Education Technology in Schools

'Plain English' Guide to Social Networking

This is a link to a 'plain english' video on the subject of Social Networking (on YouTube). It is a basic overview, but for those who haven't grasped what MySpace, Bebo and Facebook are about, it provides a good introduction. (Oh and just a reminder, you can't click on any of the previous links from a KCC networked computer).

Interesting is the recently re-vamped concept of a bill of rights for users of the 'social web'.

To summarise, the bill states that users should have:

• ownership of their personal information.
• Control of how this is shared.
• Freedom to grant access to trusted external sites.

Sounds great, but I can't see it myself. The upshot of the social web revolution is that it is free to users on the basis that:

• They own your personal information and use it for marketing.
• They control who gets it.
• They place ads wherever they have the maximum impact, and don't really care where that is.

e-Portfolio Research Report

Becta have released their "Impact study of e-portfolio's on learning" conducted by a team of researchers from University of Nottingham led by Helen Barrett. The study provides eight case studies from across education, from primary to adult learning. The notable quote is that "... e-portfolio's benefit learning most effectively when considered as part of a system, rather than as a discrete entity".

The report contains an interesting graphic showing three distinct components of an e-portfolio: a digital archive (repository of evidence); tools to support; presentation portfolios aimed at different audiences.

Worth a read, but shows that we are still in need of some real standards for e-portfolio's!

Leases for Schools

Kent CFE finance has clarified its position regarding leasing. This is particularly relevant for those schools considering leasing as an option for ICT. It points out that schools are not allowed to enter into finance leases, only qualifying operating leases. Sometimes the line between the two types of financial product can be a little opaque, so KCC has announced an operating lease scheme for all Kent schools to use.

Where technology suppliers offer a lease finance product, the advice is to decline and use the Kent recommended Operating Lease Scheme to ensure full compliance with accounting regulations.
 

Creative Teaching Through Technology

End of Terms

I was just musing about anacronous terms after the previous post, and here's an open question:

We all know the differences between the following? ... right?

• Learning Platform (LP)
  
• e-learning platform
  
• Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
  
• Managed Learning Environment (MLE)
  
• Personalised Learning Environment (PLE)
• Online learning space
• e-portfolio

 Just testing ...

VLE's - how is it for you? a survey!

Ray Tolley has launched two surveys sponsored by a Naace research bursary into the present state of Virtual Learning Environment's (VLE's) in schools. This is an attempt to collate some basic statistics so as to inform further debate and developments. He intends publishing the Report early next year.

Ray would appreciate support from schools. There are two short surveys, one looking at the direct involvement of schools and the other concerning implementation strategies by LA's. Unless ICT leaders in schools have recently done an ICT audit it is suggested that they look at the first link where there is a simple editable Data Collection Form (DCF).

See this page for an introduction to the surveys:

Or here are the links direct to the two surveys:
Survey for Schools
Survey for LAs

Take part and enjoy!

The Mark of e-Maturity (say what?!!)

Those who manage to keep up with the ebb and flow of excruciating terminology and policy will know that the Self Review Framework (which from a branding point of view doesn't really say whats in the tin!) is based on a concept called e-maturity, itself a derivative of a 'concept to maturity model' of school improvement through ICT. Well, Naace were commissioned by Becta to undertake research earlier this year into the key characteristics and the development of e-maturity in the school workforce.

The report has been (secretly?) published on the Naace web site. It can be found HERE. Some of the report conclusions (below) are obvious:

• No widespread recognition of the term e-maturity amongst teachers (surprised? probably not)
• Half those who completed the quiz said it was a meaningful concept (see above ... they weren't teachers then?)
• Those professionals involved in the research did not fully represnt the schools workforce (ah, see both of the above)
• Vision, leadership and resources are patchy.
• SLICT hardly mentioned as a motivator for developing personal or institutional e-maturity (not my experience).
• Increasing numbers of staff are enthusiastic about developing their own e-maturity (self motivated?).
• Most teachers and advisors developed their e-maturity in an ad hoc way, receiving little direct recognition for their efforts, and staff and schools would find it helpful if some such form of recognition existed.

Their recommendations?

• Consult widely on the definition (why? the definition is better than anyone else has come up with for a 21st century teacher, its the phrase e-maturity thats wrong).
• Ensure a single definition is appropriate. (i.e. would it be different for a teaching assistant? ... school technician? probably!).
  
• Consider whether there is a clear, generic progression in developing e-maturity (the holy grail of staff development?).
• Promote the concept of e-maturity much more widely or find an alternative terminology that is meangful to staff in schools.
• Develop specific routes for professionals to increase their e-maturity (aha!!, now we're getting somewhere!).
• Create a recognition scheme for professional use of ICT in the school environment that is light touch, has credibility with employers and embodies the key elements of e-maturity described (Wow, let me know when they crack this one!).

My own opinion is that we need to think carefully before we create fancy definitions and labels ... contrast 'Self Review Framework' with 'ICT Mark'. In branding terms the latter wins hands-down and is what it says. The fact that they are linked by process makes it the more confusing. The report asks whether 'e-maturity' is recognised as a descriptor and concludes it isn't, ... Why not come up with something that really describes what it is (teacher e-confidence? ... too simple really isn't it).

What are we measuring? UK Education Productivity ... ?

I loved this article from the BBC news. Apparently the Office for National Statistics measures the productivity or value for money of UK education by dividing cash inputs by GCSE results! Apparently, on this basis, productivity fell 0.7% each year between 1996 and 1999, but rose slightly overall ).1% from 1999 - 2006.

Thankfully, DCSF did not agree with the methodology!!

Assessment? Welcome to Flatworld!

Taking a previous post, “… what are we measuring?” I believe there is a fundamental problem in how to measure the positive benefits of technology.

Whatever new and exciting creative media might be dreamed up in a web 2.0 world, educators and exam boards squash and flatten it to a 2D paper based medium in order to assess. I admit to being perplexed when vocational courses such as GNVQ were introduced into schools. In the main they were not vocational; rather a flattened and mechanistic portfolio based 2D representation.  

Of course there are true vocational qualifications. You only have to see the work of centres like Thanet Skills Studio in Thanet, and Community College Whitstable amongst others, but these are still not typical, they are still dominated by soft vocational options that can be delivered in a classroom. It’s no wonder that the greatest worry about technology is plagiarism.

Even in schools that have embedded ICT use, students face having to leave their familiar technology at the exam room door, and work alone. What are we measuring? ... What’s the point of technology rich environments when the de facto measure is a flattened 2D world of paper representing lonely achievement with no authentic audience? This is what the success of our schools and Headteachers are measured by, and why evidence of the impact of technology is scarce. 

Children in the real world create intellectual assets in a range of media, from video, images, Blogs, MySpaces etc. Whilst schools are recognising that rich media have a curricular value, especially in terms of audience, the assessment system compresses this into 2D artefacts. It ends up being represented on a 2D sheet of paper that is shipped to an external exam board. The recent exam round shows just how this is becoming further embedded in the technology exam boards use. They are now digitally reading text for marking! This further embeds the Flatworld approach and 2D environment. Assessment must recognise digital assets in a range of formats, but examination boards don’t know how to achieve this; this should be the focus of the debate.

There is also the problem of what we are assessing. I have come across automated web 2.0 tools that do all the work of creating whizzy digital artefacts. A different child might have much deeper knowledge and skills but produce something less whizzy because they don’t have access to whizzy software or resources. How do we measure? Is it fair to base it on the final product or do we need to define the process more consistently? 

This post presents some of the challenges I see as fundamental, but does not answers. Please comment.

This life V Second Life - some thoughts!

This week I enjoyed an 'innovations session' as part of an inset day at a secondary school in Gravesham. The gathered teachers, fresh from their Summer break were presented with an excellent 'reduced shakespeare' history lesson on the world wide web. Amongst other things, teachers were introduced to Second Life. For those who don't know, second life is a 'virtual world' where users can decide what they want to look like (an avatar), can trade in a virtual economy, take part in virtual fun and develop properties and islands. (I have a tentative presence in this virtual world, although still haven't got used to flying). Second Life even has its own economy based on the Linden Dollar.

The Second Life economy offers a virtual world that mimics our own; economy; travel between islands, some places are great, others ... challenging. I was quite surprised at the response of the gathered teachers to the idea of virtual worlds. Most teachers enjoy the prospect of travel to far off lands in the real world. They take risks!  Teachers seem willing to take risks to travel to other countries; different cultures, currencies; social structures; economies. Yet, the same people seem reluctant to travel and explore a virtual world, even though its far cheaper, greener and safer and easier. (No airports). It is just as stimulating.Perhaps teachers should view virtual worlds in the same way they do their exploration of the real world, with anticipation, expectation and excitement. As in the real world, the virtual world is a place of exciting interaction and cultural exchange. Both the real and virtual worlds can be anarchic and unpleasant. We can be sworn at in the classroom or the street as effectively as in the virtual world.

The gap between teacher and taught needs to narrow. The virtual worlds children inhabit are growing at a phenomenal rate, and we need to be part of them. I've entered ... there's nothing to be scared of really.

The session also highlighted the activities of 'gold traders' in the game World of Warcraft. This is typically where Chinese 'Gold Farmers' work in sweat-shops for long hours to accumulate virtual gold which is then traded for real money to allow lavy westerners to advance in the game.

A point was made by one of the teachers that set me thinking. On hearing about the gold traders, her strong reaction was that virtual economies encourage exploitation and should be banned. One can feel a sympathy with this view; exploitation is wrong, but an economy is generated by the presence of markets, and markets are simply places, (real or virtual) where buyers and sellers transact. Is the economy that involves sweatshop creation of virtual gold any worse than the sweat shop exploitation of children in developing countries to provide cheap clothes to the West?

Wi-Fi? Pathology V Psychology

There is an interesting article in the TES this week that explores recent research by University of Essex. The research by Prof. Elaine Fox involved volunteers who are convinced they are sensitive to wi-fi. Interestingly the research concludes that the volunteers seem to be making themselves ill through believing they were being harmed, as the episodes did not correlate to when the transmitter was actually switched on ... they couldn't tell.

Add to this a recent Advertising Standards Authority block on claims that Clarins Expertise 3P beauty spray offers protection against electromagnetic radiation. The ASA concluded that Clarins was guilty of trading on customers fears of the unknown!

The conclusion seems to be that fear can present as pathological symptoms. One needs only to observe the handicap of obsessive compulisve disorder to have a feel for its hold on an individuals life. What is worrying though is when the 'chattering classes' start to mobilise their fears and impose them on the rest of us!

Did You Know?

The use of the radiocommunications frequency band in the UK is strongly regulated by OFCOM (They took over the former Radiocommunications Agency in 2003). This places strict limits on certain frequencies to make sure they don't interfere with each other. Typically mobile phone companies and other users have to bid for limited licenses. Wi-fi use is excluded due to the very low energy levels used.

The BBC has been broadcasting since 1922. The Science Museum has preserved the original antenna of the 2LO transmitter that heralded mass radio and TV broadcasts. It was originaly jointly owned by the BBC and Crown Castle International ... interestingly its first broadcast was announcing the general election victory of the Conservative Party!).