IT †Foundations of Computing and Communication Essay

There is no doubt that with the increased availability of Communications and Information Technology, students often consider themselves as they know every information that their universities are providing with. Even parents are misguided by their children when they come to know that their children are capable of operating computers and gaining Internet access. However, the situation is just opposite of what is percept by the parents. Students operate computers thereby gaining access to Internet, not to learn new concepts and technological advancements to keep updated, but to be a part of entertainment provided by the Internet such as complex online games, chatting on workgroups, etc. Such widespread availability of Technology does not make any individual, literate enough to consider his class room studies outdated. In this context it would not be wrong to say that technology and communications (Example multimedia software and Internet access) brings a vast array of image-based information into the classroom. Before becoming available via the computer, this kind of information was found in the universities library and, on occasions, through the use of 16mm film, filmstrips and, later, videotape and then cassette. (Abbott, 2000, p. 6) Recent UK government policy on ICT is supported by five research reports from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). The most recent report was an analysis and investigation of the associations between ‘high level’ and ‘low level’ usage of IT (networked technologies) and the educational attainment of pupils at university stages. This was due to the reason students became over confident however there was a positive and satisfactory probability for acquiring ‘high’ ICT and pupil attainment in most of the associations (various subjects at different key stages) but in most cases this association was not statistically significant (7 out of 12 associations) and those associations that were statistically significant typically observed only very small effects. The most amazing aspect of the report was that the critical analysis negates the methods and data presented in the reports that does not consistently support the conclusions drawn by the government policy documents. Indeed, some of the data can be interpreted as showing that ICT is ineffective for students who misuse them. According to Andrews, â€Å"In addition, the evidence presented in the report was based on observational data and it is not by any means possible to establish and sustain a causal relationship between the level of ICT use and the educational attainment of the pupils because the observed effects could have been due to other known or unknown variables†. (Andrews, 2004, p. 34) The role of the learner should not by any means conflict with that of the teacher, as every teacher has his/her own teaching style. Therefore in situations where students consider IT learning available on every doorstep, it would not be right for a student to consider technological learning useless or underestimate the teacher’s lecture. Every teacher has its own mode and style of teaching IT which universities understand. Even most educational systems do not respond quickly to technological advances. Educational institutions act as a domain where universities are, by their very nature, conservators of prior knowledge, accepted understandings and proven methodologies. According to Mellon (1999) â€Å"Technology cannot guarantee learning as we cannot force students to learn; every student has a unique learning style followed by his teachers and teachers has their own importance in the eyes of the student even more important than the most sophisticated educational tools† (Mellon, 1999, p. 34). Mellon is right to the extent until students are keen to learn technological advancements, but obviously it is not the responsibility of a teacher who spends hours of hard work in preparing computing lectures. This is evident from the case study in which I interviewed Dr. Jack Thomas, a professor of Information systems at Glasgow University. Being a computer lecturer, Mr. Thomas still updates his knowledge every week, and in order to conduct a session he needs to prepare his lectures according to the student’s learning skills. He often conducts hands on experience session in which he wants his students’ to be technically acquainted with the changing IT trends. However in a course study of . NET framework class, in the very beginning of a lecture he found majority of the class was not serious about learning and in the last lecture he acknowledged that the remaining half of the students who actively participated in . NET session were not able to resolve simple . NET programming questions. According to Mcghee (2003) the new system which emerged in 2002 and highlighted various issues regarding information that universities would have or should have anyway and which is in any event assumed to be information normally produced by the HEI for its own internal QA procedures, has failed to identify the major cause of lacking skills among IT students. The QAA and HEFCE distinguish between information which should be available in all universities at a high level to enable academic quality and standards to be monitored, such as summaries of external examiners’ reports. (Mcghee, 2003, p. 44) An understanding of the importance of organisational culture in universities is important in designing quality assurance processes to apply to the use of ICT in teaching and learning, in making sure they are appropriate, and in being confident that they will gain acceptance. Effective management of universities is improved when the values of professional groups with strong shared cultures align with the organisational culture of the University. The design of quality assurance processes in teaching needs concerns about the values and roles of such groups, and to build on them from the top down and the bottom up, to maximise the effectiveness of such quality assurance processes. As far as quality is concerned, every year universities in UK traditionally work through coordination of collective decision-making processes, and this provides an important basis upon which issues relating to quality are played out. (Bhanot & Fallows, 2005, p. 23) It is therefore crucial to ensuring a student-centred approach to teaching and learning that quality assurance guidelines and measurable standards and performance indicators were established top down to adhere to standards, and bottom up to integrate with teachers’ judgements on the appropriateness of the educational applications of the technology. The real power of digital technology can be achieved only when we take advantage of the shift from the one-to-many character of broadcast media, to the many-to-many ability of digital networks. To this end, the most productive early applications of digital technology in higher education involved using computer conferencing, electronic mail, listservs (threaded discussions), and other computer-based collaboration technology to link together both students and faculty in highly interactive learning communities, unconstrained by geographical location or time. Students already make extensive use of digital technology for informal learning, typically without the involvement or even the awareness of the faculty. They build study groups, in some cases spanning several academic institutions, working together to seek information, answer questions, and develop learning skills. In a very real sense, such study groups based on computer networks are providing students with greater control over their educational experiences. They also represent a trend in which students construct their own consortia of learning resources and academic institutions just as the faculty build their own research consortia. Of course, these network-based student groups represent an important step toward active student learning. (In fact, when students are asked how they could best spend time on their college academic programs, they invariably rank student study groups at the very top, far above individual study or class attendance. ) On the other hand, today’s concept of a teacher is not what was in the past that a teacher is one who develops and presents knowledge to passive students. Today, faculty members who have become experts in certain subfields are expected to identify the key knowledge content for a course based in front of their students with an aim to inspire or impress their students. Only in this manner the students’ accept their tutors they should look forward to gain knowledge. Frequently, others, including graduate teaching assistants and professional staff, are assigned the role of working directly with students, helping them to learn, and providing them with guidance and counselling. In a future increasingly dominated by sophisticated educational commodities and hyper learning experiences, the role of the faculty member will shift. In the new paradigms where the demand of IT is increasing in our social and economic gatherings, the role of the faculty member has become that of nurturing and guiding active learning, not identifying and presenting content that is, they will be expected to inspire, motivate, manage, and coach students. (Atkins et al, 2002, p. 65) The widespread use of Information Technology does not mean that in a world driven by knowledge, students’ starts considering IT learning useless, enough or off-again experience. There is a need for people to realise that the only solution is to engage in continuous learning so that they can keep themselves and their skills updated. This need suggests that the relationship between a student, professor and the university may change just as we know that a student if gains technical skills of technology subjects can be ahead of his professor. Computer literacy courses were initially encounter between technical education in learning centres and theoretical education in universities, they emerged as a culture that regards microcomputer technology as a revolutionary social force, and faculty who regard the computer instrumentally as a tool or machine. Computer experts call IT knowledge that enables them to get command over mastery over the computer ‘problem solving’, which includes heuristics (‘powerful ideas’), attitudes about control (‘giving commands’), and social relations (‘consulting’) that transform the relationship between human and machine. (Shields, 1995, p. 24) Progressive reformers could not carry out their mastery program in IT earlier in the 20th century due to the reason that they did not have the means to deliver such individualised instruction. The advent of computer changed the Progressive movement thinking towards importance of students controlling their own learning; it had no way to create an environment that would allow such self-management to occur. (Schank, 1995, p. 67) Computer technology has made today’s students to acquire individualised attention and real possibility and possess the ability to present students with tasks they are interested in doing. The technical skills emerged from the IT has offerred students the possibility of becoming inquisitive, the possibility of exploration, and the possibility of recovery from failure that is free from embarrassment. Computer systems can free education centres and universities to follow the course prescribed by the processes of natural learning. In the same manner as understanding the place of technology and technological innovation requires an understanding of the culture in which the technology is embedded, in order to grasp the technological concepts a student has to understand and grasp the changes to IT. Computers where on one hand offer students to explore technology from the ground root level, on the other hand computers affects the ways students live and work in the context of existing individual and group social patterns. The Littlefield students did not believe that their increased access to computers distinguished them from other freshmen in significant ways, and our observations support this belief. Instead of isolating individuals, as computers are sometimes thought to do, the Littlefield network reinforced community life; the computers and the network presented a set of shared problems, the solutions to which were discovered through a set of shared resources. In this way, students’ interaction with the computers and with each other were typical of their behaviour in other domains. (Shields, 1995, p. 142)