If the dog is education and the tail is technology which supports it, then it is reasonable to expect that the education dog must dictate the direction of the technology tail. In the natural order of things it would be absurd even to suggest the opposite. No tail, not even a powerful technology tail, should ever be allowed to wag its dog. A tail is, and must always remain what it is: just a tail.
If one accepts this basic truth, why is it that technology itself is often allowed to determine how it should be applied in education?
Consider the debate between the proponents of proprietary software (in particular Microsoft) and the disciples of Opensource software. All the technical arguments and counter arguments are given why the one and not the other should be used in schools. But often these opinions have nothing to do with education. Sadly, the decision to implement any particular technology is frequently based on the perceived technical virtues of the proposed product rather than on the requirements of education.
Should one not refrain from making technical decisions first and then try to retrofit it to an educational need? The danger is that one may never find that perfect fit. Could one afford to take the risk of allowing the tail to wag the dog?
But the plot thickens. Often the decision to adopt a certain manifestation of technology is not purely motivated by technical reasons. The arguments may be based on commercial or perhaps socio-political considerations. In such a situation it is not even a case of the tail wagging the dog. It is rather the flea on tail of the dog that makes that tail twitch so violently that it wags the dog.
The next time you need to make a technical decision to satisfy an educational need, remember that there may be a twitch in the tail.
| related link
The child may go to bed hungry nine times out of ten. They may not have running water; there may not be electricity in the house; in fact she may not even have a home but lives with an extended family in a makeshift shack. Yet, when she goes to school she is ushered into a computer room with an air conditioner. How could such a paradox be explained?
A computer room typically houses thirty computers. Each one of these machines is generating heat. In most overcrowded schools with large classes, learners must share the use of a computer, so that there may be sixty active little bodies generating heat as well. Imagine how the temperature and accompanying thickness of air will soar on a hot summer day. An educator trying to teach in such a room would not view the air conditioner as a luxury.
The need for this device goes beyond mere comfort. Dust is the biggest enemy of computer equipment and all efforts should be made to keep the facility dust free. Windows and doors must be closed at all times. An air conditioner makes it possible to teach a full class in a room without natural ventilation. In addition, this device will also filter dust particles from the air, hence creating an ideal operating environment for both humans and machines.
Using an air conditioner in a computer room illustrates the wisdom of the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our schools do not have pounds to spend on replacing expensive computer equipment when it crashes owing to an uncontrolled environment. An air conditioner could be that ounce of prevention.
In the nineteenth century the expression “more bounce for the ounce” was born as part of an advertising slogan for fizzy drinks If an air conditioner is the ounce, one will most certainly succeed to get more bounce by installing it in the computer room.
| related link
In his 1961 novel with the title "Catch-22" author Joseph Heller explores the interesting question of what to do in a situation where one has to accomplish two actions which are mutually dependent on the other action being completed first. In Hellor's story a man must be officially declared insane to save his life, but his request for certification is proof that he is sane enough to save his life. What does one do when sanity is required to prove insanity? That is how the term "catch 22" came to be applied to all situations of "damned if you do and damned if you don't".
What does that have to do with putting technology in schools? Usually nothing; except for the situation in most developing countries at present.
Consider a poverty-ridden community where most of the adults are unemployed. AIDS is rife. Most of the people are shack dwellers, frequently left homeless when floods and fires sweep through the township. Many children go to bed hungry at night. The schools are overcrowded with inadequate physical resources and even more inadequate educator resources.
The availability of computer technology in such schools will assist in bridging the digital divide; it will also equip the learners with computer skills which will increase their chances of finding jobs. Furthermore, if the technology is used for curriculum delivery purposes, it will go a long way towards supplementing teaching resources. Hence, the provisioning of technology in schools could solve, in the long term, the very problems that the community is experiencing.
Yet, how does one justify the cost of a computer facility if the equivalent funds could be used to build a few houses, or feed many hungry mouths, or treat a number of AIDS patients? What is the use of a long term vision if people are dying of malnutrition, sickness and exposure in the short term?
How does one view this catch-22 situation?
| related link
Is it necessary to secure your school's computer facility like Fort Knox?
Fort Knox is the super security repository in Kentucky, USA, which holds the country's gold bullion. It has proved to be impenetrable to thieves and has become a metaphor for the extent to which one will provide security around valuable possessions.
A computer room may not contain gold but in an African school context its contents is comparable: it is a most precious resource, which could yield valuable results. It is therefore reasonable to secure every possible entry point to the room; this includes doors, windows, walls and even the ceiling.
Doors: The easiest place to enter the room is through the door. This means that the primary security measures must be applied here. The door must be made of an impassable material, preferably steel. The lock must be of the strongest and most secure calibre possible. More than one lock is advisable. A very strong additional security gate is essential.
Windows: These should be secured in a way that no entry is possible. In some cases the windows can be bricked up or made smaller to prevent entry. Firm burglar proofing is also essential. In areas where stone throwing is common, it is recommended that stone guard security sheets be installed on the outside of the windows.
Walls: Walls which are not strong enough to prevent being broken through, as in the case of a prefabricated building, must be reinforced by steel sheets or a brick and mortar lining.
Ceiling: The room should preferably have a concrete ceiling but where that is not possible steel mesh reinforcement must be installed. Rolls of uncoiled barbed wire between the ceiling and the roof will further deter thieves from entering through this easy entry point.
Does this seem like an over kill? Fort Knox has safeguarded the gold of the USA for decades. Do whatever it takes to keep your computer facility safe.
| related link
"You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink." This idiom emphasizes the basic truth that people may be given opportunities but they cannot be forced to accept it.
This principle also holds true in the case of ICT implementation in schools. One may install computers and educational software in carefully prepared computer rooms. This may be followed by training sessions attended by all educators in the school. What cannot be done is to force educators to integrate the use of available technology with curriculum delivery.
Why are so many of these horses reluctant to drink? (Please note that the analogy of horses is not altogether inappropriate in an education context - many educators are indeed very industrious work horses.) Consider the following possible reasons for the disinclination of otherwise good educators to use technology more fully:
Being workhorses, they may be too tired to drink. Educators are overburdened with numerous recently introduced education initiatives and may not have the energy left to consider the use of yet another innovation.
Perhaps some horses are not thirsty. In spite of all the training, equipping the educators with skills on how to use computers, they may still not understand the benefits of technology and why they should use it as a teaching tool.
It could also be that the water is inaccessible to the horse. Possibly there is no room on the schedule for a willing educator in a large school to take a class into the computer room, or the technology may fail on such a regular basis that it becomes impracticable for the teacher to utilize the technology facilities optimally.
These factors should be taken into account when one contemplates the fact that too many school workhorses are brought to the water but cannot be made to drink.
| related link
Back Next
Kobus van Wyk - Blog
|
      Copyright © Kobus van Wyk 2008
|
|
Calendar