Keys to the car

Kathy Daulton, the Curriculum Coordinator at Instituto Educacional Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The American School of Lima, sends this reflection about the need for collaborative technology planning...

I have a new analogy for all this (for some reason my analogies here always have to do with transportation).

In the beginning, techies drove their tech cars around the school neighborhood inviting teachers to take a ride and see what great opportunities were out there for teaching students.

Slowly but surely, teachers did take the tour and wanted (or were required) to learn to drive themselves, so techies sat in the front seat and directed them, giving important information about safe driving, proper turns, speed and care of their automobiles.

Now more and more teachers at [our school] are asking for the keys to the car. Techies still have to worry about the condition of the car and insurance, and they'll also bite their nails because there will be fender benders and perhaps crashes, but the goal is for teachers to be able to drive independently, care for their automobiles and become a truly collaborative partner in the implementation of the ITL curriculum.

Some teachers may even be ready in a short time for big trucks and motorcycles.

Kathy's comparison sounds a lot like Miguel Guhlin's "strict parent" description of technologists and administrators.

I would say that so long as administrators DO hold just the tech staff responsible for "fender benders" and "crashes," and not the teachers themselves, we will keep a tight grip on the wheel. Will basic technology safety and security ever be considered a professional responsibility?

Handing over the keys to the car? Are we capable? I hope so - and soon.

Making all teachers online teachers

I whole-heartedly endorse subversion when it is defined as "going the right thing for the wrong reasons." And one of the most wonderfully subversive ideas I've heard for sometime was thrown out by Barrie Jo Price (emTech.net) at EARCOS Administrators' Conference I attended earlier this week.

She and the late Bob Sills, former director of EARCOS, came up with a "Business Continuity Model." And it goes something like this... Should a catastrophe occur (epidemic, tsunami, political revolt, etc.) that requires the evacuation of an EARCOS member international school, the Business Continuity Model would allow schooling to continue even if students and staff can't come to the physical buildings themselves. This can only happen online and only happen if the tools, resources, training and experiences are already in place. In other words, by creating online learning environments that supplement F2F teaching now, schools will be prepared for any eventuality when ALL teaching needs to go online.

This is brilliant.

I like the idea of hybrid learning environments simply because:

• students like them
• they lead to constructivist-based learning
  
• they encourage 24/7 learning

In other words, good teaching happens online. If it takes disaster planning to convince administrators that all teachers need to be operating in at least a partical online teaching/learning environment, so be it. Whatever the reason, the result is positive.

Every teacher should be using an online teaching environment. This is one way to actually get every teacher there.

Define "technology"

I received an interesting request in yesterday’s e-mail:

The [technology planning team] would like a definition of 'technology'. We're looking at educational tech, av, library, business, communications.  None of them are totally tech, but certainly there are tech needs in every one.  So, the team needs a working definition of technology in schools so we can [discuss budgeting] on Thursday.

So, does ISTE have an official definition of technology? Do you have a definition you would use (especially as related to budgeting and planning for technology in schools)?

Last time I thought much about this was in response to a request from our district's Technology Education teachers that my department refer to itself and its resources as Instructional Technology or Educational Technology, rather than just "technology":

April 23. 1997

Hi Jeff and Mike,

I received your memos regarding the definition of technology and our use of the word in our district communications. While I understand and even agree with the logic of many of your arguments, the educational profession does not seem to separate “technology” from “educational technology.” As evidence, I am attaching photocopies of covers of national magazines, state publications, regional publications and federal publications which all use in their titles the term “technology” instead of “educational technology.”

I would suggest that “technology” is a generic term that could (and should) be applied to nearly any device or invention humans use to increase their abilities to learn, work or play. Books, lathes, snowmobiles, and mouse traps, as well as computers, are all “technology.”

I would argue that to restrict ourselves to only the terms “educational technology” or “instructional technology” is both limiting and inaccurate. Our staff and students do use technologies that can be termed “educational” technology - instructional computer programs, videotapes, and printed texts. But also they also use:

• “communication” technology - fax machines, word processors, e-mail, and interactive video;
• “information” technology - on-line databases, CD-ROM reference materials, and cable television programming: and
• “business” technology - student record keeping systems, financial packages, and intranets

A single device (like a computer) or even a program (like a database), depending on its use, could fit into any or all of these categories. It would make no more sense for my department to only refer to what we work with as “educational” technology, than it would for your department to only use the term “industrial” technology. Our technology committees and technology coordinators do, in fact, work with a far broader spectrum of technologies than just computers, and so are aptly named.

I will agree that too many educators when they hear the word “technology” think only of computers, and that all educators don't have a clear understanding or philosophy of how technology can best be used in education. These shortcomings will only change as teachers have experiences using different technologies in multiple ways.

In the long run, I suspect what we call our tools will have a far smaller impact on our students’ lives and our community than how we use our tools. I am comfortable using “technology” in communications unless a more specific term is needed for clarity.

 I appreciate the time you’ve taken to express your views on this issue.

Doug

While I still think “technology is a generic term that could (and should) be applied to nearly any device or invention humans use to increase their abilities to learn, work or play"  is still true, it's not terribly practical since by this definition, the “technology” department would wind up budgeting for desks, pencils, library books, etc. as well as stuff that plugs in an goes beep.

What counts as technology in your school?