The Advocate Hat

Educational technologists need to be the advocates for technology change in their schools/divisions. The field of technology is defined by change and that is tough for an education system that is generally wary of change, so ETs need to be there to lead the way. ETs need to present their ideas, create awareness and swing the vote to make sure our students are getting a technology education that will serve them in the tech-driven business/work world.

Not all change is good change and change should not be made simply for change sake. However, if you have a valid researched idea for change, you need to be ready to fight/advocate for it. In my educational foundations class in my first year of education, we had to write a paper advocating for change in an area we felt passionate about. Our stand had to be thoroughly backed up with proof and research for what we were advocating for. One of the goals of the assignment (I think?) was to prepare us to fight for change at an institutional level in an intellectual and useful way. Only now do I understand the significant importance of that assignment. As ETs, we need to take part in this same process. This is especially important since technology usually comes with such a large price tag; we need to be prepared to prove why changes need to be made. We need to be ready to answer the questions, "Why do we need this new _____?", "How will ________ affect student learning?" and we need to be ready with a better answer than, "Because it is awesome new technology!"

I also think that ETs need to be selective in what they advocate for or else they risk losing credibility – both with the people who are paying the bills and those are trying to adapt to all the new software/hardware/programming. Start advocating for every new gadget in your school and your voice will quickly be ignored. The old adage holds true in this case: Know when to pick your battles.

One area that I feel really merits the battle is the idea of a technology curriculum. In Saskatchewan, we don't have a traditional curriculum (like math, language, sciences, etc.) for technology. Some divisions have developed their own continuum of sorts to guide their division's technology education, but it needs to be more widespread than that. At the itSummit in Saskatoon this year, there was a debate in one of the sessions I attended about whether or not typing should still be taught with the prevalence of texting and the seeming success of chicken-pecking.* As noted in my last post, there is some discrepancy about who should be teaching internet safety. Some schools teach social networking, some teach how to do internet searches, some focus on word processing or image enhancement. As a group of professionals, we can't even agree on what should and shouldn't be taught. We need to collaborate and come up with a core set of outcomes to teach technology to our students. With a provincial curriculum in place, think of the parts of the ET's job that would become so much easier – shared resources, pooled money for PD, easier access to technology (thanks to mass ordering...in theory). This is a battle I think it's time to pick.

I've shared my two-bits...now I'm interested to know: If you had to advocate for one change right now, what would it be? What are you fighting for and why is it worth the fight?

 

 

*Just for the record: I think we DO need to teach typing to our students. Texting and chicken pecking is all fine and dandy for communicating with friends, but can you imagine what will happen to these kids when they reach post-secondary education? I don't think many professors accept text-essays. Would you, Rick? I dare someone to submit their paper via text. NO. I double dare you! (ooooooh!)