One thing that I took from Martha Lane Fox’s speech at this year’s NAACE conference was the statistic that 40% of those people not online were from the most disadvantaged groups in society. Well actually, the statistic that struck me, was that this means that 60% of those not online are from groups other than the most disadvantaged.

My guess would be that these are people who could afford computers and internet access but, for some reason, have chosen not to have it. Maybe they live in a ‘notspot’ – an area where there is still not internet access for some reason. Maybe they do live in an area where there is internet access but for some reason have chosen not to have it; this could because they have not appreciated the value of internet access for learning,. perhaps they feel that no one in their family requires learning, perhaps they have religious or political reasons against internet or technology.

Whatever the reasons, if we are to close the digital divide  the question remains, how can we reach these people?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Internet access ‘a human right’ (news.bbc.co.uk)
• US plans high-speed net for all (news.bbc.co.uk)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?
• Is this … the Worst iPhone App Ever?
• Retro Teaching
• Do we really need a New OS?
• Can Anyone tell me How they have Learned from Failure

This article, although describing the situation in Wales, was of great interest to me. It says that the quality of ICT teaching in Wales was improving, though it was still variable. What interested me most was the finding by the inspectors that Primary Schools did better in teaching ICT skills to their pupils than did Secondary Schools.

This backs up a feeling I had a few years ago that we may be heading for a bit of a crisis in Secondary Schools. At this level ICT teaching and practices have been in place for some time, almost certainly longer than in primary schools. However, input in terms of money and training had been most noticeable in recent years at the primary level and certainly an improvement in ICT teaching at primary level could be witnessed. This was brining newer practices and teaching techniques into ICT at the primary level whereas the secondary level was still using its established approaches.

So it comes as no surprise to me that the report should find that ICT teaching in primary schools has improved. Let us hope that we can now start to see some improvement at the secondary level.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Advice for New Primary ICT Subject Leaders (redbridgeprimaryit.blogspot.com)
• Learning Platforms, Insets and lessons (digital-teacher.co.uk)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Good Teachers Don’t Need Technology
• Pupils and new Technology
• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement
• Learning Score
• 6 Ways ICT Can Improve Education

Someone tweeted “Good teachers don’t need technology”. Like so many on Twitter, the tweet was sent and then quickly disappeared down the timeline and yet the phrase stuck in my mind.

It stuck in my mind because basically I don’t agree with it. The sentiment may have been well meant and witty but I do not think it is correct. All teachers need technology, whether they are good teachers or not. If I were asked to define what makes a good teacher, I very much doubt that I would include in my definition the fact that they do not use technology.

For me a good teacher will know that ‘learning’ is more important than ‘teaching’. A teacher can stand in front of the class and be as animated, as enthusiastic, as engaging etc. as they like but if the learners are not learning then the teacher is wasting their time.  Technology is a resource to support learning and a good teacher will welcome all such resources. A good teacher will select and match resources to fit the ability and levels of the learners. A good teacher will not reject a resource simply because it is a technology resource (though sadly a teacher may have to reject a resource if they do not have the correct technology to run the resource).

Technology is very much part of our society and, I think, of most societies in the 21st century. The levels and types of technology may vary from society to society but technology is still a part in present or future provision. A teacher who eschews all use of technology in their teaching is probably placing their teaching outside of its societal context; I’m not sure that that is a sign of a good teacher.

A corollary of ‘good teachers don’t need technology’ might be to say that only poor teachers use technology to support their teaching. That is a statement which I would find completely unsupportable and without any evidence.

For me a good teacher will make effective and extensive use of technology to support learning. A good teacher will be constantly evaluating the technology and will be seeking new ways of using technology in their teaching. A good teacher will observe how the learners use technology and will seek to harness such uses to support learning. A good teacher will recognise the uses of technology and will be prepared to make use of such technology.

A teacher in the 21st century who doesn’t feel that technology can help them in their teaching is probably not a good teacher.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Two reasons for “teaching Facebook” in school (edu.blogs.com)
• The Global Virtual Classroom (slideshare.net)
• National Educational Technology Standards[1] (slideshare.net)
• As a teacher, I’ve realised Twitter has real potential (guardian.co.uk)
• Supporting Expertise and Integration of Tech. Skills into Teacher Evaluation (isteconnects.org)
• The Tyranny Of Relevance (ictineducation.org)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?
• Pupils and new Technology
• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement
• Learning Score
• 6 Ways ICT Can Improve Education

There is an interesting article from a piece of Australian research into kids and how they interact with technology.

Basically it says that kids appear to want the latest piece of technology … nothing new there! But the report goes on to find that kids are a lot more tech savvy than we’d believe … I guess most teachers would say that that’s not new either.

The most important finding it would seem, at least as far as educationalists are concerned, is that kids want the same level of technology, sophistication and facilities as the kit being sold to their parents. Kids are well aware of when they are being offered some ‘dumbed down’ piece of kit. As the report says ‘ today’s kids are clearly tech-savvier than ever, and know when they’re being sold a kiddie version that isn’t as good as their mother’s, father’s or older sibling’s gadget. ‘

So it seems that we should avoid being patronising with regard to the technology we allow our kids to have. After all our kids grow up quickly but the technology grows even quicker and very son becomes obsolete, so why give our kids technology with limited functions whuch would only appear to make that tech have an even shorter life?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 7 New “Interesting Ways to Use” Resources (tbarrett.edublogs.org)
• Conversations #52 – Passion in Education (edtechtalk.com)
• Technology in schools (slideshare.net)
• 5 Fledgling “Interesting Ways” Presentations (edte.ch)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?
• Good Teachers Don’t Need Technology
• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement
• Learning Score
• 6 Ways ICT Can Improve Education

A few weeks ago I took part in an online discussion led by Stephen Heppell on the Vital website. Stephen Heppell is a very highkly regarded figure in the world of education and if you ever have a chance to listen to him speak or present, then I’d certainly suggest you do so. He is a speaker who inspires and provokes thought.

In the online discussion, Stephen asked why was it that ICT had not reduced the costs of education? Apart from Health and Education, ICT had been deployed and used to reduce the overhead costs or running costs of their users. I cannot speak for Health but I can for Education and I felt at first that this was an unfair question. After all, we started introducing technology into the classroom we did so not to reduce costs but to expand and improve the resources and experiences offered to learners. So to criticise us for not using ICT to reduce costs when that had never been our aim, did seem unfair.

Was it unfair, though?

A few days after the online discussion, I received in my inbox an email linking to this article about ICT for students with disabilities in developing countries . In this article it suggests that students need ICT partly because it is cheaper than training and paying for a teacher. The inference being that ICT is a cheaper resource than a teacher and one which, possibly, better addresses the need of the students.

This would be quite a contentious argument here in the UK. How many people, schools or local authorities would welcome replacing teachers with computers, even if it reduces the bill?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Schools must embrace technology (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Managing Change: Engaging The Teachers (ictineducation.org)
• #BETT2010 – Playful Learning (olliebray.typepad.com)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Learning Score
• Transforming Learning
• Comfortable Technology -Learning Transformation pt4
• Knowledge, Learning and Information – Learning Transformation pt2
• In the Dark – An Introduction to Learning Transformation

I came across this article on the Wired UK website. It claims that playing Tetris can alter the structure of the brain; which is quite a bold, one might even say, alarming claim.

It appears that researchers have used brain scans to illustrate that playing the simple computer game had distinct effects upon the brain. It would appear that some areas showed greater ‘efficiency’ and other areas showed the development of more grey matter.

Unfortunately, the article does not really tell us what parts of the brain were found to be more efficient nor which ones developed more grey matter (or indeed whether there was any cognitive improvement as a result of having more grey matter).

Cynically, you notice that the research was funded by ‘Tetris’ makers, so I guess they had an interest in promoting potential positive benefits of using their game. The research also seems to have studied only the brains of adolescent girls, why not boys? Had the researchers assumed that boys might already have played or been exposed to such games and, therefore, were less likely to show any benefit?

Cynicism aside, the research would tend to add weight to the view that playing games is not just a mindless activity or distraction from real thinking. It does tend to show that playing games can act as a mental stimulant. Which may also lend weight to the view that playing games can have a beneficial education effect. Stimulating the brain, relieving boredom have been known for a log time to be of benefit in learning. So maybe, playing games such as Tetris can be beneficial. YOu do have to put this against the addictive nature of some games, however, and ask at which point does the positiove benefit of mental stimulation give way to the time-wasted element of addiction?

Finally, the article makes a claim that playing Tetris could help offset the effects of old age; another bold claim which may or may not be the case.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Survey says: Tetris is good for your BRAIN! (destructoid.com)
• How I Got So Smart (themoderatevoice.com)
• Is the Label “Games Based Learning” Useful? (edte.ch)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Reaching the Not-Online
• Is this … the Worst iPhone App Ever?
• Retro Teaching
• Do we really need a New OS?
• Can Anyone tell me How they have Learned from Failure

A recent study suggests that the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB) can improve learner achievement by 16%. This could be good news for those schools seeking to improve the number of learners achieving 5 A*-C grades grades, particularly the current crop of National Challenge Schools.

The study would suggest that by focussing upon the effective use of  a widely available piece of technology, schools and pupils can improve their performance.  This positive news, however, should be tempered a little because the study also shows that some inappropriate use of Interactive whiteboards may have a detrimental effect for some learners (see previous post). So, with appropriate staff training or CPD, schools could make better use of their IWBs and anticipate improved levels of achievement for their learners.

Training, CPD, of course, costs money but in this instance, it would seem to be money well spent. National Challenge Schools may already have budgets to help them improve the attainment levels of pupils. For all staff and schools, the upcoming ICT CPD for staff initiatives could help provide the necessary input.

So if you find yourself with an ICT CPD budget or an upcoming INSET day and you’re not sure what to do with it, spending part of it on improving the use of Interactive Whiteboards might be worthwhile.

For interactive whiteboard training in UK, you could do a lot worse than contact Danny http://www.whiteboardblog.co.uk/about/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Learning Platforms, Insets and lessons (digital-teacher.co.uk)
• Secondary Science on the IWB (warringtonict.wordpress.com)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?
• Good Teachers Don’t Need Technology
• Pupils and new Technology
• Learning Score
• 6 Ways ICT Can Improve Education

I confess, I have only recently watched this video. I cannot believe that I have not heard of or seen Learning Score before; I can only say that I must have had my head buried deeply in the sand.

Learning Score appears to be a fantastic tool for devising lesson plans. These things had been the bane of my life as a teacher and I’m sure the same is true for many other teachers.  Hours would be spent drawing up lesson plans either by hand or on a word-processor; it was probably the most tedious of all teacher tasks. Also, as John Davitt says in the video, you were never really quite sure how the lesson would appear in reality (and there were many times when the reality hardly matched the plan!)

What I  immediately like about the software is that it looks appealling; it’s not a word-processed grid or template that the teacher has to squeeze everything in. It’s interactive and it links dynamically to other resources. What made it appeal further for me is the potential to link  to resources on a VLE. So if you’ve been spending hours days uploading content onto you’re VLE now you have an easy way to make use of them instead of just letting them lie there. Or if you’ve not yet started loading content onto your VLE, now you have a good reason to start!

I’ve not used the package as yet but if you are able to save the Learning Score files onto the VLE then I can envisage further potential arising. What I’m envisaging is having a Learning Score containing links to other Learning Score files. Each of these Learning Score files would represent a lesson plan and the Learning Score we’re adding them into would be a Scheme of Work. Hey, if we then save the Scheme of Work as a Learning Score file and link in other scheme of work files, aren’t we creating a syllabus, then a curriculum etc..?

At points in the video, John alludes to collaborative lesson planning; with the learners having a say in how much time is spent on a particular part of each lesson. I very much like this idea, not least because it helps the learner have a bit more responsibility for their learning and having a say in the way the content is being presented to them. It also, of course, could help them manage their workload.

How about going a step further and having the learner draw up the learning score themself? Each learner could have their own individual Learning Score setting out what they are going to do, how long they are going to spent on each part of it and what resources they are going to access, possibly also indicating what ‘output’ (essay, video, discussion etc) they are going to produce. Let’s then say that they each present their Learning Score to the teacher for approval. The teacher examines each one and approves it or suggests modifications such as extra resources that could be used or alterations to timings.  The learner then takes their own Learning Score away and embarks upon their own learning path.

I’d guess that another beauty of the package is that it needn’t be confined to class lessons, the Learning Score could cover time spent on activities at home. As I started writing this paragraph, I was thinking of learning activities from home and thinking of supporting Home Access but I guess the term ‘activities’ could well include social or leisure activities … mind you I don’t know if the package has icons for some of these ‘activities’ Nevertheless, the possibility of using the package to include home learning is intriguing.

Overall, this looks a great piece of software that I’m sure many teachers would love. It has great potential for supporting innovation or transformation in learning. I do feel that not just teachers but also learners would love to use it. Maybe this resource should be made compulsory for any school involved in BSF or Primary Capital building programmes?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 10 Tips for Teaching Technology to Teachers (edtechpower.blogspot.com)
• “Both Adobe AIR 2 and Flash Player 10.1:” and related posts (techcrunch.com)
• It’s all done! (digital-teacher.co.uk)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?
• Good Teachers Don’t Need Technology
• Pupils and new Technology
• ICT : Education on the cheap?
• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement

It seems to me that there are 6 ways in which we can use ICT to improve education. I make no claims for the originality of these ways, indeed the first 3 have come from a forum discussion with Peter Twining on the Vital website (you may need a login to see the Vital page).

These 6 areas are;

1. Support – Using ICT to allow us to do things more effectively or efficiently but without changing the fundamental curriculum or pedagogic approach
2. Extend – Using ICT to present things in new ways or using ICT to access resources which would otherwise be difficult to access
3. Transform – allowing us to do new or different things that would not be possible without the technology and thereby changing the curriculum or pedagogy
4. Engagement – involving learners in activities through the motivational influence of technology or the functional use of technology (e.g. access from home as well as school) or social engagement (e.g. with fellow learners or between families and school)
5. Inclusion – using ICT to overcome learner disabilities or disadvantages
6. Improvement – saving time, being able to enrich a learning experience or using ICT to make a learning outcome possible which might not otherwise have been possible.

I claim no great originality in any of these but it does suggest to me that we might have the basis of a framework or matrix by which staff or institutions can record their use of ICT and the impact it has.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Engagement does NOT equal Learning… (greenbananablog.org)
• ICT and Citizenship (ictineducation.org)
• The New Primary Curriculum – England (dougdickinson.co.uk)
• Learning Confluence: Where Philosophy Meets Practice in the 21st Century (123elearning.blogspot.com)
• I’ve been thinking again … (dougdickinson.co.uk)
• 8 ways to get teachers talking about learning (deangroom.wordpress.com)
• ‘We are the people we’ve been waiting for’ – 2 (dougdickinson.co.uk)
• Teaching Skills: What 21st Century Educators Need To Learn To Survive (masternewmedia.org)
• Computers in Classrooms Post-BETT Special (ictineducation.org)
• ICT CPD 4 Free from NAACE (warringtonict.wordpress.com)
• Vital CPD from the Open University – I’m first in the hot seat… (olliebray.typepad.com)
• A Busy time for curriculum thinkers and planners (elgg.jiscemerge.org.uk)
• Giving Children the Tools is Not Enough (edte.ch)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?
• Good Teachers Don’t Need Technology
• Pupils and new Technology
• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement
• Learning Score

‘Home Access’ is a UK Government initiative, in England, to provide computers and online access to disadvantaged learners to enable them to have access to online resources and services when outside school. It follows on from the earlier Computers for Pupils (CfP) initiative in which schools, backed by Government funds, provided computers and access to their most disadvantaged learners.

On one level, Home Access is the continuing Government attempt to close, in England, what has become known as the ‘digital divide’.  Home Access, like CfP, seeks to provide disadvantaged learners with a ‘taster’ of online access as a means of demonstrating to the learner, their parents or carers, the advantages of online access as an aide to learning. The term, ‘taster’, is used here because, while the computer is expected to have a life of around 3 years, the government initiatives would generally only provide online access for 1 year; the intention, or hope, being that having experienced the benefits for one year, the parents themselves would fund further access.

The digital divide, however, is more than just having or not having internet access from home; it is also about the way in which that access is used. Home Access provides the kit and the connectivity, which is just the first step in closing the divide, it also recognises the further issues surrounding use. It is the provision of hardware, though, which is likely to grab the headlines.

How likely is Home Access to succeed, though? Well, it already has the experience of the Computers for Pupils initiative to build upon, it has run pilot programmes in Oldham and Suffolk, and it has just completed the Home Access for Targeted Groups project (which provided kit and connectivity for looked-after children and  learners educated out of school). So it does have a fair amount of experience to build upon and help it succeed. All the projects, past and present do rely, though, upon learners and parents becoming convinced of the value and benefits of online access for their learning.

Why do it though? Why go to all these leangths and expense to provide learners and their families with online access? Well, the programme is supported by the Government’s own findings which appear to indicate that having and using online access has a beneficial effect upon learning; it can improve examination grades, lead to better financial reward and faciltate better learning opportunities for all learners. The underlying purpose of Home Access is therefore to improve the learning and future financial situation of current learners and their families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Britain’s broadband ‘not fit for the future’ (telegraph.co.uk)
• Digital Literacy Debate (fraser.typepad.com)
• What happens when you give a class of 8 year old children an iPod touch each? (l4l.co.uk)
• Confused message on UK broadband (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Lane Fox: fixing holes in Britain’s net (guardian.co.uk)

Possibly Related Posts:

• New Ways to Learn
• Putting Your Hand Up is So Last Century (or how to ask questions) – learning transformation pt3
• Handheld Learning
• What is Home Access (part 2)
• The Future of Teaching is Online