On 9/29/07, David F. Withrow <DavidWithrow@harfordday.org> wrote:
>
> In all of these analogies, I've used them myself, what's missed is that
> the user *owns*
> the car. In our effort to bring the faculty along we have provided the
> tools needed to
> accomplish the job. As a carpenter, I provided my own tools, as an auto
> mechanic I
> provided my own tools (expensive at my pay grade), and as a free lance
> consultant I
> provided all of my tools (computer, scanner, digital camera, video camera,
> paper, pencil,
> etc.) and above all else I provided my transportation.
OK, but when one of your tools that you are competent enough to know how to
use breaks, are you competent enough to be able to fix it yourself, you do
you take it to a place where someone else has been trained in the skill set
of fixing it? I know how to use a power drill, but I definitely do not know
how to take it apart to fix the short or burned out motor that caused it to
stop working.
> Too often a teacher or staff member knocks on my door with the expectation
> that I will
> provide basic services: rebooting a computer, plugging it into the wall,
> recharging a
> dead battery, etc. all the way up to data recovery magician (liquid poured
> into the
> laptop). While some of the services seem appropriate, the lack of
> ownership by the
> faculty of his/her tools is a form of passive resistance...
A recently retired colleague of mine once said that we've sold the general
public a bill of goods as far as computers go. We've convinced the general
public that computers are as easy to use as driving their Ford Focus from
New York to Chicago, when in reality, despite all the progress we've made
over the past 30 years, we're still in the Model T era, where you still have
to schlep around a ton of tools and have a fair amount of automotive
knowledge in order to make it from New York to Paterson NJ. And the general
public gets more than a little frustrated when they find out the truth.
Yes, the modern systems are much easier to use than the one of yore, and
they seem like almost child's play to those of us who grew up with punch
cards and reels of data tape. But is it realistic to expect everyone to have
the specialized knowledge that we chose to gain in order to use a tool that
we told them was "easy"?
As I said in a previous post, most people know how to use their computers
the way they know how to use their cars. But most people are not
professional drivers and most people do not do their automotive maintenance
themselves. They do, however, know who to go to when they have a problem.
Our computer users - whose jobs by the way are teaching and learning various
subjects, and not knowing how to take a computer apart blindfolded and then
put it back together again - know who to go to when they have a problem:
it's us. Some people will want to learn how to change the wiper blades
themselves and others are comfortable with letting the people at the
dealership do it. Not taking the time to learn how to change your own oil,
when there's a Jiffy Lube down the street, is not passive resistance. It's
the same with computer users. As long as they know how to do what they feel
they need or want to do on the computer, then why is it a problem when they
turn to someone else, namely us, for the routine maintenance that they know
it needs but don't feel competent to perform themselves?
Ownership is responsibility. If I do not maintain my car (car analogy
> returns) and I blow
> my engine, I have to take responsibility for that failure.
And as I've said, as long as I can and do take my car to a trained
professional for the routine maintenance that should prevent this, why
should I have to learn how to do this myself? Indeed, often taking it to the
trained professional gets you more protection should something go wrong.
Case in point, a few years ago we drove from New York to Florida in our
Dodge Caravan. We had a oil change before we left, we had a little car
trouble on the way back, but got it taken care of at a Chrysler dealer in
Virginia. Two weeks after we got back, I drove the van to our dealership for
another oil change, and was informed that I had driven it in barely 10
minutes before the engine seized. There was not a drop of oil in it, but the
oil light had never gone on to say that we were low. The extended warranty
people didn't want to pay for our new engine on the grounds that we were
"negligent" in not having the oil changed on a regular basis, but the paper
trail at both our regular dealership and the place where we had it serviced
in Virginia proved otherwise, and the new engine was paid for. I doubt that
we'd be able to prove that we had properly taken care of our car had we done
all of our oil changes ourselves.
Similarly, I often tell computer owners that while it's great to know how to
open the machine up and do some things yourself, it's also great to be able
to blame someone else when they screw up and have them be responsible for
"making it right." I figure better to have the computer store have to eat
the fried memory card they tried to install than me or one of my teachers or
students, even if it costs a little more than trying to do it yourself.
We can't all be good at everything. So is it fair to expect our constituents
to be as good at maintaining and fixing computers as they are at using them?
Is it fair to expect a moderately good pianist to know how to tune it?
--
keg
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Keith E Gatling - Computer Instructor
Manlius Pebble Hill School
5300 Jamesville Rd
DeWitt, NY 13214
315.446.2452
http://www.gatling.us/keith
Some teachers teach subjects. Others teach students.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a Creative Commons license.
