Episode 5.
In previous episodes, I set out the characteristics of good IT systems in schools.
I suggested they are appropriately designed for teaching,
properly configured for security and functionality,
and reasonably implemented so they can be sustained.
In this episode, I focus on the continuous improvement that happens as appropriate designs are properly configured.
We know there are different groups responsible for design and configuration,
but they must cooperate and collaborate if the system is going to be both.
And this cooperation and collaboration is iterative, so they never really finish their work.
So, it is really a cycle.
Yes, it is, and it must be.
Teachers change along with curriculum and instructional practice,
and IT must be prepared to respond to those changes.
New tools emerge and are integrated into the system,
so together educators and IT professionals create the systems that meet everyone's needs.
Teachers can teach with it, and IT knows it's a cure, and it can be managed.
Most IT projects begin with system requirements.
Is that where you suggest they begin?
Yes, but with the understanding that the system requirements for educational projects
and the system requirements for business projects are really much different.
Yes, IT needs to know what it's building, and so we begin there,
but those requirements are clarified when the system is used with students, but not before.
We can test all we want, but until the IT is deployed with students,
we really don't know what we need, so our system requirements are really just a guess.
This really is different from what IT professionals experience in business settings.
There, they clearly know the hardware requirements, the software requirements, the data requirements.
We know who exactly is going to be accessing the systems,
so our test environments can closer resemble our production environments.
Students are a reality in production environments that we just can't reliably replicate in test environments, though.
How do IT professionals respond to this?
I have heard IT professionals in schools say, you know, hey, I built what they asked for.
If they needed something else, they should have asked for it.
Now, I understand that response.
I mean, they're all overworked.
They're trying to get a thousand things done in a day,
but I think those who have that attitude are really ill-suited for IT work in schools.
Educators in IT folks speak different languages,
so as educators, we might not be able to clearly explain what they want,
or IT folks may hear something different.
Can it be avoided?
Yes. No. Well, maybe.
I have found that communication that follows a circular path does help.
So, like I said, it is a cycle. How should we start?
We do need to recognize that whatever is built needs to be secure.
Remember, we're dealing with students PII.
They're personally identifiable information, grades, and other sensitive data.
Our systems also need to be robust and reliable.
If it isn't, then they won't function at all,
and then it doesn't really matter how they're designed.
So, whatever is built must be configured in a way that IT folks believe is proper.
How do they decide?
There are several things that affect their decisions.
The existing systems affect what they can do and what they can change.
The skill set of the available technicians and system administrators matters also.
Most IT leaders are happy to train their staff,
and most IT folks are happy to be trained to enhance and expand their skills,
but it takes time and other resources that just might not be available.
Industry standards also affect the decisions that they make.
Several organizations define good practices,
and schools may also be affected by legal or regulatory requirements.
So, we start building all IT systems in schools
with a shared understanding of what needs to be built, or at least as close to a shared understanding as we can get.
And then IT builds that in a way that they can sustain,
and that's aligned with other limits that are placed on them.
Once it is built and properly configured, what happens next?
Yeah, training, training, training comes next.
The reality is that today IT is still not as intuitive as many would like it to be.
So, IT folks have a responsibility then to be sure that others know how to use the system
once it's up and running.
This is not as difficult as it used to be,
and now there's so many applications are cloud-based,
but IT does have responsibility to get folks going
and give them some initial troubleshooting steps for the systems that they're going to use.
Even reassuring folks that they can safely close and restart is good advice.
Of course, IT isn't responsible for teaching the folks how to teach with it,
unless, of course, you include instructional technology specialists within the IT department.
And actually, in schools where there's good communication between IT,
instructional technology professionals, and educators,
training folks so they know how to use it might be completed quite quickly.
Okay, it's properly configured.
Teachers know how to use it.
So what happens next?
Yeah, this is where the fun begins, right?
Teachers can then use what has been built with students,
all keeping an eye on robustness.
You know, does it work well under load and reliability?
Does it do what teachers and students need it to do without latency?
You know, is it secure?
Teachers, of course, are the judges of the degree to which the technology meets their needs.
That's that whole appropriate design thing.
You know, they have to answer the question, does it do what they need
and what their students need?
Is it efficient, or, you know, are they keeping an eye out to see just how appropriate it is?
And what do they do if they find it isn't?
Yeah, first, the IT and instructional technology folks should check that educators are actually using the system
in the way that was designed.
We don't want to redesign IT if it's an issue that can be resolved with a little coaching.
Assuming teachers are using things as they should, and let's be honest,
this might not always be because they weren't trained.
They may not have been paying attention,
but if things are not working well, then they can complain.
I hope you aren't saying they can just gripe about what they don't like.
No, not at all.
Complaints need to be framed in terms of technology acceptance.
Remember that tells us that ease of use, effectiveness, social influences,
and facilitating conditions are all positively associated with technology use.
Complaints need to be clearly articulated in terms of how it will improve one of those.
If the IT department has adopted technology acceptance as a guiding framework,
then they perceive those complaints as suggestions of improvement rather than just people griping.
If technology acceptance is a model that's shared by all,
then the complaints are more focused and are going to improve the system.
So, what happens once complaints are framed in terms of improvements according to technology acceptance?
If the complaints are done right, then the appropriate design is now clear to everybody,
and we'll write back where we started.
IT is still responsible for security, reliability, and robustness,
so as they're making changes that are recommended by educators,
then they get to decide what is the proper configuration of any changes that are made.
Then it all starts again.
Redesign, train, use, complain with technology acceptance in mind, and redesign again.
Sounds easy.
Yeah, not always.
I was called in to help troubleshoot an issue one time,
and in a school the students were unable to access the online grade book in the math classrooms.
The teacher's workstation was connected as expected,
but none of the students using their school-issued laptops
and connected to the Wi-Fi network for students could connect.
As it turned out, the network administrator had disabled access to the grade book
from the SSID or the Wi-Fi network used by students.
From the network administrator's point of view,
the network was properly secured to maintain security.
He reasoned students would try to hack into the grade book if they had access while on campus.
The workaround he proposed was that students could use the teacher's workstation to check their grades.
The teachers complained that they could be more effective and more efficient
if students could check their grades on their own.
So they were really arguing that it would be more appropriate to open the grade book to students while on campus.
There was some disagreement, and it wasn't resolved until the school administrators
directed the system administrator to open up access to the grade book.
The school leaders in this case initiated the redesign by deciding what was reasonable.