Category: Learning Technologies

Progression of classroom tech: Remembering the OHP

When I first trained as a teacher the main teaching aid was either an overhead projector or more commonly a roller blackboard.    I remember taking an LCD Panel to a school during school placement visits as a trainee teacher.   This device sat on top of a OHP and was connected to a laptop, allowing me to project whatever I had on my laptop screen.  The staff loved this new piece of tech as did the students.  This device was the precursor to the now common data projector which combines the OHP, and its light source, with the LCD Panel, into a single device.

So why the reminiscing?   A recent article in the TES titled “The pedagogic perfection of the overhead projector – and why interactive whiteboards alone wont ever match it” got me thinking back.

The article highlights the importance of facing a class when interacting with them and how the Interactive Whiteboard isn’t supportive of this.    I agree with this point which is no surprise given my general dislike for the interactive whiteboard as a classroom technology.   I have always found the whiteboard as a fixed focal point at the “front” of the class to be limiting.   I also find the fact it is stuck in place as a restriction.    My preference for some time has been towards mobile devices, such as the iPad, a data projector, a screen sharing setup and a writeable board surface.    With this you can accomplish everything you can with an interactive whiteboard and more, at less cost, assuming we are only first looking at issuing a teacher device.  It is also a portable solution which can be taken around the class as a tool to work with individual students as well as being taken to the staff room and home to prepare lessons.    It’s also a method of recording student progress and building a portfolio through taking photographs…..and that’s before we look at its benefit as a productivity tool in helping teachers in managing tasks, calendars, email, etc.      Student devices, either BYOD or school issued add further to this setup and even more so where a 1:1 student:device ration is achieved.

The author of the article goes on to identify digital ink as the next progression in the technology and I have to agree.    With digital ink we have the ability to annotate, draw, sketch, highlight, etc. all with a high degree of accuracy, with students instantly having the resulting resources at their fingertips, with the ability for them to add their own contributions.    You may be thinking you can do the same with an IWB but the accuracy with inking is higher as has been attested by students.   Also you retain the ability to face the class as opposed to having your back to them, plus you can take it with you to a students desk as opposed to it being bolted to the wall at the front.

In thinking back I can now see the evolution of the central classroom tech during the period I have been teaching.   Chalk boards then OHPs, Whiteboards, LCD Panels, Data Projectors, IWBs, iPads and Digital Inking bring us to where we are now.    Each step has seen improvements, new facilities and developments however often supporting old approaches.   Digital inking seems a lot like the annotations I used to draw on my OHPs during lessons, something also identified by the writer of the TES article.   The question I now wonder is what the next evolution will be?

 

 

image from wiki commons by mailer diablo (Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0)

EdTech and Brexit: some thoughts.

It has been reported that IT budgets will be subject to a squeeze resulting from the Brexit decision and for those who have bought IT items recently this has already become evident.   Prices of Apple devices for example have already seen an increase.   I count myself lucky that we updated our iPad fleet just before the Brexit vote as had we delayed we might now see a bill thousands of pounds more expensive than the cost we actually paid.

Revenue costs will be an issues as we may see some service costs increase during the year ahead.   An example of this might be Microsoft licensing costs.   This will be difficult to deal with as it represents a revenue item with increasing cost.   It may require an assessment of the value of services being used with services of a lesser value being abandoned in order to afford those services which are critical or of a higher value.    If Microsoft licensing costs go up which other licensed products might we no longer be able to afford?

Capital projects are likely to take a significant hit as projects may no longer fall within the originally allotted budgets.   As such some projects may now be cancelled and not progress.    This may also result in some projects which previously may have been considered no longer being considered due to cost or potential future costs.

So what can we do?

The key is that of value.    We need to ensure that all that we do has the highest possible value and return on investment.

This is easier to do where planning is for a new project, new software or new hardware.   Here, if due to the financial situation, the decision is taken to not proceed with a purchase the net effect is zero;  we don’t have the item now so not purchasing it results in no change.     The more difficult situation to manage is where we want to bring about efficiencies by looking at what we have and by removing some items.     This may be removing items to replace them with something else, such as moving from desk based printers to centralised Multi-Function Devices or it might be removing something due to the fact that the cost vs benefit does not represent sufficient benefit given the tightening financial situation.    Any removal or ceasing of support is likely to meet with a negative response from users.

The coming year is likely to be more difficult that the year that has past, a year largely prior the Brexit decision.   Overall in terms of educational technology, the recent Brexit decision will not have impacted on the impact and potential impact on technology, however the cost of this technology has almost certainly seen an increase.    As such when taking a cost vs impact viewpoint, technology may now require a greater level of justification in order to counterbalance the increased cost.

 

 

Smartphones in the class

There have been lots of discussions about the pros and cons of using technology in lessons each looking at the issue for a different perspective.   Some people are positive about how technology can benefit students and their learning while others cite detrimental impact to student writing ability or concentration.

A recent post in the TES presented the issue of how smart phones in particular were contributing to sexual harassment incidents in schools.   You can read the full post here.   Within the post the general secretary of the ATL explains that she feels that in too many places, sexual harassment has become acceptable.   The author of the post goes on to raise how sexual harassment has always existed however it is the impact of technology and social media which has greatly increased the scale of the problem.

I fully agree with the authors comments with regards the importance of staffs well being and dignity however I disagree with the suggestion that the solution is for schools to “insist that pupils’ phones be left at the door”.      This would remove many learning opportunities which arise where students have access to a mobile device in lessons.   In addition by removing the phone it removes the opportunity for students to learn about what is right and appropriate when it comes to using mobile devices including the cameras which they come with.    Where students previously might have drawn inappropriate sketches of their teacher, did we ban the pencil?

I also disagree with the authors comment regarding how “schools cannot cure the ills of society”.    Schools are part of society and cannot operate independently of it.     Therefore I feel we as educators have a responsibility to make sure students learn about the appropriate use of technology, the risks and challenges so that they are equipped to be better members of society.    Stopping student smart phones at the school doors either prevents or at least limits the potential for this learning.   Students will still have smart phones so if they are inclined to take inappropriate photos they are still likely to do it, albeit being more creative about how they sneak their smart phone into class.     As such we have gained little but lost the opportunity to have a discussion with pupils about how they should use their smart phones in class, in school and in society as a whole.

We need to take care in where we arrive at decisions to try and block or ban certain technologies.    Technology is now pervasive throughout society.    The issue is whether technology is put to good or ill, and working with students so that they learn to be respectful and responsible users of the power put in their hands through technology.

 

 

 

 

Would we ban the pencil had it been a sketch.

Was going to tweet this however decided not as 140char not enough to fully elaborate on my thoughts on this.

Skype

Started experimenting during the last couple of weeks with Skype for Business.   On Friday for example I had a meeting with a colleague to discuss some ideas he had.   As we both work on different sites and I knew my colleague was eager to get things moving and have a meeting at the earliest opportunity I suggested a Skype session to allow for discussion.    Midway through the discussion he asked if I had another computer to look at as he was going to send me a link for a web page to look at.    At this point Skype for business came into its own as I suggested he should use the “present” option.

A few minutes later and the Skype call continued, however with me now able to see my colleagues screen via screen sharing while also still able to see and hear him via picture in picture.   My colleague was able to walk me around the site and how he felt this idea of his would work and how it would benefit the school.

With Skype for business it is possible for a number of people to come together in a single meeting, sharing screens and discussing the issues in hand.    As such I can see opportunities for student group work across schools geographically separated.   This might be a nice preparation for the world beyond school where increasingly we are having to work remotely or across borders.    It would also allow for master teaching or lecturing events where a single teacher can deliver to both students in the same room and also students in other schools and locations.   Again this could add an interesting global aspect to lessons.

I see quite a bit of potential in Skype for Business and its use within school so my intention going forward is to have a number of virtual meetings using it.   I am also hoping my colleague and also those he shares meetings with will also go forth and share as well as identifying creative and innovative ways Skype for business to be used within the school.

 

 

Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert

It was last night that I finally found out that I had been included on Microsoft’s list of Microsoft Innovative Educator Experts.   My original self nomination and supporting materials had gone in a couple of months earlier and it had been with some nerves that I awaited the originally advertised release date for the list of the 1st August.     It was again that I nervously waited for the revised date of the 15th August.   This date arrived and the working day came and went.    I saw a tweet suggesting the date had again been changed this time to the 16th so it looked like the nervous wait would continue.   Then at around 10pm on the 15th I saw another tweet this time including a link to the new list.     I promptly downloaded the document and scrolled through to the UK section where I was pleased to find my name.    The wait is over.

So what does it mean to me to be an MIEE?

Well it means sharing, sharing and sharing some more.    It means having access to a network or even better a community of educators who are making use of Microsoft products to enrich, enhance and re-imagine the learning experience for the students in our schools.   It means as part of this community, being a contributor and not just a consumer.     As such I have an expectation of myself that I will share ideas and contribute on a regular basis, giving back as much as I am taking.

Now being a MIEE will not make me focus purely on Microsoft products.  I am also a Google Certified Educator plus I work in a 1:1 iPad school.   The focus is on students and on learning.   The technology, whether it be Microsoft, Apple, Google, another vendor or even a mix of vendors is not important as the technology is just a tool to achieve an aim; the aim of providing excellent learning opportunities for students.   This being said, I hope that as a MIEE I will be able to access ideas and tools relating to Microsoft products and then share these with others.   This should allow me to build on some of my recent experimentation with Microsoft products including the likes of Sway, Snip, Office-Mix and Lens.

So today marks my first day as a Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert.   I look forward to the year ahead and to hopefully living up to the title.

 

Tech and attention spans

I having recently given the impact of technology on attention spans in students a little bit of thought sparked by a comment made to me.   This led me to consider the question of “does technology have a negative impact on attention span in students” a little more thought and consideration.

For me one of the big benefits of technology is its ability to provide or support responsive feedback.    Computer games aim to provide users instant feedback as to whether they are doing well or poorly.   e-Mail aims to allow us to send a message to another user such that they will receive the message and be able to reply almost instantly as opposed to having to wait for snail mail to arrive.   In the class, students can complete quizzes and tests that provide instant feedback, or they can hand in assessments which the teacher can provide instant feedback on as opposed to having to wait for their next lesson together.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) state that feedback is “one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement”.   Technologies helps to facilitate this feedback, and therefore can be viewed as also being able to have a powerful influence on learning.

We live in a world of balance therefore it is important to recognize that the suggested advantages of technology use are not without consequence.   The use of technology and resultant instant or near instant feedback leads to a need for more feedback and therefore a lack of patience or acceptance for where it is not forthcoming.   This in turn is viewed as the inattention as implied in my opening paragraph.     Students may therefore appear less capable or less willing to take on longer activities where less feedback is forthcoming.

I wonder at this point as to the prolonged activities which we are required to do.    Research for example, can now be done more quickly through the use of google without the need to pore through a long list of research texts.   Also the feedback i have referred to which is beneficial relates to learning, however often longer tasks are about application or demonstration of learning as opposed to new learning, for example being able to write a report to prove understanding of the Data Protection Act.

As such we have a strength here in techs ability to provide quick or even immediate feedback with the benefits this can have for learning however we also have an associated weakness, being the tendancy for the tech and its associated feedback to make students dependent/expectant of immediate feedback and therefore prone to display a shorter attention span.

I would suggest the key lies in a balance between learning, involving technology and regular and frequent feedback, and demonstration and application of learning, involving more focused and substantial tasks where technology may or may not be involved.

Mobile devices

I have recently posted a couple of times with regards the iPad in classrooms however I want to make it clear that I am not an Apple only person.   In fact I spend most of my time working within a windows environment including actually typing this piece up on a Samsung ultrabook running Windows 10.

As part of my role as Director of IT I have recently been involved in re-examining the platform which we use as part of our mobile learning scheme.   This is due to the current devices reaching that age where the need replacing.      As I said I am not an Apple only person and therefore as part of this review myself and colleagues took on a review of the various options which were available to us at the time, some 6 months ago.     You can see a summary of our findings here.

To us it was clear that the iPad represented our best option, made easier still by the fact that the new iPad rollout would be replacing our current fleet of aging iPads thereby reducing the difficulties associated with any change in devices.

Since our review the iPad Pro has became available which addresses one of the weaknesses which we did identified for the iPad in the lack of a keyboard.   Personally in the 9.7” version I don’t actually like the keyboard finding the keys a little cramped so I am not sure I would actually go out and buy this direct connection keyboard option.    The 9.7” version also brings with it the new Apple Pencil which from testing I found to be excellent for taking notes and also for sketch noting.   My concern here is the cost of the pencil and the likelihood of loss especially where lots of users have one.  Again I am not sure I would go out and buy one so overall these two new items would be unlikely to be purchased as part of the schools rollout meaning the initial review findings would still stand.

The question in hand at the moment is now iPad Air 2 versus iPad Pro 9.7”.    The cost difference isn’t an awful lot however the two critical factors are life expectancy and memory.   Taking memory first the Air 2 would be purchased with 64Gb, up from the 32Gb units currently in the school.   The iPad Pro however, for a similar but slightly higher price would only have 32Gb, with the next option being the 128Gb unit as no 64Gb option exists.   This would mean if we go with more memory we also have to pay significantly more.        As to life expectancy, this relates to the iPad Air 2 which was launched in 2014.   This makes it already a 2 year old device, and aside from the iPad 2, Apple iPad devices have only usually being manufactured for a period of 2 ½ years meaning the iPad Air 2 may become a discontinued device in around 6 months to a year.    If we are investing on devices we hope to have for the next 3 to 4 years, it would be of concern if they were discontinued within the first ¼ of their intended lifespan.   That said, we know that iOS is designed to keep working for a significant period even after the discontinuing of the device itself.   Also, unless an Air 3 makes an appearance, which I doubt, the Air 2 would represent the end of the Air and traditional iPad lines so it may possibly have a life of longer than 2 ½ years like the iPad 2.

The overall question for myself and the school currently therefore is do we invest in the iPad Air 2 or in the new iPad Pro 9.7”.    I liked the Pro 9.7” I tried although I think I have leanings towards the Air 2.   A decision will need to be reached soon however for now further discussion is still required.

 

 

iPads in Schools – Further thoughts

I recently came across an old posting of mine from March 2013 with regards iPads in education.  See the full posting here.   In the posting I expressed concerns over the very generalized benefits of iPad devices in lessons being espoused at the conference I was attending.    I expressed a concern that this general positivity towards the impact of iPads was very similar to the unrealized positivity which for many years surrounded the Interactive Whiteboard.

It is now over three years further on so I thought this was an opportune time to reflect on my thoughts now, how things have turned out and my thinking as it is now.

Thinking back to 2013 I believe now that I was skirting around the key issue.       My concerns at the time were very much around the lack of significant evidence to support the benefits of using iPads in schools.    The conference had plenty of examples of where iPads had been used however the benefits were very generic such as pupil engagement, pupil collaboration and pupil directed learning.   I was looking for more quantifiable evidence of the benefits as opposed to these more general and anecdotal benefits.

Reflecting the key issue I missed was this idea of generalization and the issues which surround it.    My concern was the generalization of the benefits being stated by presenters at the conference however this generalization was inevitable as presenters strove to present in a way which could engage and be appropriate to attendees from various backgrounds and experience levels.    They were seeking to explain how they viewed the iPad as having the potential to have a positive impact on learning.   What I should have been more concerned with was this suggestion that the iPads benefits could be extrapolated to schools in general as opposed to the suggestion that the iPads had general benefits.

Every school is different in a multitude of both small and large ways.    This make the possibility for a single device to have benefits for school in general unlikely.    In addition the iPad as a piece of #edTech is a tool for learning and the impact of any tool depends on its usage.   A well used hammer will fix things to the wall whereas a poorly used hammer will just result in a sore thumb and fingers.    Given the dependence on usage and the likely significant variance in how devices are used again makes it unlikely that a single device such as the iPad could have benefits for schools in general.

Considering the presentations, and on reflection, what I should have been wanting to see was a school that told me what they had sought to achieve, what they had done and how they had assessed their success including what measures and data they used in measuring their success or failure.   The presenters should have been specific about their context and the impact of their use of iPads in this context, with no attempt made to generalize for the wider world.

As more schools look to engage in mobile learning this is my key message:

  • Be sure what you want to achieve through the use of mobile devices including iPads including considering how you might measure your impact and hopefully success.
  • Do your research on what devices can and cant do including seeking feedback from schools already engaged in using mobile devices however also remember that your context will most likely be different than theirs. Don’t assume as it worked in one school it will work in yours.
  • Consult widely. Use social media and your professional learning network (PLN) to get feedback and ideas.    Again, as indicated above always ensure you remember that the context within which those providing feedback are operating may differ from your context and therefore don’t assume what they have done would be transferable to your school.
  • Review, review and review some more. No matter how much planning and research you do there will always be something you miss.    These might be unexpected issues however equally possible are unexpected opportunities, new ways to apply the technology, unforeseen benefits, etc.

Above all if you are implementing mobile devices remember you are doing it for your students and staff and your school and therefore any solution or project needs to meet their needs and not the needs of the abstract concept of education or schools in general.

 

 

Devices in schools

I recently read a @donaldclark posting (Read the full post here) commenting on the “debacle” of deploying tablet devices to schools where he feels that laptops are the devices that should have been “purchased in the first place”.   He states that “while ipads may be appropriate for young children, they are not suitable for older children who need to acquire writing and other more sophisticated skills using tools that don’t work on iPads”.

I disagree with his point of view, believing that tablet devices do have a place in schools including secondary schools.  I do however add a note of caution here in that the deployment of devices has to be carefully considered and issues such as staff training, IT support, change management, consultation, etc need to be carefully considered.   I would suggest that any “debacle” associated with a US state wide or other deployment of devices, be it laptops or iPads, relates to a failure to fully appreciate and address one or more of these areas.

Reading Donald’s post the main item I pull out as his reason for not having iPads in schools is that they are “poor for writing”.   I will acknowledge that iPads are poor for typing and that this links directly to writing.   I have even recently been trying out an iPad Pro 9.7” with the smart keyboard and still find the device poor for typing due to the available real estate for the keyboard resulting in cramped keys.    I am not sure if this is better on the larger scale iPad having not had the opportunity to try this however I doubt it will be much better as the keyboard is unlikely to have the same feel associated with a proper laptop keyboard.      So if we are asking students to produce written content and then assessing then by their written, or typed, response then the iPad may not be the best tool.    This to me is acceptable as equally a laptop isn’t as suitable where the evidence we want to generate is video or photographic evidence.   The iPad, or laptop for that matter, could never be the only tool used.

This brings me to Donalds other point with regards his comment on the iPad device as a consumer device for consuming media as opposed to for producing media.   Having seen the devices in the hands of students facilitated by enthusiastic and creative teachers, however, I no longer believe this to be true.    Students are able to make use of app smashing techniques to combine multiple apps to create new and creative content often with unexpectedly high quality output.    I will admit that the content they produce isn’t often written content, tending to be more towards either audio or video content and mayve herein lies the issue.   If we expect students to produce evidence of higher order thinking the way we have always done it, via written content, then yes the iPad is not ideal, however if we allow our students to be creative in how they evidence their learning and therefore accept video, audio, animated, etc responses then the iPad fits the bill perfectly.    Students can prove their understanding of complex writing concepts through explain everything for example.

My focus has always been on the iPad as a tool for learning and I continue to stand by this.    I believe it CAN be used as a tool to learning about writing and about coding, another area identified by Mr Clark as a weak area for ipads, however when it comes to the skill of producing writing and of producing coding, I would suggest that maybe the iPad isn’t the best tool.    With this understanding it is acceptable then the progress with iPads in a school on the understanding that the weakness is addressed through other methods, including possibly other technology which is available with the school.    I wonder how many iPad 1:1 secondary schools still have IT Labs with devices with keyboards for this very reason.

For me the biggest danger is sweeping generalizations.   The iPad was never the one answer to tech use in schools and the error made by so many was to adapt it as a one size fits all answer.    Equally we can’t say that iPads shouldn’t be used or are ineffective within schools as there are many schools where they are being used very effectively with students.    Although I generally disagree with Mr Clarks post I will close with a point of agreement in his statement of “do the research”.     The critical issue is to examine what you hope to achieve and to ensure that you have, within your own school and own plan for using EdTech, considered all the aspects of a deployment including staff training, change management, consultation, etc. and not just the shiny new device to be deployed whether it be a laptop or an ipad.

 

 

 

Westminster Education Forum

Tuesday marked a very early start, setting off at 4:30am for the 40min drive to the train station before hopping on a 2 ½ hour train journey down to London.    Am sure for many this would just be part of the normal run of the average week however after almost 8 years in the Middle East during which time I never set foot on public transport, I consider it to be something new.     Mind you, some may consider Etihad and Emirates airways which are both UAE air carriers to be “public” transport at least within a Middle East context.

The overall purpose of the trip was an #edTech event being held in central London focusing on initiatives and ideas for the use of technology in education, in schools and in learning.    The event was titled “Digital Technologies and Innovative Teaching practice in the classroom: Latest thinking and policy options”.

It was nice one again to hear Stephen Heppell present and to have a brief chat with him and it was also good to hear Bob Harrison present although sadly I never had the opportunity to say hello in person.

Of particular note from the event was Stephen Heppell’s discussion of policy disconnect in which he suggested teachers being innovative charge ahead trying new ideas and new technologies, taking with them parents who see the impact of these new ideas and technologies.    The centralized policies which are determined at a governmental or similar high level however are unable to keep pace leading to a disconnect between what teachers and parents want and the policies which govern what should be happening in schools.   I can identify with this as I see so many examples of teachers trying new ideas, sharing tips, etc. with new and exciting suggestions appearing on the likes of twitter and other online media on a daily basis.     From this point of view it is important to keep innovating and Stephen even made the point of stating teachers should just “do it” and be the driving force.

Peter Twining however put across a slightly different viewpoint during one of the panel discussions where he suggested that success couldn’t be achieved purely through this bottom up process, and that it was equally important to have some top down leadership of educational technology usage.   He suggested that should the government or OFSTED indicate an expectation then schools would adjust accordingly in order to comply in order to avoid unsatisfactory inspection results.   As such for educational technology use to be truly successful we need to have both the grassroots leadership of educational technology, leading from the bottom up, but also the top down leadership setting out the framework and expectations.

I can see the merit in both approaches, top down and bottom up, however have always been quick to suggest that it is important to have both in place to make the best things happen.     That being said, in more recent months I have found myself prioritizing the grassroots bottom up approach over top down.   Good things can happen in lessons despite poor leadership however I am not as convinced good things can happen where grassroots teaching is poor.

Overall it was a productive day and well worth the early rise.    I hope to have the opportunity to attend further similar events in the future.