Here’s a pretty common scenario that occurs when we’ve found an ICT that we’re totally into and wonder whether it could also help others in their learning. I think this happens for nerds and non-nerds alike although some of the steps might be more intense for nerds.
Default and ad hoc ICT roll-out process:
1) I’ve found a really cool ICT.
2) I’ve started messing around with it and I’m pretty sure there’s some potential for students and/or teachers.
3) I’ve realised I’m pretty excited about this ICT and I’m talking to lots of people about it. But seeing as I do have at least some social skills, I usually manage to stop and ask them about their own day before they run away in the face of my over-earnest nerdiness.
4) I manage to convince another staff member or a student that this ICT is pretty awesome and they start using it too. (This step is sometimes omitted depending on the enthusiasm level in step 3)
5) I might have some loose ideas on why it’s useful so I roll it out in a class or I might even get roped into delivering some school-wide PD. Maybe I’m in a leadership position and I roll it out to a bunch of captive teachers! Everyone will get its benefits now!
6) A few people suffer from computer rage while learning how to use it but I’m still feeling pretty hopeful other people will get some learning benefits.
7) A while down the track, apart from a few isolated nerds, not many people are still using it. That’s OK though because I’m still using it and I might have even found another ICT that looks nice. If it’s been delivered to teachers school-wide or students class-wide though, I might be invested in proving it’s really useful (or, shock horror, it’s cost money) so I’ll need to keep trying to prove it is really useful.
Unless we’ve expended a disproportionate amount of resources in step 6 for a school-wide or class-wide roll out, there’s nothing terribly problematic with this scenario. Unfortunately this default approach, while practical and low on planning time, does limit the usefulness of ITCs in learning. Even when we try to approach implementation carefully it can be difficult to avoid some of the pitfalls of the default approach, particularly if we’ve been given the mantle of “ICT or e learning expert,” just because we seem to know a bit about computers.
There are quite a few reasons why it’s hard for us to approach ICTs in a manner that is most likely to give us, other staff and our students maximum learning gains. The enthusiasm that can come with new ICTs, while initially useful, can also be a problem. The eye-candy score could be really high (the UI might even be usable!) and other people might be a bit excited about an ICT and pass this on to us. Perhaps part of the enthusiasm is a sign then there is some learning potential there but this alone shouldn’t lead us on to make implementation decisions. To avoid limited learning usefulness and inefficient use of resources, we need to ensure a decent amount of time is spent considering the possible learning outcomes of an ICT.
Another thing that is easy to do with an ICT is assume that because it’s worked for one person, in one situation that it will work for everyone else in a similar situation. That’s a statement with some pretty big implications with school-wide rollouts of ICTs, especially if an ICT is being sold to us by various parties who have a vested interest in convincing us of its benefits. I’m presently attending a conference where exactly that is happening. Which is great if we’re able to objectively consider the potential gains of an ICT versus the implementation complexity as well as the universality (usefulness across users and contexts) adequately before making any knee-jerk decisions on where to go next. This task can be quite difficult given the complex nature of ICTs - usage complexity, possible licensing, installation, maintenance etc etc. And the first person we talk to about an ICT generally won’t be able to provide all the information we need to make a considered decision.
The golden circle concept popularised by Simon Sinek could be helpful for a more careful analysis of ICTs. Sinek suggests that really effective companies consider and market the why (should I buy it) of a product first, before moving on to the how (is it useful/used) and what (is the product). He argues that the what is usually where people and marketing often start and that this isn’t as convincing to the human brain as starting with the why. While Sinek highlights the importance of sorting the why first, in an ICT context, this isn’t as important as just making darned sure we spend enough time checking whether we can develop a compelling why. Getting enthusiastic about an ICT is often a part of usefull a process of seeking out and investigating the learning potential of a whole range of tools and goes well with the why but isn’t as useful without if it’s all that drives us
Sinek’s original golden circle doesn’t quite cut it for ICTs however. There’s another really important consideration with ICTs that often gets overlooked or simplified. The who. Because ICTs are so context and use specific we also have to deeply consider the individual user. Also, the larger the group of whos gets, the more complicated implementation can be. Check out this dude’s revised golden circle that places the who circle right in the middle.
Perhaps with any decisions we make on using something to help people learn, whether it’s an idea, a commercial or free product, a system in a school or even a learning activity in class it’s always going to be a bit of a challenge to think about the who and why. While learning intentions in class are a great way to cover this in our planning and delivery of learning activities, we need a different process for ICTs. Especially if we’re going to put significant resources into helping others use it too.
So seeing as I’ve bagged the ad hoc approach to rolling out an ICT, I guess I’d better propose something else. With a few changes, this could also be used as a non-linear process:
Look, an exciting ICT!!!
Who are the other people that could get a learning use from it?
What exactly are the possible uses they could benefit from?
Why should they use it or what learning benefits could they get from this use? (This may or may not be clear in the previous step.)
If these people were to develop expertise with this ICT, what would their learning needs be?
What other ICTs are they using already that could do the same job?
How useful is it actually going to be, given their needs and the ICTs they are presently using?
If I can cover all that off, how am I going to best help them use it? The more diverse their needs, the more complex it may be to support them in using it.
If I’m still excited about the whole thing at this point, decide how I’m going to measure whether it’s proving useful or not.
Go talk to other people and look for some data or research to check all this before making a decision.
If I’m still keen at this point, go do it! And good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment