Welcome to the deep dive, where we get past the
headlines. Today, we're looking at something
huge. Technology in schools. I mean, we all see
the potential, don't we? There's this big strategic
goal, get students ready, really participating
in the digital world. Seems straightforward.
It does on the surface. But then there's the
reality. You know, even with all the investment,
all the effort, sometimes the tech in schools
just... It doesn't quite hit the mark. Yeah,
it can be clunky or maybe not really effective
for what teachers need or maybe it misses certain
grooves of students entirely. Exactly. And you
have to wonder why. Why does it sometimes fall
short when everyone wants it to succeed? Well,
that's what's interesting. Yeah. Today we're
digging into some insights from Gary Ackerman
over at hackscience .education. And his big idea,
it's not really about the tech itself fundamentally.
It's about a lack of shared understanding between
the key people involved, the educators, the IT
folks, the administrators. It's fascinating,
actually, how the source lays out these different
viewpoints. You see how people looking at the
exact same situation can, well, understand it
completely differently. Right. And it causes
friction, not synergy. Exactly. It's not about
anyone being difficult. It's just different professional
lenses. That's such a key point. Different lenses,
not bad intentions. So our mission here today
is to unpack that, to pull out these core insights
so you can understand the hidden dynamics really
driving ed tech management. Ready to dive in?
Let's do it. OK, so let's start with that strategic
goal again. Enabling students to fully participate
in the digital world. Now, for that to actually
work, the source says, IT needs three things.
It has to be used appropriately, configured properly,
and supported reasonably. Sounds simple enough.
It sounds simple, but the source stresses that
if you fall down on any one of those, the use,
the configuration, or the support, the whole
thing can become ineffective. It really threatens
the overall efficacy. So schools try to address
this right. They set up tech planning committees.
Yeah, they do. They bring in experts from different
areas, you know, teachers, IT staff, maybe an
administrator. The idea is to get everyone on
the same page. You'd think that would solve it.
Get the right people in the room. You would think.
Yeah. But here's the paradox the source highlights.
Even in schools with these committees, IT management
can still be inefficient or ineffective or incomplete.
So the committee itself isn't the magic bullet.
Apparently not always. The core issue, according
to Ackerman, goes deeper. It's this fundamental
lack of shared understanding among the disparate
professionals involved. It's like they're speaking
different professional languages, even when talking
about the same tech. OK, let's really get into
that. This idea that educators, IT pros, and
administrators just understand technology differently.
They bring different backgrounds, different priorities
to the table. Absolutely. And it means even steps
that seem totally necessary for making tech reliable
and secure. Well, they're seen and understood
in vastly different ways by each group. Right,
and that's where the friction comes in. Let's
look at some examples from this source. Complex
passwords. Seems basic. How does IT see them?
For the Ikey professional, it's simple. Complex
passwords are just a basic, simple strategy for
keeping the network secure. It's fundamental.
Non -negotiable for keeping things safe. Okay,
it makes sense from their perspective, but then...
the teacher in the classroom. Ah, well, for the
teacher, especially with younger kids, maybe
students with emerging keyboarding skills, those
same passwords become a real impediment to quick
access. You can picture it, right? Little kids
struggling to type this complicated thing and
lesson time just evaporating. Exactly. It's not
a simple security measure from their viewpoint.
It's a barrier to learning. It eats into precious
minutes. And it adds up. So that's passwords.
What about, say, operating system updates? Another
classic example. IT professionals see the importance
of installing updates in a timely manner as an
essential step of keeping systems secure, thus
reliably available. It's just good practice,
like digital hygiene. Keeps things running smoothly,
securely from their perspective. Yes. But then
you have the teacher who's lesson gets delayed
as they wait for computers to finish installing
updates. Oh yeah, the dreaded updating do not
turn off your computer screen right when you
need it. Right. So from the teacher's perspective,
those same essential updates are seen as interfering
with the reliability of the machines. The timing
makes them unreliable for teaching. It's the
same action viewed completely differently based
on your role and immediate needs, though the
source does mention, thankfully, that this is
getting a bit better with internet -only notebooks.
Updates are less disruptive there. That's true,
a small positive trend. Okay, one more example.
Tablets for students. Right, so you might have
a school administrator, maybe they love their
personal tablet, uses it all the time. Seems
like a great tool. Yeah, so they might suggest,
hey, let's buy tablets for the students. Seems
modern, engaging. But then IT gets involved.
And the IT professionals often push back against
his or her suggestion tablets be purchased for
students, not because they hate tablets, but
because of the difficulty of managing those devices
in multi -user environments. Ah, so it's the
logistics. Charging them, updating them, keeping
track of them, dealing with accounts when many
kids use the same device. Exactly. It's a whole
different set of challenges that the administrator,
using their personal device, might not even think
about. So these examples really highlight the
core issue. They do. Negotiating what counts
as appropriate use, proper configuration, reasonable
support, it becomes incredibly hard when everyone
involved has these different perspectives, different
working definitions of terms, and frankly different
interpretations of the same situation. It's like
they're all looking at the same elephant but
one feels the trunk, one feels the leg, one feels
the tail. That's a good analogy and they all
have a piece of the truth but not the whole picture.
Okay, this is where, for me, it gets really insightful.
The source introduces this concept from Riddle
and Weber from way back in 1973 to add another
layer. The difference between tame and wicked
problems. Yes, this distinction is incredibly
powerful for understanding why the perspectives
are so different. It's not just opinion, it's
rooted in the nature of the work itself. So,
explain TAME problems first. What falls into
that category here? According to the source,
designing IT systems is generally a TAME problem.
Now, TAME doesn't mean easy, necessarily. Right,
not simple, but solvable. Exactly. It's a problem
that can be clearly defined, it's understood.
There are known procedures to solve it. IT professionals
can usually describe their networks clearly.
The methods for building and fixing networks
are pretty well established and transferable.
Crucially, IT systems can be tested and redesigned
before they're deployed to users. You can work
out the kinks in a controlled environment before
it hits the classroom. Okay, so that's tame.
Now contrast that with teaching. The source calls
that a wicked problem. What makes it wicked?
Wicked problems are fundamentally different.
Teaching is not clearly understood in the same
way an IT network is. Its effectiveness depends
on multiple and interconnected factors, many
of which are incompletely known. Like student
background, motivation, classroom dynamics, even
how the students slept the night before. All
of that. And different people, parents, administrators,
even other teachers, will judge the same outcomes
differently. Was that lesson successful? Depends
who you ask and what criteria they're using.
And the source links successful teaching to learning,
which is complex itself. Absolutely. Learning
is physiological, psychological, and social.
And as many educators will tell you, even the
best teaching does not always influence learning
in the intended manner. There's an inherent unpredictability.
You can't beta test a lesson plan quite like
you can software. It's much messier, less defined.
Much messier. No single right solution. And the
third group, school leadership. School leadership
is described as also being complex. But in a
different way, it's largely a political process.
Its success often hinges on things like perceptions,
power, and priorities. Managing stakeholders,
balancing competing demands. That's a different
kind of challenge again. So we have IT dealing
with largely tame problems, teachers grappling
with wicked problems, and administrators navigating
political landscapes. Precisely. And these fundamental
differences in the nature of the problems they
solve every day deeply shape their perspectives,
their approaches, and their understanding of
what's reasonable or important when it comes
to technology management. They're not just coming
from different departments. They're operating
in fundamentally different problem -solving universes.
That really puts the lack of shared understanding
into a much deeper context. It does. And because
of these fundamental differences in their work,
the tame versus wicked nature, the day -to -day
realities, these professionals often end up in
silos. The source calls it the silo effect. Makes
sense. They work in different places. Usually,
yeah. Different offices, different classrooms.
Using different skills. Applying very different
kinds of knowledge specific to their fields.
Focused on different kinds of problems. Exactly.
They're literally separated by the nature of
their work and often by physical space, too.
So bringing it all together, what does this mean
for actually making IT work effectively in schools,
for achieving that original strategic goal? Well,
it means that while each group IT teachers, administrators
has its own valid necessary logistic goals. Keeping
the network up, delivering engaging lessons,
managing budgets. The critical point the source
makes is that the nature of those goals and their
connection to the strategic goal must be understood
collectively if IT management is to be efficacious.
Right. It's not enough for IT to just focus on
network uptime or teachers to focus only on their
classroom needs or admins on the budget line.
They need to see how their piece and the nature
of their piece, whether it's tame or wicked,
fits into the bigger picture of enabling student
participation in the digital world. That's the
key takeaway. It's about fostering that shared
understanding of the overall mission and, crucially,
appreciating how the very different contributions
and challenges of each group relate to it. Without
that collective view, you get friction, inefficiency,
and missed opportunities. So just to wrap up
what we've explored in this deep dive. The challenge
with making EdTech truly effective isn't always
the tech itself, is it? No, often it's much more
human, more organizational. It's about bridging
these fundamental gaps in understanding between
the IT teams, the educators in the classrooms,
and the school leaders, recognizing they're coming
from different places. And importantly, that
they're tackling fundamentally different kinds
of problems, some tame, others wicked. Understanding
that difference seems crucial. It really is.
You know, knowledge is one thing, but it's most
valuable when it's actually understood and applied.
And thinking critically about why things are
the way they are, especially in complex collaborations
like this, is so important today with information
coming at us from all directions. It requires
seeing the nuances, recognizing that not all
problems are created equal. Precisely. Which
leaves us with a final thought for you, the listener,
something to maybe reflect on. How might... Recognizing
this difference, the difference between tame
and wicked problems, how might that change the
way we approach any kind of collaborative project,
not just in schools, but maybe in your own workplace
or community, especially within complex organizations?
That's a really interesting question to ponder.
Something to think about. That's all for this
deep dive.