Image 01

doug woods

ICT in Education Consultant and Trainer

Posts Tagged ‘Educational technology’

What is Home Access (part 2)

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

524504298 7bba91456f m What is Home Access (part 2)In my previous post, I outlined the UK Government’s Home Access scheme and how it sought to provide disadvantaged learners with kit and connectivity to enable them to access online resources from home. In this second part, I want to take a brief look at the implications for schools of the Home Access programme.

Unlike the earlier Computers for Pupils (CfP) scheme, schools are not directly involved in purchasing and issuing kit to their learners. In the Home Access scheme, learner’s families or, in some cases, the learner themselves will apply for the Home Access grant and then purchase the kit directly from approved suppliers. So this removes the heavy burden which many schools reported during the previous scheme. Nevertheless, there are implications upon schools of the Home Access programme, even though they may not be as directly involved as before.

First of all, Home Access may well be targeted at Key Stage 2 pupils as well as Key Stage 3; this will bring in Junior age learners in primary and middle schools, unlike the CfP scheme which targeted secondary pupils. So the first implication here is that a far greater number of schools are likely to be affected by the Home access initiative than was the case under the previous scheme, but affected in what ways?

Despite the burden which many secondary schools reported as a result of being involved in CfP, one beneficial outcome which was reported by many is that they felt they gained a greater understanding of their pupils’ home circumstances. This came about as a result of having to survey their pupils to determine which were eligible to receive the kit; many schools felt that this had given them an insight into the home circumstances of those pupils and how this could impact upon their performance in school. Primary schools tend to be smaller than secondaries and have a closer link to homes and families already, so they may feel that such a survey is not necessary, however, a survey often reveals some surprises and this was certainly the case in CfP where more learners than anticipated already had internet access.

There is likely to be a wealth of marketing materials produced by the suppliers of kit for Home Access, however, it is well known that to be fully successful the initiative will need to have the support and backing at Local Authority and school level. Local Authorities and schools are likely to be called upon to provide support and impetus for the programme ; this may involve a simple marketing or ‘heads up’ approach to highlight the existence or benefits of the programme to eligible families, it could also mean holding support events to publicise the programme or train the recipients.

With more of its learners having the ability to access online resources from home, each school willneed to ensure that the learners are able to access relevant resources, particularly on its VLE or learning platform. For schools, this means making sure that its learning platform is in place and fully working, it is being used and that all learners have access. Beyond that, it could mean ensuring that the families of learners have access to a school’s VLE because Home access is not just about the learner, it is also about the rest of the family and siblings. When the learner is at school, the kit  should remain at home for use by other family members to access online resources including the school’s VLE to check on their child’s performance or attendance and to communicate with the school.

With Home access in place, teaching staff at the school can have more confidence in setting homework tasks requiring the use of ICT. It goes beyond just homework, however, in that all work can include an element of ICT and that all work can be carried out by the learner even when they are not at or cannot attend school. So pupils in hospital, pupils physically excluded and pupils travelling from location to location can all be expected to continue their learning using ICT and Home Access.

One benefit reported by a number of secondary schools in the CfP scheme is that parents often became more and better engaged as a result of receiving the kit. For some parents, it may be difficult to contact the school or be contacted by the school in person or by telephone because of their working hours or other commitments. However, the ability to send and receive emails directly with the school provides a more flexible and workable means of contacting the school, similarly messaging and notices placed on a school’s VLE can mean that important information can be exchanged better.

Similarly, many schools reported that parents felt more inclined to co-operate and engage with the school as a result of having received the kit and connectivity. By being offered the kit, these parents felt that they and their children were being ‘valued’ by the school, accordingly, the parents were more willing with the school in return. Consequently, it could be expected that some schools found better engagement with traditionally hard-to-reach families.

It is important, of course, that these kit and connectivity is not simply doled out to recipients without some training and agreement on its use. Although the parents and learners will sign an agreement on usage of the kit and there will be some e-safety training available, the most effective means is often for schools to provide such training for parents and learners especially when it comes to accessing the school’s learning platform or using ICT to complete course work or homework. So forward-thinking schools will clearly want to be planning and preparing such events.

Of course, one additional factor here is also the teachers’ own confidence and skills in using ICT. Clearly, these are important and are most certainly higher than they were even a few years ago. A teacher who did not use ICT in their lessons or subject area would today be very rare or, possibly teaching an unusual subject. Nevertheless, with the pupils making more demands upon ICT in their learning, there will be a need for all staff to have training and opportunities to increase and improve their ICT skills and to be given both time and opportunity to explore new ways of using ICT in learning.

So, in summary, schools can expect to;

  1. seek greater understanding of the home circumstances of their learners,
  2. provide support and promotion of Home Access for all learners,
  3. provide training for all learners and families in safe use of ICT,
  4. ensure their learning platforms are robust and effectively used,
  5. provide training and opportunities for staff devlopment of ICT.

in return, schools can expect;

  1. greater awareness of learners’ home circumstances as they affect learning,
  2. more use of ICT among learners,
  3. better learning from their learners,
  4. greater parental engagement,
  5. better use of ICT to support learning

Update August 2010

Well, the new government has announced the closure of the Home Access programme, so much of what I have written above is now of little more than historical interest. I guess some may feel that the digital divide may widen again as a result of the closure of the scheme, only time will tell if that does happen. One positive point to emerge from the CfP programme, though, is that the digital divide appears to be not as wide as we had originally thought, at least not in terms of provision of computers and access among the most disadvantaged learners. However, of course, what is emerging more clearly is that the ‘digital divide’ is much more about usage and skills rather than just physical kit.

 What is Home Access (part 2)

Possibly Related Posts:


Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

 

A Class of Computer Sience

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.

 Primary Schools better than Secondary at teaching ICT?

Possibly Related Posts:


Let’s Say No to Inappropriate Use of Technology

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

NEW YORK - MARCH 30:  Teacher Shawn Abernathy ...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Let’s say ‘no’ to inappropriate use of technology in education.

I’d like you to read that again;

Let’s say ‘no’ to inappropriate use of technology in education.

The chances are that you may be misinterpreting what I am saying here. You quite possibly think I’m saying that we should stop using technology inappropriately and you quite probably think that’s a good idea.

That, however, is not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that we should say ‘no’ to the idea or the concept of inappropriate use of technology in education. As a passionate supporter, proponent and advocate of educational technology, I urge us all to reject any notion of technology being used in support of education as being, in any way, inappropriate.

I have long held the belief that technology can have positive benefits in the education of all learners and I know I’m not alone in that belief. I also know, however, that not every educational professional shares that belief as firmly as I do, in my many years of working in the field I have come across people who have been sceptical or dubious over the role of educational technology. Over the years, these people have become fewer and fewer in number and prominence as the value and proof of the benefits of edtech have become evident.

So why do I feel a need to write this article now? Well it would seem that recent developments, at least here in the UK, have given the edtech sceptics new heart and new initiative to question or attack the use of technology in education. It is in response to this that I feel the need to affirm support for technology in education.

The argument that it is not always appropriate to use technology, is not a new one. I first encountered it in the late 1980s and 1990s and it did originate from people who were reluctant or sceptical about using technology in class. Originally some teachers were saying they didn’t use technology because they did not have access to it, this was quite true particularly in the early days when a school would have just the one or a few computers whose use had to be timetabled. However, as devices became more numerous and more readily available, this argument became less valid and the reluctant users or sceptics turned to a new argument; that they hadn’t received any (or adequate) training. This, sadly, was also often true and it is well known, on reflection, that devices were put into schools without any training and, where training was provided, it was often just the basic operating instruction. However, as many ICT coordinators and CPD providers will attest, when training is offered, it is rarely the sceptic or reluctant user that attends.

To be fair, though, not all staff who started off as reluctant users have remained that way. Many professionals took advantage of the increased availability of edtech and whatever training has been offered to support it and have brought the benefits of it into their teaching. In the 1990s and beyond, however, there remained a small and dwindling number of staff who remained sceptical and their last argument was that they felt it wasn’t always appropriate to use technology.

Taking the side against the argument that we shouldn’t use technology inappropriately, is not an easy one. At first sight their argument seems sensible as anything ‘inappropriate’ should be avoided, shouldn’t it? In practice, however, the argument is not against ‘inappropriateness’ but against ‘technology’. This is the first reason why I feel all supporters of educational technology should reject the concept of ‘inappropriate use of technology’; accepting or supporting this concept gives vailidity to an argument that, at first, appears reasonable but ,beneath the surface, is not based on reason but on other factors such as fear of, opposition to or lack of confidence in using educational technology.

You will notice that the concept refers to ‘technology’ as if technology were just one thing or one tool. In reality we know that technology is not just one tool, it is a whole range of tools and resources, each having many different uses and ways of using them. To say that there are times when it is inappropriate to use technology, in such a blanket or all-encompassing, way is to deny learners the use of these tools, the different ways of using them and the learning opportunities they afford. There is no way that I can accept this as a correct approach to education.

It may be my experience in special education that leads me to view technology tools as valuable resources that can be tailored and used to fit the needs and requirements of individual learners. I am sure, though, that colleagues in mainstream education have also considered technology as important for certain learners more than for others and that technology can be used to aid differentiation in the classroom. I also feel that many learners with special needs can be aided into inclusion by the use of technology and that technology can be used to enable access to learning resources that might otherwise be unavailable to them. To deny the use of technology, through some concept of it being inappropriate, could serve as an additional and unwanted barrier to both the learning and the inclusion of pupils with special needs.

There are many camps, theories and approaches to education and it would be true to say that there is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach to education. Educational technology is a very versatile set of tools and resources which can be adopted or adapted to fit almost any educational approach. It is almost inconceivable to consider an approach that did not utilise education technology in some form. Unless, that is, one is considering a pre-1960s approach. Now that might be fine in an historical context or simulation but I don’t think any school inspector, head teacher, parent or pupil would consider a class of pupils using ink and paper to copy a teacher’s notes on a chalk board to be an effective form of education in the 21st century. Okay, so that might be an extreme example but I do believe, in many cases, if you scratch the surface of an edtech sceptic, you will find an outdated approach to education.

When faced with the concept of inappropriate use of technology, many colleagues capitulate in the face of what seems a reasonable argument. In the past I have challenged colleagues and sceptics to give me examples of times when it would be inappropriate to use technology. They have cited P.E., R.E., meetings, swimming, driving, flying, mountaineering and playing football, (as well as certain ‘adult’ activities that I won’t mention here), as examples of times when it would be inappropriate to use technology. In each case I have been able to show, to my satisfaction, ways in which technology tools can be both appropriate and beneficial. The only one I hadn’t been able to argue against had been ‘flying’, where I believed, like many others, that the use of electrical instruments could interfere with sensitive instruments necessary for safe flight but it now seems as if airlines or aircraft manufacturers have found ways around this. As for the case of technology not being appropriate for football, just consider England’s last match in the 2010 world cup and tell me that technology might not have changed the match by clearly showing that England’s second goal was good, though I accept that substituting Peter Crouch for Wayne Rooney might have also helped change the outcome of the match!

So, to conclude, why do I believe that we should say no to inappropriate use of technology?

  • It is not the reasonable argument it first seems
  • It gives validity to those staff who are reluctant or opposed to using technology
  • By using the blanket term ‘technology’, it fails to acknowledge the wide range of tools that constitute ‘technology’ and the numerous uses for each tool
  • It fails to take cognisance of the needs of individual learners, including those with special needs
  • It may be linked to outdated approaches to education.
  • Its proponents have yet to give a clear and unequivocal instance of where the use of technology would be inappropriate.

I have to admit, I have pondered hard about whether to publish this article or not. I do not like being negative or critical about my professional colleagues, whom I hold in the highest regard. Indeed I am not really critical of colleagues, it is more the views some of them express or support which I fell critical of.

 Lets Say No to Inappropriate Use of Technology

Possibly Related Posts: