I normally visit two districts a month and try to find out what is working and what is not working at the school level - and this is of utmost importance from the programmatic point of view. School visits almost always provides a fresh perspective and interactions with the teachers and students tests one's assumptions and pre-suppositions thereby preventing the onset of a fossilised thinking process - which is the bane of most of the ICT interventions - a disconnect between plan and reality. Even the best designed ICT interventions have failed because of an absence of reality check followed by mid-point corrections at the policy level. We often start with tall promises as it is the easiest thing to do and break those promises at the earliest opportunity again because it is the easiest thing to do. The need for a shift from a procurement model to an output oriented model is imperative and the success of all ICT interventions is predicated on this somewhat tectonic shift.
My visits to a number of schools spread over the six districts did reveal an interesting mix. My observations are mentioned below:
I seriously feel ownership is the biggest issue at the school level. At a macro level this is a systemic problem and the school only mirrors the larger system. The absence of an ICT4E policy lies at the core.
The direct consequence of the absence of an overarching framework is the absence of a total system planning (factoring in all costs including deployment, training and maintenance etc.) resulting in a "procurement approach" rather than a "output oriented approach." Thus we are involved in a quixotic situation whereby we are "pre-occupied with painting the tower turrets while the castle is crumbling."
The centralised training part is working well but the fine print is missing. To close the gap the trainers need to increase their level of awareness which calls for a wider reading habit. They should be choosing words carefully and ensure that the trainees understand the full implication of the trainer - rather than being under the impression that the trainees have understood the point. In many instances I feel that even the trainer has not understood the point but has gone about the training in a very methodical manner without deep knowledge. For example I have never found a single teacher as of now who has correctly understood my question - as to whether technology integration is a technology or a pedagogic decision. Most of the trainers (might be all of them also - I am not very sure) have missed out on the subliminal part - it is pedagogy which weaves together technology and content knowledge and this requires a very through understanding. People like Dr. puny a Mishra, have been researching for years in this domain space and a number of TPACK based lesson plans are available on the web, like the one which I have forward edge you all. I hope team members read through the mail and try to cultivate a genuine interest in this area as it is pretty complicated and scratching the surface hardly leads to anything.
At the school level infrastructural and other issues like ownership are there but even then I have found glimpses of brilliance in our teachers and students. In a govt. set up we will obviously encounter problems and many of them will be outside our control. But then if each of us feels that we have a responsibility towards the system, towards, the school and most importantly towards the students, than we can start making small inroads, in as far as impacting student learning outcomes in a positive manner is concerned. Well this is an inside out approach and not an outside in approach. We need to internally feel that we are adding value to our lives and doing something purposeful.
A thorough understanding of a teachers portfolio for the ensuing month and a genuine interest in helping them out in delivering their lessons well is the need of the hour. This requires a thorough ground work, meticulous planning and a hunger to excel in our field of endeavour. We are set on the right track and if we have worked this hard so far we can surely make a dent on the system and make the critical stakeholders stop and listen to the serious work that we are doing. If you internally feel confident that you have done a thorough job than it is as good as done.
My visits to a number of schools spread over the six districts did reveal an interesting mix. My observations are mentioned below:
I seriously feel ownership is the biggest issue at the school level. At a macro level this is a systemic problem and the school only mirrors the larger system. The absence of an ICT4E policy lies at the core.
The direct consequence of the absence of an overarching framework is the absence of a total system planning (factoring in all costs including deployment, training and maintenance etc.) resulting in a "procurement approach" rather than a "output oriented approach." Thus we are involved in a quixotic situation whereby we are "pre-occupied with painting the tower turrets while the castle is crumbling."
The centralised training part is working well but the fine print is missing. To close the gap the trainers need to increase their level of awareness which calls for a wider reading habit. They should be choosing words carefully and ensure that the trainees understand the full implication of the trainer - rather than being under the impression that the trainees have understood the point. In many instances I feel that even the trainer has not understood the point but has gone about the training in a very methodical manner without deep knowledge. For example I have never found a single teacher as of now who has correctly understood my question - as to whether technology integration is a technology or a pedagogic decision. Most of the trainers (might be all of them also - I am not very sure) have missed out on the subliminal part - it is pedagogy which weaves together technology and content knowledge and this requires a very through understanding. People like Dr. puny a Mishra, have been researching for years in this domain space and a number of TPACK based lesson plans are available on the web, like the one which I have forward edge you all. I hope team members read through the mail and try to cultivate a genuine interest in this area as it is pretty complicated and scratching the surface hardly leads to anything.
At the school level infrastructural and other issues like ownership are there but even then I have found glimpses of brilliance in our teachers and students. In a govt. set up we will obviously encounter problems and many of them will be outside our control. But then if each of us feels that we have a responsibility towards the system, towards, the school and most importantly towards the students, than we can start making small inroads, in as far as impacting student learning outcomes in a positive manner is concerned. Well this is an inside out approach and not an outside in approach. We need to internally feel that we are adding value to our lives and doing something purposeful.
A thorough understanding of a teachers portfolio for the ensuing month and a genuine interest in helping them out in delivering their lessons well is the need of the hour. This requires a thorough ground work, meticulous planning and a hunger to excel in our field of endeavour. We are set on the right track and if we have worked this hard so far we can surely make a dent on the system and make the critical stakeholders stop and listen to the serious work that we are doing. If you internally feel confident that you have done a thorough job than it is as good as done.
