In a traditional classroom in a fee-paying school, when a lesson is interrupted because the technology misbehaved, the teacher is expected to make a rapid judgement and decision.

• Can the technology be fixed before the class is distracted?
  • If not, is the repair process a justifiable learning opportunity for the class at this time?
    • If not, is it easy to move to a known-good alternative facility?
      • If not, abandon the technology promptly, report it to Helpdesk, and review its place in the teaching program if it is not made reliable.

An ‘extended period of time’ for class-control issues in K-12 can be as low as two minutes. This may be just long enough to restart a computer, but not long enough for a projector. It is not long enough for a messenger to go to the HelpDesk and get back. On this basis, it is not appropriate to send a human messenger to the HelpDesk during class. If the Helpdesk can offer next-minute response, and the problem can be completely described in few words, it may be worth sending an electronic message from one of the networked computers or mobile phones in the room.

Otherwise, since real-time response from the Helpdesk is unlikely, teachers often (prudently) abandon technology-based lesson plans. Later classes need the technology, so faults should be promptly reported to helpdesk. (Sadly, the only practical way I found to ensure this has been to sympathetically but consistently embarrass teachers who failed to report a fault.)

The ‘Learning Opportunity’ in a technology failure in class depends on context and outcome.

1. If a repair attempt conspicuously fails, students may learn the ‘anti-lesson’ that technology is hard and troubleshooting doesn’t work. This lesson is most vivid for the person who tries to resolve the fault, but it’s bad for all if the failed attempt is made by someone considered expert or authoritative (such as a teacher or student-guru).
2. If a repair is accomplished by helpdesk but unexplained, students learn the anti-lesson that technology is hard and the school has not equipped them to solve their own problems.
3. If a repair is accomplished by helpdesk repeatedly, students learn the anti-lesson that the specific technology is incurably unreliable – or the helpdesk is incompetent to fix the underlying fault.
4. If a repair is accomplished and explained by a teacher in an extended period of time, students may perceive a (regrettable) subtext that the technical learning is more urgent than their syllabus.
5. If service is restored rapidly by a student, students may perceive (correctly or not) that the teacher is incompetent with her professional tools.
6. If service is restored rapidly by a student but fails frequently, students learn the anti-lesson that the specific technology is incurably unreliable and that students are incompetent to fix the underlying fault.
7. Only if service is permanently restored rapidly with the teachers’ approval, do students learn the highly desirable lesson that students are able to fix things.

Yes, most teachers I have worked with have been too slow to ‘pull the plug’ on lessons stymied by technical faults. Teachers typically need to rehearse their troubleshooting and this decision process, off-stage.

The technologists in schools need to distinguish between innovation (with uncertain outcomes) and embedded technology (required by syllabus) – but that’s a matter for another post.