Image 01

doug woods

ICT in Education Consultant and Trainer

What Matters Most in Educational Technology

July 29th, 2010 by doug

What's in my Computer Bits Bag
Image by Nick J Adams via Flickr

What Matters Most in Educational Technology

What matters most in educational technology is not so much how you, the teacher, use technology but how you, as a teacher, enable and allow your learners to use technology.

Discuss

 What Matters Most in Educational Technology

Possibly Related Posts:


Looking Back at School ICT

July 28th, 2010 by doug

Acorn Archimedes. Photograph taken and edited ...
Image via Wikipedia

Hindsight is a tremendous thing but memories do tend to get clouded over time.

By the early to mid 1980s, UK schools had created a ‘de facto’ standard in the early 1980s with the BBC Micro (yes I know some schools had RM machines and a few had Spectrums but the BBC was far and away the norm). A terrific amount of software had been created for this machine, often these were created by teachers in the ‘spare’ time and, while they may not have been the best programming, they were often routed in educational practice.

By the late 1980s these machines were starting to look dated and many of us were crying out for newer machines so that we could continue to push and develop educational ICT. By the end of the 1980s, schools were faced with two choices; either the Acorn Archimedes machines or early PCs. Whereas in the early 1980s, the wise choice was clear to all, the decision between Archimedes and PC machines was less clear. Neither had good graphics capability and neither had a wealth of educational software to support them to the same extent that the BBC micro had.

The result was that schools and authorities were split almost 50/50 in their decisions over whether to use Archimedes computers or PCs. Many BBC software titles were reproduced for the Archimedes but not enough. Transfer of skills from the BBC to the Archimedes or the PC was not easy for teachers. Consequently, educational ICT went through a slump into the late 1990s.

Eventually, the decision had to be taken by central government as to which hardware route to take for the future. Their decision was to go for the PC route. Regardless of the merits of this decision, it did mean that once more the UK education systems had a common standard by which to work. The problem was, that the PC had very little educational software to support it and the first titles were generally American imports, which masqueraded under the title of “edutainment” and were generally thin on entertainment and even thinner on education. However, with a common platform, the English educational software industry was able to rebuild itself and by the early years of the 21st century, UK educational software led the world once more.

Let’s not get jingoistic about it though, schools are not about boosting national pride but about educating learners. It was the commonality of platform that enabled this to happen via ICT at this time.

The PC has become the ‘de facto’ standard in schools ICT but this could well change with innovation from other IT manufacturers and suppliers. In the future we could have a mixture of platforms in schools once more. We need to take care, however, that this does not lead once more into a decline as it did in the 1990s. To my mind, the way forward is to agree interoperability standards so that schools, learners and other users can take advantage of and use educational resources no matter what machines they use. The other key change that is occurring is that computing is becoming less centralised and less reliant upon large desktop or laptop machines and is becoming more accessible on portable and personal devices, any developments in educational computing needs to take advantage of these changes.

 Looking Back at School ICT

Possibly Related Posts:


Do Learners want Teachers?

July 28th, 2010 by doug

"Teacher Appreciation" featured phot...
Image via Wikipedia

Do Learners want Teachers?

It seems a strange question, doesn’t it, but do learners want teachers?

Over recent years there has been a shift in emphasis away from teaching and teachers toward learning and learners. This has been to such an extent that even a major quango spent thousands changing one of its departments from Teaching and Learning to Learning and Teaching.

I will say, though, that I think the change in emphasis is justified; learning is more important than teaching.

A teacher in a school can teach and teach as much as they can but if the people they are teaching do not learn, then the teacher has been wasting time; the role of the teacher is to enable and ensure that learning takes place. Of course, any and every teacher knows this and also knows different strategies and approaches to facilitate learning. At the end of the day, a school is judged on how/what the learners have learnt (or parts of what they have learned) rather than on what teaching took place.

Increasingly, we hear people say that the learner is responsible for their learning and that the role of the teacher is to guide the learner through their learning. The teacher standing in front of the class is something that is frowned upon nowadays, rather the teacher should be at the side of the learner to give support and direction; this is the ‘sage on the stage’ versus ‘the guide at the side’ argument.

While we can accept that the role of the teacher is changing, that learning is now seen as more important than teaching and that the learner now has responsibility for their learning, does this mean that teaching or the teacher are no longer valued?

I think not. It still seems that people want teaching and value good teachers. Let us consider an example; if you wanted to learn something completely new and, all things, such as price, being equal which approach might you choose? You could choose to learn from an online course, from text books or attend classes led by a teacher/tutor/facilitator.

Most people would appear to opt for an approach that involves a teacher over a completely self-learning approach. Even if the approach had just one session with a teacher, it would appear to be preferred over an approach that has no teaching element. It would seem, therefore, that learners do value being taught or, at least, having some teaching input.

Consider the training courses you have been on, though, and ask yourself what have been the most valuable parts of those courses. The chances are that you will say the most valuable parts have been those times when you have been allowed to trial, play, or explore for yourself. These have probably been the times when you have been able to learn what you have wanted to learn or to learn what appears most relevant to you or your work.

Other valuable parts may have occurred when you found yourself ‘lost’ or had made a mistake and called upon the teacher to help you fix the situation and to avoid it happening again.

How many of us, also, have been on a course that we initially thought would be a ‘waste of time’ only to have new light or new possibilities created because of the enthusiasm, passion or skill of the teacher?

So the value of having a teacher would appear to lie in having an expert on hand, in having someone to at least introduce an area of learning to us and in having someone open our eyes to new possibilities. So while it may be clear that the nature of teaching and the role of the teacher may be changing, it is also clear that teaching and good teachers are also highly valued.

 Do Learners want Teachers?

Possibly Related Posts: