Tag: Planning

AI and collaborative planning

The other day I was lucky enough to share my thoughts with a number of schools in relation to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence within teaching and learning.   My session included a brief introduction into Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Artificial Intelligence, before talking about the benefits and, risks and challenges.    I also talked about a few Generative AI tools.

In delivering the session I spotted that some of the later sessions on the event agenda including time for colleagues from across different schools to get together in their subject area to work collaboratively, to share ideas, resources, etc.    And it was at this point that I saw a clear potential use for generative AI.

We are in that final part of the academic year where many teachers are already considering the 2024/25 academic year and putting their planning into place.   It has always been beneficial to do this collaboratively with other teachers, either in your school, across schools in a Multi-Academy Trust or school group, or even beyond.    The bigger and more diverse the group of teachers sharing the better.    It all fits with my favourite quote, that “the smartest person in the room, is the room”.   So, the more people we are working with collaboratively and sharing ideas with, the smarter we are collectively.   But why does it need to be just about people.   

In the event I spoke at I suggested that staff might want to invite ChatGPT or Gemini into their collaborative planning sessions, getting some input and ideas from Generative AI or they might use Generative AI to help in further developing ideas they themselves have come up.    A Generative AI tool would bring additional ideas from the very broad training data it will have ingested and therefore may propose things a group of teachers might not consider. Ok, so it isn’t another person in the room, but it is another intelligence or it is an intelligent assistant to the people in the room.   Maybe the intelligent assistant, such as ChatGPT, makes each individual “smarter” and then the collaboration of the room again makes people collectively smarter still.

Collaborative planning among teachers is now a largely established habit in schools so maybe we can augment the practice by getting into the habit of bring generative AI into these meetings, these discussions and these collaborative events.     If a room of people is smarter than the individuals, then a room of people, supported by intelligent assistants, supported by generative AI tools, is clearer smarter still.

So, if you are doing any collaborative planning in the weeks ahead, or at the start of the new academic year, are you going to involve Generative AI tools in the process?

There is no tail

I have previously written about how technology is sometimes seen as the solution to all problems, even where sometimes the problem relates to process or people, and therefore is unlikely to be significantly addressed by technology.   A related issue is where technology is seen as the silver bullet but able to act on processes without the engagement of the process owners and those the understand the process. Basically where IT teams are asked to solve a problem using technology without the support of process owners.

This issue often raises memories of concerns being raised as to the tail wagging the dog, in relation to technology, or concerns that what should be happening in relation to an organisational unit or process is controlled and directed by the technology.    I have always understood this view as a teacher.  The process, learning, shouldn’t be directed by the technology, it is the students and the learning which should direct things.    The issue though is that this is overly simplistic.   There are limits of technology, there are risks related to technology use, there are drawbacks or disadvantages as well as advantages to using technology.    As such the technology available, risks, etc need to be taken into consideration and as a result may influence and direct how technology is used in learning, and therefore the learning itself.   It’s a two-way street, although on a continuum I will always come down more on the learning or process side of things rather than the technology side.   Technology should be an enabler.

My concern here is where the IT or technology staff are asked to come up with a solution to fulfil a certain need, IT is the silver bullet, but the task is almost handed off to IT staff rather than engaging IT and technology staff in a partnership with the owners of the process or issue concerned.    The IT staff are unlikely to understand the process in question so how are they to develop or identify a solution which would meet the requirements?  Even if they identify a solution which meet the end requirements, there is the potential that the process involved will not meet the needs or requirements of the process owners.    In order to be successful this challenge needs to involve both the IT staff, bring technology and IT understanding, and the process owners and operators who understand the specific needs and requirements around the process being looked at.     The two groups of staff need to work in partnership each bringing their own expertise, knowledge and experience.

Conclusion

IT projects have a horrid habit of going both over budget and over time.  This tendency occurs across different industries and also within education.    IT staff might not fully understand the problem, the process owners might not clearly communicate the problem, IT staff may try to apply the problem to the solution rather than finding a solution for the problem, there might be scope creep over time, and that’s just a handful of things which can make an IT project more complex than is ideal.   For me the key is partnership and each group of people bringing different things to the table.   What if there is no dog and there is no tail?

IT Strategy: Seeking value

I have been planning to post on IT strategy in relation to some of the areas which I believe need to be considered.  Initially my thought was for a single post covering a number of different points, some being obvious and some less so obvious, however as soon as I started writing it became clear that each point could be a post in itself or would result in a really long single post.   As such I decided to undertake a number of separate posts of which this is the first:

Seeking Value

I remember someone telling me that IT is the 3rd most expensive thing in a school after staffing costs and the cost of the building and school estate.  With such a large part of a schools finances invested in technology it is important to make sure that we are getting value.   Now I note my use of the word “value” as opposed to impact; This is due to impact being often associated with examination outcomes.   In my view this is a narrow view on technologies potential within education.  Exam results, for example, don’t provide a measure of the positive effect which technology can have to a student with Asperger’s who previously found it difficult to interact with the classroom discussion but now can do so easily via an online chat facility.    For me value suggests a broader classification which might include using technology to engage a particular student who previously wouldn’t or couldn’t access learning, like in the above example, it might include introducing new experiences to students which were either difficult, dangerous or costly without tech or it might be using technology to bring about new more efficient processes for teachers such as dictation of feedback, etc.   Value is much more diverse and also context specific than exam results.  Seeking value in our technology should be a key objective in all technology decision making but mustn’t be confused with cost cutting.

I have often heard about how technology should be led by teaching and learning needs.   I agree with this to an extent in that technology shouldn’t dictate what is done in the classroom, however we must be careful that whatever technology we are considering using brings about value.   It is all too easy to fall for the salesman’s spiel regarding the potential or to focus on a particularly nice feature and not appreciate the wider implications of a technologies use.  I remember VLEs being heralded for the potential they had to change learning giving students access to resources and allowing teachers to set homework and provide feedback, etc.  Sadly, in my view, they never really provided value as first there was the cost of the software, then the resource cost of training and of creating, posting and updating content, then the limited ways that content could be organised and presented which stifled the creativity inherent in good teaching.  The cost versus the benefits never added up for me, and with this I didn’t see the value.    I can name a couple of other technologies which have been rolled out due to their potential to impact teaching and learning, but where the costs and resultant value is doubtful at best.

A discussion of value in relation to an educational technology project is never an easy one given the concept of value is potentially so broad and all encompassing.  Important things, such as a detailed consideration of value, are seldom easy.   Judgements on value are also often subject to the different perspectives of the people involved in the project.   To that my answer is to look to the schools values and what it stands for and to see if the proposed technology fits with the schools wider aims.   If it doesn’t then the project should be dropped.  If, however it does then a trial or pilot study may help surface the value or lack of in the technology being examined.   Discussions with other schools may also help to establish value.    Assuming value can be established from such a trial a wider roll-out, either to a bigger pilot group, to a specific group or even whole school can be considered and planned.

I have now added “Seeking value” as one of the value statements for my IT Services team, as a reminder and key focus in supporting IT across the school.   It is my belief that it is important that we all have a similar reminder as we explore the many different and emerging technologies and technology solutions which might be considered for use in our schools.   Before proceeding we need to ask ourselves: Does this add value?

 

 

 

 

Predicting the future

Recently I have cause to review the schools 5 year plan for IT with a view to updating it however in doing so I have come to question the process.

Part of the reason for questioning the process lies with my recent reading of Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman and also The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb which I am currently reading.    In both books the author examines our ability to predict the future, with both authors arriving at the same conclusion, being that human beings track record in relation to future predictions is generally poor.    Both authors cite a variety of projects, where predictions in relation to costs and timescale in particular are required.   In each of the examples the project either ends up taking significantly longer or costing significantly more than anticipated.

Thinking about my own context, I oversaw an IT overhaul in a school back in 2007.   This was very much focused around updating the existing server and client PC infrastructure and developing a long term, 5 year plan for maintaining and renewing the equipment.   Had I been able to predict the iPad and its potential applications in education, which was only 3 years away and therefore well within the scope of my 5 year plan, my plan and also some of my actions may have been significantly different.

Given the above I have taken a different approach to my new 5 year plan.   I now accept that the further away from today, the more variable and unpredictable the future is.    Reflecting, this should not have been a surprise as unpredictability is compounded, like financial interest over time.   If you look at your mortgage bill and the total repayment amount you can see how a few percentile points compounded over a period of time can result in a significant increase on the original figure.   So a small percentage of unpredictability played out across a number of years would result in a significant level of unpredictability.

My new 5 year plan has a lot of detail in terms of what is planned for the coming 12 months.    Planning for the 2nd 12 months contains less items as this period is more difficult to predict, with planning for the 3rd year and beyond being progressively less detailed in line with the increasing level of unpredictability.

Now my thinking thus far has been focused on longer term planning in the magnitude of around 5 years with quite clear implications for periods extending beyond 5 years however is a similar issue applicable to short periods?    Can we accurately predict things within a single academic year?  If the answer to this is no then what implications might this have for planning within schools?    I also wonder about lesson planning however that may be for another posting.

How often do you engage in long term planning and in doing so have you considered quite how unpredictable the world is?

 

Time to recharge

The last week or so has seen me less engaged in the social side of education, including blogging and tweeting, than normal.  I have also been less engaged in reading and almost totally disengaged in anything akin to exercise.   I have found myself content to arrive home at the end of each day, do some prep work for the following day and then lapse a dazed state watching popular TV watching.

Looking at my twitter activity over the last few weeks I have returned to the point of re-tweeting some brilliant posts and ideas from others rather than contributing anything much new myself.  This is something I am a little critical of as in my early use of twitter this was the limited extent to which I was involved.   At that time, and on reflection, I vowed to make an effort to be a sharer but also a contributor and therefore a return to sharing alone represents a step backwards.

The question at hand is why this has happened and why I now find myself in this situation.    I think the answer to this question lies in looking at all the things that went on during February.   During February I took place in #29daysofwriting during which time I wrote 29 blog entries, 1 for each day of February.   I also took part in #teacher5adaysketch and made some attempts around getting a little bit fitter as part of #teacher5aday.

I have previously written on the benefits of treating life as a series of sprints as opposed to a marathon (you can read this posting here) however there is a down side to this approach.    The downside for me appears to have hit me during the last few weeks.

My sprint through February has left me a little depleted in terms of energy and motivation.    As such my TV watching has been an attempt to recharge my batteries and build up on my currently depleted reserves of energy.

Looking back at my posting on sprinting through activities I still stand by my comments however in hindsight I will add one additional point.  If you plan to sprint through an activity be aware of the impact it will have on your energy reserves and the fact that following the spring you will need to rebuild these reserves.  Also, the bigger the sprint, the bigger the required recharge period so after 29 blog posts in a month, plus a number of other activities I need a larger recharge period than if the sprint was focused on a lesser or single activity.    Looking back I now see the importance of including a period for recharging within my plan and making sure you stuck to it.

I now feel I am coming out of my recharge period, which is further helped by the bank holiday weekend.   With that in mind, onwards and upwards!!

 

 

Simplicity

The other day I was reintroduced to something I had seen a while back but forgotten about; the five minute lesson plan (http://teachertoolkit.me/the-5-minute-lesson-plan).   An excellent resource for planning lessons that is quick, focussed and clear yet effective.    I then came across a mention of the 5 minute lesson review (http://teachertoolkit.me/5minplan-series/the-5-minute-lesson-review), which is equally quick and focussed.

This reminded me of De Bono’s book, simplicity.   As a fan of some of De Bono’s books, I can’t say I found simplicity to be one of his better works however in this case it got me thinking. I remember starting teaching with lessons plans listing the objectives, time, student activities and teacher activities.   Not long later I remember being told to add differentiation as a section to my plan.  This was to improve my plan by making sure I referenced how my lesson was to include differentiation.   A little bit further into my teaching career and SEN students and G&T students were added as boxes to fill in.   The lesson plan was 2 pages by this point.   Again, a little further on in my career and yet more columns, rows and boxes were added in order to further “improve” the lesson planning process.  References to blooms taxonomy, learning styles, etc. had to be included.   The process of planning a lesson by writing a plan now took time I didn’t have plus was a complex process, having become so in the quest for improvement.

But what is the core point of planning?   To me its the quest for outstanding lessons where learning takes place for all students.   Does the filling in of 100 different boxes help?   I don’t think so and those adopting the 5 minutes lesson plan seem to agree.

If we can over complicate something as simple as the lesson plan,  what else have we overcomplicated in the sphere of education?