Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're really
digging into how technology gets taught in schools,
or maybe what kind of technology. Right, and
how those choices affect students down the line.
Exactly. We're looking at an article called Diversity
of Computing by Gary Ackerman over at hackscience
.education. It's a really interesting piece.
It is. And our mission really is to unpack this
idea. How do the specific computers schools pick
shape? You know, actual student learning and
what we might call real technology literacy.
So let's start where most schools are. You see
a lot of Google suite, lots of Chromebooks and
K -12. Oh yeah, everywhere. And the reasons sound
pretty good on paper, right? They're relatively
inexpensive, generally easy for IT to manage.
Sure. And schools can kind of outsource the headache
of managing complicated network stuff. Makes
sense from an admin perspective. It does seem
efficient. But is there a catch? Well, that's
exactly what Ackerman points out. This huge wave
of adoption. It often happens with, and this
is his phrase, little skepticism, reflection
or consideration for what students may never
experience. Ah, OK. So it's efficient, but maybe
too narrow. That's the argument. It's pragmatic,
sure. But what's the cost to a student's full
tech education? OK, so let's unpack that. What's
the alternative Ackerman is? pushing for. He's
arguing for basically diversity of computing
devices, not just Chromebooks, meaning a mix.
You know, have some iOS devices, some Android,
Macs, Windows machines, even Linux systems available
for students. Right, a whole ecosystem. And the
why behind this is key, isn't it? Totally. He
uses this great analogy. If students only learn
to click buttons on, say, one specific system,
their tech literacy. It's like someone who can
only read one series of books. Or solve just
one kind of math problem. Okay, I get that. Yeah,
it limits their adaptability. His core idea is
that being exposed to different systems makes
students more flexible and thus more competent
and competent users of computers later on. It's
about genuine digital fluency, not just knowing
how to use one tool. Precisely, not just platform
-specific muscle memory. Now, here's where it
got really interesting for me. Ackerman talks
about this almost illogical decision -making,
he sees. That cycle. Yeah, this pattern. First,
the tech leaders say, right, we're only buying
Chromebooks from now on. OK, step one. Step two,
teachers need new computers for their classes.
And since the tech decisions have been handed
off to the tech leaders, who, Ackerman notes,
often have little teaching experience, the teachers
end up requesting Chromebooks, even if they know
they're not ideal for everything they want to
do. Because what else are they going to ask for?
It's the only game in town, basically. Exactly.
And then step three, the tech leaders see all
these requests for Chromebooks coming in from
teachers. And they think, see? Told you they
love them. Right. They interpret it as proof
that teachers really like Chromebooks. It's this
weird, self -fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, and that
raises a big question about what students actually
miss out on. The article uses video editing as
an example. You know, maybe you can do some basic
cuts on a web app. Fine. But what if students
want to do, like, multi -track videos, maybe
with synchronized camera shots, picture in picture,
you know, more advanced stuff? What happens then?
Often, the response is just, well, other teachers
get by with the website. Oof. Getting by, that
phrase really stood out. Ackerman hits that hard.
He does. He says, very clearly, getting by is
not what we want of our students in their emerging
technology literacy. His point is that real,
authentic teaching and learning requires professional
tools. Professional tools. For information access,
manipulation, and creation. And his bottom line.
This cannot be provided with a single computing
platform. You need the diversity. It's a strong
call, moving beyond just device management to
actually equipping students properly. So wrapping
up this deep dive, it really highlights this
fundamental tension, doesn't it, between the
practicalities of running IT in a school. The
administrative ease, the budget. Right. Versus
the, maybe less obvious but critical, need for
students to get hands on with a range of computing
tools. Not just one. It's about preparing them
for a messy diverse tech world out there, not
just a single walled garden, getting beyond just
getting by. Definitely. And thinking a bit bigger,
maybe the question for you listening is this.
How do we as a society strike that balance? How
do we manage the real world constraints of school
tech budgets and management? While still ensuring
we give students the truly professional, diverse
digital skills they actually need for the future,
how do we move past just getting by and aim for
genuine competence?