{"id":2308,"date":"2012-06-16T15:45:52","date_gmt":"2012-06-16T21:45:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=2308"},"modified":"2014-09-12T11:58:34","modified_gmt":"2014-09-12T17:58:34","slug":"the-end-user-view-of-technology-not-good-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2012\/06\/16\/the-end-user-view-of-technology-not-good-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"The End-User View of Technology – Not Good Enough"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

Sadly, this is the POV (point of view = perspective) that most teachers have. I don’t blame them – it’s not really their fault.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the professors who teach them should know better. <\/em>Them I do blame. They’re the ones who decide what you need to know to become a teacher.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

My experience has been that majority of Education Academics don’t know very much about tech. Even those in the field of Educational Technology don’t usually have a sufficient grasp of the technology in which they claim expertise to be considered anything more than end-users. Most of them can’t program. Many of them can’t create anything without the help of some wysiwyg tool. They’ve convinced themselves that they don’t need to know this. I think they’re wrong. I’m not the only one.<\/p>\n

Programming should be a fundamental competency<\/a> if you are involved in tech. Educational Technologists are designers who use tech, so they need to know key concepts of computational architecture<\/a>. This is learned by learning to program.<\/p>\n

I did my degrees in CS before software engineering became a popular term. Along with electronics and logic, we learned systems analysis. I learned a great many details about various computers, operating systems, and programming languages – most of which no longer exist. The details of the languages and operating systems are now only of historical interest, but the fundamental concepts I learned as a result of learning all these languages and systems<\/em> remain as useful today as they were 30 years ago.<\/p>\n

Those are the things that are important to learn – not how to use Facebook<\/a>, or Moodle<\/a>, or ScoopIt!<\/a>. These things are merely tools for achieving some goal.<\/p>\n

Suppose we wanted to understand cars: how to use them most effectively, and what they are capable of.
\nWould it be enough to learn about wrenches? Hardly<\/em>.
\nWhat about learning to drive? Essential, but insufficient.<\/em><\/p>\n

You need to know how the engine works. You need to understand about the suspension, steering, and braking systems.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Only THEN do you have sufficient knowledge to comprehend what this vehicle is capable of and how you can use it to get what you want out of it.<\/p>\n

If we look at technology from the user end alone, it is indeed a dizzying and fast changing field. It seems almost impossible to keep up.<\/p>\n

If, on the other hand, we look at technology as a set of tools for doing something else, it starts to take on a manageable form.<\/p>\n

You need to learn to program.<\/p>\n