Desktop Management

Miguel Guhlin recently posted a few comments about tech support over on his blog Around the Corner. His posting is a reaction to comments made by Dr. Scott McLeod on his recent appearance on Women of the Web 2.0.

Miguel mentions that from his experience "Network Admins ...focus is on reducing Helpdesk work orders and the work they have to do." I would agree that this theory is dead spot on target. He goes on to state that this is the reason that computers in schools have DeepFreeze, Microsoft System Management Server, and Microsoft Active Directory (perhaps he means group policy, which is applied through AD?) installed and running that prevent users from interacting very much with the operating system and/or other installed software. Again I could not agree more!

But, I have to defend the user of the tools to a certain extent. In my school district we are running upwards of 18 servers and 500 desktops/laptops - all with one technician. Sure, I work tech orders right alongside my technician, but there are some things he has to handle (our network script for example). Without Deepfreeze I'm quite sure that students (and some teachers) would un/intentionally damage and render useless computers throughout the district. Sure Deepfreeze is a pain in the neck, but our tech request time is far too high for my taste at it is without turning it off! (We are over 3 days wait time currently - My goal is to get it to same day service in most cases).

With Deepfreeze (for those of you not familiar with it) prevents users from loading programs, changing settings, etc. while it is enabled. Disable it and you can make changes to the computer, enable it again and it's "locked" with the current settings. It can definitely be a hassle for some things (Windows and Java updates for example), but it has a built-in maintenance mode that allows the computer to disable Deepfreeze at night and install those updates then enable again. Problem is…the computers have to be left on. As a way around this issue my school district is purposefully looking at applications that are web-based with no client installation necessary. This allows a technician to manage only one machine (the server) instead of having to manage the client install on hundreds or thousands of computers. Moodle is a great example of such a product (and its free!).

This is another reason why we want our teachers to explore Web 2.0 tools. These tools are much easier to maintain because we do not have to run the hardware that controls the applications (the servers). Sure Web 2.0 tools are great for a myriad of other reasons - the rearrangement of teaching and learning being most paramount - but this is just another reason to put our teachers out there. We see all too often teachers buying what I call "trash programs" from the bargain bin at the local discount store. Many of these programs do not teach anything other than how to sit in front of a computer, push buttons, and click with the mouse. They are merely babysitters intended to keep the students busy while the teacher does something else (sadly, I've seen plenty of enterprise level software programs that do pretty much the same thing too).

As in all things (it seems), desktop management in moderation is a good thing. I can completely understand how some network admins out there carry it too far and loose site of the purpose of the network in the first place. In our case, my department is here to support teaching and learning, encourage teachers to innovate, protect our students in a virtual environment, and try not to say "No" too often.

I have succumbed...

Tonight I have finally opened a Twitter account. I have always found it interesting but kept thinking, "do I really need something else to keep track of?". Well...

My account name is "edtecher" and I need some friends :)

Swamped! and other ramblings...

School started two and a half weeks ago and this is the first time since that I have had a chance to come up for air! When I finally had time to open my Bloglines account I found myself staring at the daunting task of perusing over 500 posts…needless to say that didn't happen.

I have had a chance to read a few of the more recent additions to the edublogosphere (is that even a word? My spell checker says definitely not) and I found a couple of discussions particularly interesting.

First, Terry Freedman's post on adopting a set of standards for basic technology competence for educators. I worked in a school district that paid an outside consultant to come in and teach district educators about using technology in the classroom. By the way, the outside consultant was one of the district's many technology applications teachers. Part of the program was a series of classes that were supposed to give teachers different levels of technology skills. If you took all the classes (three series of 10 classes if I remember right) then you would be given the title of "Master Technology User".

The crux of his argument is sound: we should expect teachers to be a least technologically literate at the most basic of levels. I think that we should carry it a step further though: every educator should have at least a moderate technology literacy level. Technology should be seamlessly integrated into what the students are learning - making the technology nearly invisible in the learning process. I do not see teachers that only have a basic knowledge of how to turn on a computer, use the mouse and check email making this reformation-type change in our classrooms. Students today need to know how to find appropriate/accurate information, apply it to new situations and analyze outcomes. I firmly believe that this can happen with technology as a fluid portion of the curriculum.

Secondly, something in Terry's post struck me as unusual. He derides the term "digital native" as inaccurate and overused. He supports his statement with the fact that he was using computers in his classroom in 1975. I agree that it has become a buzz-word and is probably over used among educators but, I think he is not the norm for people that were teaching in 1975. He is obviously an early-adopter and perhaps even a "bleeding-edger". Of course there are people out there that do not fit into the mold of digital native/digital immigrant - that's always true when you stereotype a group of people, especially when you are talking about a whole generation.

You have to put yourself in the perspective of the students. High school seniors this year were born in 1989-1990. My mom had her first cell phone in the late 80s and there were plenty of people with them prior to that. These kids have never known life without portable phones. Do they know what a rotary phone is? Yes. But have they ever heard pulse dialing? I seriously doubt it. How does this pertain to this discussion? Students today tend to be more in-tune with utilizing new technologies because they have been programmed since birth to understand how to push a button. They pick-up intuitive hardware/software and have a basic ability to utilize it in a matter of minutes. Does that mean they ever master the technology? No. They may never master it, but the basic understanding of how it can be used is often enough to cause adults to frown.

There is no digital native/immigrant myth - it is fact. If people do not continue to learn throughout life then they will eventually find themselves a stranger in a strange land, an immigrant.


"Agitate! Agitate! Ought to be the motto of every reformer. Agitation is the opposite of stagnation - the one is life, the other death." - Ernestine L. Rose