Month: July 2019

EdTech paradigms

I have been using a Surface Go as my main work device now for a number of months.    It is however only recently that I have finally found myself making use of Windows 10’s tablet mode.   An EdTech paradigm I had held had changed.

Initially my view on Tablet mode was one of disapproval.   It simply didn’t feel right to me.   I couldn’t find my apps where I wanted them, I couldn’t manage what I had open very well and I couldn’t access files and folders.   I simple didn’t like tablet mode.

On reflection the reason for this was that my Surface Go was replacing my desktop PC and laptop.   As such I was initially viewing it from the perspective of a laptop/desktop experience which tablet mode simply doesn’t give you.  But, tablet mode isn’t meant to give you this experience after all it is about setting the device up to perform as a tablet computer as opposed to a desktop/laptop.  It is about being able to work on the move, without a flat surface to sit the device on and also being able to work one handed, while holding the device in the other hand.    I was approaching a new devices functionality from the paradigm of an older way of working.

It was around a month or so ago I realised the advantages of tablet mode in particular when combined with One Note.   In a conference I could flip the keyboard cover behind my device, stick the device in tablet mode then maximise OneNote to full screen.   This gave me a full screen to sketch on or write notes on using the Microsoft Surface Pen.    In meetings I could make use of teams to access resources and documents which were required while easily switching to OneNote to take notes.   And when needed, when I found a free place to work, I could flick back to normal desktop mode and view my files, outlook and other applications in the way I normally would have done on a desktop or laptop.

For me this highlights the ongoing, and one of the biggest challenges of EdTech.   When looking at new tech we largely view it from the viewpoint of existing paradigms.   As such we may not see benefits which potentially exist.   Equally, in order to undergo a paradigm shift we need to commit to seeking these new views plus we need to experiment.   Only by trying will we be able to identify what we don’t know and see new potentials.  This, however, opens us up to the potential risk of failure, which is often an uncomfortable, albeit necessary, experience.

As I have often heard in IT industry circles “fail fast” is the key;   Try new things and experiment, but do it early and with limited groups or trials, where issues or problems will not have wider implications.   Learn from the mistakes and iterate to new solutions and share these solutions.   By doing so hopefully we can all collectively move EdTech use in schools forward.

Banning Office 365 in schools?

A German state have announced that they are banning the use of Office 365 in their schools citing GDPR reasons (read article here).   The issue arose, according to the article in the Verge, following Microsoft closing their German data centre resulting in a potential risk where German personal data may be accessed by US Authorities.

My view on this is that there has been a certain amount of overreaction on the part of the German state where viewed as a GDPR related action.   I can understand their concerns in relation to unauthorised access to data by US authorities.  This would represent a GDPR risk however it takes a very narrow view of the situation.

A broader view would include the implications for not using Office 365 to store data.   This means that schools are now storing their data locally on servers most likely within individual schools.   I would suggest that the ability of individual schools, school groups or local authorities to secure their local data including appropriate monitoring and patching of servers, etc is likely to be far short of what Microsoft provide in their data centres.  They are unlikely to have the resources, both technology and staffing, or the skills and experience.    As such removing one GDPR risk in relation to potential unauthorised access by US authorities has simply replaced it with another risk being a reduced level of security for data in each school.    I would suggest that the new risk is higher than the risk they have mitigated in banning Office 365.

In all this discussion there is a wider, more important, question;  who has my data including any telemetry data resulting from system usage?     The answer is sadly that this is very difficult to identify.   Every time we use an Android phone, do a google search, order from Amazon, access Office 365 or do any manner of other things using Internet connected technologies data is being generated and stored.   It is also often shared and then combined with other datasets to create totally new datasets.   Consent for data gathering is clear in very few sites/services.   In most it is buried in detailed terms and conditions written in complex legal’eese.    In some cases the terms and conditions are clearly excessive such as in the recently trending FaceApp where use of the app grants the company a perpetual license to display “user content and any name, username or likeness providing in connection with your user content” (see a related tweet here).   Basically when you provide your photo to the app they can keep it and use it as they see fit from now until the end of time.  There is also the use of tracking cookies as well, where I have large number of websites seeking permission to use cookies but without any real details as to what data is being stored or why the data is needed.

It is the wider question for which I applaud the German state as they are helping to raise the question of data, how it is gathered, used and shared.   The waters are incredibly murky when it comes to how the big IT companies, such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft, manage data.  We all need to stop and examine this situation however not as individual states or countries but on a global and societal level.    As to Office 365 being a GDPR risk;  I suppose it is but then again there are very few, if any systems which do not represent some sort of risk and I doubt we are going to put down our phones, stop searching google, buying for amazon, etc.

“More” edTech anyone?

What are the barriers to “more use of edtech” in schools?   A recent British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) survey, as recently reported in the TES, suggested that budgets and “teachers’ unwillingness” were two of the main barriers identified by the survey.   But was the right question being asked?

Firstly, looking at barriers to using “more” EdTech suggests that we don’t have enough and therefore should use more.    This is a rather simplistic viewpoint as it suggests that the volume of EdTech in use is the key factor we should be seeking to address.   In my view it isn’t.   We should be seeking to use technology effectively and where appropriate.    As Mike Sharples (@sharplm)  recently commented, “technology alone will not transform education.   Focus on pedagogy with new technology, not just the technology.”

The wide scale deployment of interactive whiteboards to schools can be considered as having increased the EdTech in education however I would challenge anyone to prove that it was effective.   It didn’t improve outcomes.   It didn’t support students in learning in new ways or improve their access to learning materials.  It didn’t empower teachers to re-imagine the learning experience.   In my view it simply allowed teachers to do what they always had been doing with a whiteboard/blackboard but using a digital surface instead, and at significant cost.

Taking the issue of budget into consideration, is it any wonder that school leaders would choose not to invest in EdTech where they can see limited added value from significant investment and where investment in other areas may show more reliable predictors of effectiveness or return on investment.    If budgets were less strained maybe the situation would be different.   As a result of this is it also therefore any small wonder that they would report that lack of budget as a reason for not investing, having themselves had to prioritise their spending.

Sticking with interactive whiteboards, the deployment of them was often to whole schools or departments.   This approach to “more” is better fails to take into account different subject, teacher, student, topic, lesson, etc needs.   It is a one shape fits all approach.     What motivation does a teacher have to learn how best to use this new classroom technology given it has been foisted upon them.     Teachers, due to not understanding the technology or having time to experiment, may also be unable to identify appropriate uses within their classroom and teaching for this new device.    Given the lack of intrinsic motivation and perceived appropriateness of the technology is it any wonder that “teachers’ unwillingness” to make use of more EdTech might be perceived and reported by schools. 

In looking at EdTech use in schools we need to adopt a more nuanced approach.  It isn’t about using more Edtech.   It should be about considering the different needs of teachers and students and allowing them to experiment and use solutions which fit these needs.    From this, best practice can be identified and shared, and approaches can be regularly reviewed and revised to maximise their impact.   I should note that an open, supportive culture and warm, friendly organisational climate is key to enabling this.

I also wonder about some teacher’s perception of what “good” use of EdTech looks like.   Social media gives us plenty of examples of exemplary teaching using EdTech however this often comes from teachers who have got to this point from long periods of trial, error and practice which isn’t evident from social media postings.    Also, the posts generally focus on the good, may be staged for marketing purposes for the school, or may be biased or divorced from the real world in other ways.   EdTech doesn’t necessarily have to be a complex all singing and dancing affair or something worthy of a photo shoot and full page spread in an educational magazine.   Good initial use of EdTech might be a simple and limited action relating to a specific part of a lesson.   It could be simply to make use of an application such as Microsoft Teams or Showbie.  From here it can built upon.      Additionally, good use of EdTech seldom comes about without significant time, effort and experimentation.   It is also worth noting that technology is always changing and new uses for existing technologies can always be found and therefore the seeking of improvement is never ending.    This is a bit like teaching in general where there is always room to build upon practice with each new lesson, topic, class or academic year.

I think back to a presentation I gave in Dubai some years ago in which I identified what I believed at the time to be the factors I thought were key to Technology use in schools.   Teacher motivation, confidence and training were some of the factors I listed and I continue to believe these are key although I think my view as to training is now broader than it was then.   Training in my eyes now includes using social media, such as twitter, peer discussion and planning, experimenting and traditional training sessions.    A key issue supporting these three factors is the culture and climate within a school.   Open and supportive school cultures promote sharing of ideas and allow for trial and error to occur.

It is with this in mind I wonder whether a better question would have been: What are the barriers to supporting teachers to use Edtech in my school?

 

GDPR Teddy bear?

GDPR discussions once again have hit the news, complete with the usual worry and panic. But what about GDPR in relation to Teddy Bears? Has anyone thought of that?

The recent announcement of the proposed fine of British airways has once again re-ignited the GDPR related discussion.  The fact that it was followed promptly by a further fine for the Marriot hotel chain just added fuel to the fire.    I have once again seen a number of emails and posts on social media regarding GDPR support and consultation services and also GDPR “solutions”.     This continues to worry me as the security and protection of organisational data is an ongoing process and not simply a task to be done and then revisited yearly or a product/service to be purchased.     It also worries me that some schools or even other organisations may sign up to services seeking an answer however will find that their purchase adds little value but at significant cost.

In relation to the lack of clarity and need for advice around GDPR a couple of school based queries I have recently observed stick in my mind.   One related to a teddy bear and diary which was passed around in class with young children taking it home and adding a note or drawing to the diary as to their time with the bear.   The children were all around the 4-6 year old range.   The bear would then be passed on, along with the diary, to the next child and so on as it circulated the class.  The concern here was that each students drawings, comments or even photos were being passed on so did this mean that GDPR prevented the activity or required parental consent from each parent or similar.

Another query related to a class year book within a Year 4 class which would be produced from input from students and from photos gathered throughout the year.   The yearbook would then be shared with all students.   The concern here related to the use of names and photos in the yearbook and whether GDPR requirements prevented the activity or put specific requirements around the data which was allowed and/or permissions and consents which were needed.

In both cases I think the concerns around GDPR in relation to the planned activities are disproportionate.   That said I think having the concerns and raising them and then recording decisions is excellent as it evidences that GDPR is taken seriously by the school and considered where there may be personal data involved.    It is also important to note that I do not profess to be a GDPR expert and certainly couldn’t attest to how things might go in court of law.   I however doubt that lots of the so called “experts” to be found sharing their services could reliably predict the outcomes should such issues progress to their eventual final resolution in the courtroom.

In the case of the teddy bear, in my view, it would be anticipated that the parents already know the parents of other children in the class and their children.   It is also reasonable to expect that it is unlikely that much of what is written or drawn by a 6 year old will constitute personal data.  In addition parents will have control over any photos which they may work with their child to add to the diary.   As such, having at least thought about GDPR, it is reasonable to assume little personal data if any is involved plus, where it is, parents will be providing content through choice and will be aware of how the diary will be shared, etc.   To be totally clear and transparent it may however be worth outline in a letter to parents the activity and how the diary will be shared, plus how parents can choose to contribute or not.

Where the year book is concerned there is likely to be a bit more personal data in that it will most likely contain the names of children.    Again, like the teddy bear, you would expect students to know the other students in the class and therefore you would also anticipate parents of a pupil to know students and names through their own child.    As an element of caution you might decide to only list forenames rather than full names thereby minimising the data being shared.     As a year book it is clear the purpose of data gathering and how it will be shared.    Once again a letter outlining the activity could be shared with parents allowing them to exempt their child from inclusion however other than this I believe the act of at least considering potential GDPR implications would suffice.

For me one of the key aspects of GDPR which isn’t discussed as often as it should be is the actual act of stopping and considering data protection.    To actually stop and consider what data is being processed, what the risk level is in relation to if this data is leaked or otherwise breached, how permission or another lawful basis for processing was arrived at, etc, is a key part of GDPR.   This is the part in relation to demonstrating compliance in that GDPR has been thought about and decisions taken.  From here, in my view, it is a risk based decision.

In both the two examples I cited, the teddy bear and the year book, the anticipated risk is low so the act of giving it thought and taking a decision should suffice.   There is no need in these cases to get hugely concerned and spend massive amounts of time and effort.   This would be disproportionate to the risk level.   I would suggest that simple common sense in these cases should suffice.

Where however the data involved is more extensive, where the data is shared with third parties and where the risk of harm or distress is greater a more extensive level of consideration is required.

So, in conclusion, don’t panic!   In most cases, where risk is low, make sure you have stopped and considered GDPR and data protection, and make sure that such consideration is documented even if only in an email or in minutes of meetings.   If however the risk of harm or distress is high then make sure more comprehensive consideration has been given.

 

 

 

 

Online compliance courses

Education and schools have to cover a number of risk areas which staff need to be aware of including safeguarding, health and safety and data protection to name but three areas.   The wider world, beyond education, has similar issues which might also include COSSH, lifting and handling and personal protective equipment (PPE).   So how do we address these issues and how do we “train” staff?

Recently I have had the opportunity to see a number of online training platforms, in different contexts, which are being used to address some of the above.   The idea is that these online platforms allow staff to receive training on the areas which relate to them, while maintaining a central record of what training has been done and also sending out notifications and reminders when training has to be renewed.    All sounding good so far?

The issue I have with this is that the focus has almost totally shifted to that of compliance rather than developing learning in relation to the risk area which is being covered.    The platform shows who has done which training courses plus ensures that people do the courses, but does this actually improve the learning related to the particular risk area?

One look at some of the online training content shows multiple ways in which content can either be quickly skipped through or missed out altogether.   I must admit my own urge, when presented with some of these online courses, is to simply get it finished as quickly as possible to allow me to get on with matters I deem to be more pressing.    In addition, the content is not particularly engaging taking the form of video lectures or large amounts of text, with only minimal interaction.   Even the attempts at testing user knowledge at the end of units or modules is superficial in nature plus very much dependent on short term memory of facts as opposed to testing more longer term, or deeper learning of the subject matter.   A user may therefore seem to be proficient in a given area such as cyber security, having completed the relevant online course however may have learned very little if anything from it.

Here we see an example of the focus shifting from developing an understanding of health and safety, for example, to ensuring all have done the health and safety online course.     We stop worrying about understanding of health and safety as we can demonstrate that all staff are deemed proficient having completed to relevant online course.   We have achieved compliance but not competence.   We are considering what we can measure, the completion of online training, as what matters as opposed to trying to measure what matters.

I think we need to take a step away from the compliance culture.  Yes, it is easier to measure an organisations health and safety awareness by the number of people who have completed the annual training, but does this mean the understanding and practice is there?    I believe it doesn’t.    And if it doesn’t why should be spend the time, money and effort on these courses.   Surely, we need to find a better way?

The key for me lies in two areas, the first being how we educate and then on how we measure that learning has taken place.    In the area of education I think it is about making use of multiple delivery methods from short online content to in person training, posters and email awareness programmes.  We also need to continually adapt and revise our approaches which brings me neatly onto measuring.   We need to find methods of measuring whether this is short tests at intervals throughout the year, playing out scenarios, audits or focus group discussions.   This can help inform us as to what has been learned and what has not, and in doing so can help us revise and redesign.   In revising and redesigning we can then seek to build better understanding in our staff.    Yes, this is all much more difficult than simply firing out an online course for staff to do however it builds deeper learning.

Deeper learning is likely to serve a staff member and the organisation much better than a tick against an online training course in the event of a cyber, health and safety, COSSH or other issue.