Teachers are facing the monstrous difficultly of large classes; it is not uncommon to have sixty or more learners per class. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the learners in this class are all at different learning levels. Some learners might have been promoted to the current grade without having gained the competencies to operate at that level; others may have varying learning challenges.
How does a teacher cope under these circumstances? More importantly, how is the individual learner getting a good education in such an environment? In many cases the teacher is ill equipped to handle the situation and simply teaches at one level and hopes for the best.
Can computers help? Perhaps. But then the teacher must have a good knowledge of: the individual learner's needs; the curriculum outcomes; and the different software tools that can be used to help the learners at their different levels.
Is it realistic to expect the average teacher to be able to do this? Experience has shown that, in many cases, the task of matching learner needs to appropriate learning material is so onerous, that teachers shy away from it. In all fairness to teachers, it is possibly unrealistic to expect them to gain these competencies in a year or two.
Maybe one must look at computer programmes with some intelligence built into it – in the past systems of this nature were referred to as expert systems.
Such a system must have a diagnostic component to assess the abilities of the learner, and then route the learner to appropriate e-learning lessons. At the end of a session, assessment takes place (with feedback to the teacher) and the learner is then taken to the next appropriate step. This provides a tailor made learning path for every learner.
Pie in the sky?
| related link
On Sunday, 20 April 2008, an armed robbery took place at one of our schools in Cape Town.
Burglars went to the home of the school's caretaker. They told him that they have been sent by the principal and Khanya to put tracking devices on the computers. The caretaker accompanied them to the school.
When the party arrived at school the caretaker was forced to open the strongroom and then – at gunpoint – he was locked in the Khanya lab. A burglary already took place the previous week at this school, and as a precautionary measure the computer equipment was stored in the strongroom. With the caretaker locked up the thieves got away with twenty PCs, a scanner, fax machine, hifi equipment and a public address system.
This incident raises great concern. The school in question was doing very well in the use of ICT for curriculum delivery and now experienced this setback. It is a very poor school, and once again the learners are victimised by the criminal elements present in the environment in which they find themselves.
As we step up our security measures, the criminals are getting bolder. All schools should take note of this incident and reconsider their security measures.
Staff must be alerted to the possible ways in which criminals could operate. Security protocols must be revised: Who may carry a key to the strongroom and computer facility? At whose orders may these rooms be unlocked? How can the display of due diligence be improved?
Khanya staff (facilitators, project managers and coordinators) must convey this information to schools without delay.
Forewarned is forearmed.
| related link
The old Afrikaans saying "papier is geduldig" (paper is patient) means that, while you can write down anything on a piece of paper, it does not necessarily have any substance. For example, you may write a cheque without having any money in the bank; or you may write a love letter without meaning any of the ardent proclamations of eternal love. The sheet of paper is patient: it will not shout at you for lying; it will not complain if you fail to deliver what you promised.
In this modern age, an electronic text file can be just as patient.
How many sheets of patient paper do we have?
Consider the project plans that are written to implement ICT in schools. How meaningful are those plans? Are they done just to satisfy the system (remember: paper is patient, and may pacify those who demand its presence)?
What about the schedules that we write to indicate our intended visits to schools to support imbedding ICT into the curriculum delivery process? It is easy to put intentions down on paper (or on an electronic file). But is there substance to it? Does it translate to meaningful support to educators?
The same can be said of the schedule for lab occupation that is pasted behind the computer facility's door. Every block may be filled in – the schedule will patiently proclaim to all who may care to read it that this lab is fully utilized. The reality may become apparent when one visits the school and finds that nobody knows where the key to the computer room is.
How patient should we be when paper is used to create an illusion that there is a buzz of activity?
| related link
There is a saying that possession is nine points of the law (or more correctly, nine-tenths of the law). This phrase has been around for a long time but there is no evidence of any legal support for it. The point is merely made that a person is clearly at an advantage in the case of a property dispute if the item in question is in that person's possession.
It does not matter how many times this saying has been repeated: it does not generally hold true. And even if possession is nine points of the law, it is invariably the tenth point that counts.
There are many people who possess a religious book – a Bible, Koran, Talmud or another book that they hold sacred. The mere possession of the book does not guarantee that it is ever read. Furthermore, its possession does not imply that its principles are followed. It is the last illusive point that renders the first nine points invalid.
Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous: does the possession of an ICT facility in a school mean that it is indeed used for its intended purpose?
The acquisition of technology is often a goal towards which schools strive. Once the technology is in place – the nine points of possession satisfied – little else happens.
The mere possession of ICT resources in a school does not mean a thing in itself. Yes, it has to be there before it could be used, but …
… it is the tenth point that counts.
| related link
Yes, "googlable" is a word. It may not appear in your dictionary (yet) but if you search for it on the internet, you will get more than 10 500 hits. If something is googlable it means that it is possible to find references to that something on the internet.
An interesting item appeared on Will Richardson's blog called Weblogg-ed. The posting I am referring to is entitled: " Are kids googlable?"
This posting mentions the fact that an increasing number of people are now googlable. This means that if a person's name is given to Google (but other search engines will also do the trick), it will return all references to that person that exists on the internet.
This could be a useful tool for doing pre-checks on prospective staff members. What have they been up to on Facebook? Have they published anything? Is there anything out there that one needs to know about them?
Of course, this raises two conflicting issues: transparency and privacy. I suppose people will still be debating this for years to come.
But we still have a long way to go. We have to make sure that our teachers and learners are aware of what is available on the web; also how the web can expose who and what we are. But this exposure does not have to be negative. One can build a very positive track record of oneself on the web.
Do our teachers and learners understand this powerful aspect of the internet?
A question to ponder: how googlable are you?
| related link
Back Next
Kobus van Wyk - Blog
|
      Copyright © Kobus van Wyk 2008
|
|
Calendar