Today, with much positivity and enthusiasm, Jenny explained the terms: Autopoesis, structural coupling and linguistic cognitive domain. While each one has its own implications and meaning, I believe the lecture boiled down to:
Changing the culture of a school and its attitude towards technology is tough. SO: You need take into account that in the end, we’re all connected to one another and to the environment, but talk about things in different ways. Therefore, as educational technology advocates, talk to people in language they can understand.
Kapish?
As Jenny and others shared about changing people’s minds about doing things the ‘old’ way, I began to make connections with some prior reading I did about change theory and culture in school when I took an Ontario Additional Qualifications course in reading. So much so, I looked up some readings from the course and skimmed them once again. They apply to what we are discussing in class and to today’s lecture. One of the articles, “Shhhhh, the dragon is asleep and its name is Resistance“, while not specific to technology, discusses how change “can be a challenge for every professional committed to reform and innovation.” Resistance to change thwarts goals, disrupts action plans, and undermines progress. Sounds familiar!
The article, using research-based data, goes on, “Resistance to change occupies a large part of the gap between knowledge and practice; between vision and reality.” and this takes me back to my idea that schools (even individuals!) need a technology vision — so at least you have a benchmark with which to compare reality! In my own Grade 5 classroom, there is a definite gap between knowledge and practice. I know lots of great ideas about using technology with students, but in practice, I don’t implement them… sometimes I create my own barriers (time to put it all together, time taken away from other pressing teaching, etc.), other times there are barriers in the school preventing me (lack of IT help, policies regarding privacy, etc.)
The article stresses that resistance is a fearful response to change. Teachers and administrators first response is often, “There’s no time!” which I believe comes out of fear — fear that an already all-encompassing job will sap yet more time and energy from us. Or fear that, in the case of technology, you might look ‘stupid’. But the article points out that resistance can actually be beneficial:
Resistance often serves a constructive purpose (Gitlin & Margonis, 1995) and is frequently an appropriate response to a situation, especially when it is a symptom of deeper problems. For instance, people may legitimately resist change required by a program that’s poorly designed, underfunded, or focused on unnecessary activities. A teacher who has seen numerous ill- conceived, irrelevant staff development initiatives come and go will understandably view new programs with suspicion.
Anyway, I do hope that I am on the right track in thinking that today’s BIG WORDS boil down to there are ways to approach change in schools that are more conducive to change… and that by relating this to the article, I am synthesizing today’s BIG WORDS…. I think I am!
And then this came to mind:
Follow