriculum and instruction needs defined in Step 1 and that meets to constrains defined in Step 2. This becomes the hardware, software, and connectivity that educators can expect.
Step #4: Educators have the responsibility, then, to learn how to use the systems developed and installed in Step 3. Educators who bring students into a computer room for class must know how to log on and use the system. (Simply sitting back as others troubleshoot minor problems or ignore instruction from technicians as they show how to log on or save is malpractice; even if the teacher proclaims, “I am not good at computers.” )
Of course, the essential connection between each step (and also that connects the last step to the first, making this cyclic not linear) is communication. Curriculum leaders must communicate with school and technology leaders who must communicate with technicians. Technology leader must communicate with everyone as they are at the focus.
If the systems does not work it is the teachers who will know first, but they must first understand what the purpose of the system is and how to operate the system (and they must play an active role in learning both the purpose and the operation of school ICT systems). If the system does not work, then school and technology leaders must believe teachers and work to fix the issues in a timely manner. Finally, all must understand that the system (including decisions made at every step) are local systems with idiosyncrasies and nuances that are unique; just because ICT worked in a certain way in another school (or industry) does not mean it will work the same in this school.
No comments:
Post a Comment