Last nights Microsoft TweetMeet focussed on Remote Learning. It was certainly a busy session with my tweetdeck updating faster than I could think; it was a blur of activity. Overall it was an excellent session and probably the best TweetMeet I have been involved in so far. I therefore thought it might be useful to summarise the key messages I took away from the event:
- We are all human
I think this is very important; to recognise that we, teachers, our students, their parents/guardians and the wider school community are all human. This is a difficult time; unlike anything we have experienced before and for many the unfamiliar circumstances we find ourselves in can be very scary. Add to that concerns relating to the health and wellbeing of loved ones, of family and of friends plus for some the actual loss of people close to them and we find ourselves significantly outside our comfort zones. We need to recognise and accept this, and to ensure we consider it when interacting with others. We need to ensure we provide space and time for these concerns to be shared and discussed and we need to support each other. High expectations are great but may need to be considered carefully in the current context we find ourselves in. As we seek to use remote learning to continue children’s education we must maintain our focus that the most important thing in times like this isn’t the curriculum, assessment, EdTech, etc, but is in fact our teachers, students, their parents, families, and the wider school community; What matters most is people.
- We are better together
Related to the above is the fact that as humans we are social animals. We are designed to be at our best when working with others and in this time of isolation this is no different. For me the TweeetMeet was a perfect example of this. There were lots of people involved in the session each individually doing excellent things in relation to remote Learning but by coming together and sharing, discussing and exploring things together we are all the better. At this time of isolation we need to ensure we build the opportunities to collaborate and to share experiences. Where individually we identify things that work or don’t work, we should seek to share this. It may be that ideas shared by others won’t work in your particular context, but by at least considering such ideas you will have gained some insight; Think Edison and 1000 lightbulbs. The more we share the better. My favourite phrase in relation to this being “the smartest person in the room is the room”. And thankfully we live in a time where we largely have the technology available to achieve this through blogs, vlogs, podcasts, video conferencing, webinars, etc. The world is a pretty big room!
- Technology is here to stay
For all the discussion about whether EdTech makes a difference or not, whether we should embrace technology in schools or ban it, we often miss an important fact. Technology is here, and it is here to stay. Social media, on-demand TV, sat nav, video conferencing, artificial intelligence, user tracking and many other technologies all exist now and they aren’t going to disappear, in fact they are likely only to continue to evolve and to take an ever greater place in our lives. Given this world how can education avoid technology; I don’t believe it can. Technology provides us many tools which can allow us to do new and exciting things and we need to seek to use it. Just think where we would be in this current crisis without technology. How would learning work without it? So, if technology can act as an enabler of learning in a sudden crisis like the one we find ourselves in now imagine what we might be able to achieve with a bit of time, planning and people working together. This is what we need to consider in relation to life beyond Covid19.
- The Digital divides will be our biggest challenge
I have written about this already and you can read my post here. Our biggest challenge is likely to be the lack of parity which exists in relation to technology. It isn’t just about access to devices such as laptops or tablets for use by students at home, or access to the internet at home. We also need to consider the many other divides. Parents at home may have differing abilities to support their children in using technology at home plus students themselves will have differing abilities. Schools will have different amounts of IT support available to help out staff, students and parents with issues and problems. Additionally, schools will have different amounts of professional learning and training resources again for use by staff, students and parents. There will be different levels of IT equipment in schools with some schools having 1:1 devices while others might be limited to a single IT lab or less. Experience with the pedagogical aspects of using technology to support learning will also differ across schools or even within schools across departments. Confidence levels and motivation to experiment, plus the school culture with regards technology is another factor which is inconsistent. If we are to achieve equal opportunities for all students in relation to the opportunities to use technology in learning, these and many other divides will need to be considered.
- Safeguarding
The final point that stuck out for me from the TweetMeet related to safeguarding and the need to keep students and staff safe during this period of remote learning. This is an issue which in my view is very complex and is for individual schools to reach a decision in relation to their own context. That said I have a particular view on this and in particular on the use of video to allow students and teachers to interact. I am aware some schools have disabled the ability for video calls to be used citing safeguarding concerns, with the view that by turning off video within the schools technology solution they are protecting their students. If we accept that we are human and we are social animals, then students will seek personal contact independent of our actions, so by disabling video we force students to use other non-school platforms to achieve the personal contact they seek. I believe this represents a risk. I also think we need to consider the fact that learning is a social experience so the more social we make remote learning the more successful the learning will be. Removing the use of video complete with the various visual cues it presents reduces the impact of learning. I will acknowledge that there is a clear safeguarding risk where video is enabled, however life is never without risk. For me, it is about engaging parents, students and staff about managing the risk as much as is reasonably possible while still enabling the best learning opportunities possible.
When I started writing this piece my plan was a short summary of the TweetMeet session; Failed on that one as this isn’t exactly short. I also must admit this post also only covers the highlights of the session as I saw it and most likely missed loads of other excellent points or discussion threads. That said, and in acknowledging point 2, I thought I would share. I hope the above is helpful and look forward to reading any thoughts or comments people may have.


Before the Covd-19 crisis begun I presented on Digital Citizenship at the JISC DigiFest event and previous to that at the ISC Digital event in Brighton. In both cases one of my reasons for presenting was my concern regarding students increasing use of technology not being match by an appropriate considerations or awareness of the risks. I was worried that students were giving away large amounts of data without considering who they were providing to, how it might be used, how long it would be kept or how it might impact or be used to influence them as individuals, and as groups, in their future. I was worried and believed education and its educators needed to start to do something about this.
As we head towards the end of the Easter break and into the new term and for a lot of schools, a period of remote learning, I thought I would share my thoughts and tips on remote learning.














The digital divide has long concerned educators in considering those students who have access to the internet and devices at home, plus support from parents in relation to device use, and those who do not. Covid-19 has had me thinking about this, what this now means for schools and students and how we might leap the divide which exists.
Its now been 2 weeks of working from home so I thought I would share how I am getting on.
Over the last week or so since schools closed teachers who previously hadn’t had much experience of creating video learning content have suddenly found themselves creating content. Some of this video has been live through Zoom, Hangouts or Teams, or has been posted for on demand access through YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, FlipGrid and even TikTok or through school Virtual Learning Environments. Although discussions of flipped or blended learning have been ongoing for some time, Covid-19 has led to a peak in interest plus to a rapid upskilling of teachers driven by a specific and immediate need. With this greater interest and skill level I would predict that we will see greater use of video, and in particular pre-prepared video which can be used or accessed on demand within schools and learning, similar to the lecture capture concept which has become more common in Higher Education.
For me our students online social media habits have to date been seen in a very negative light, being thought of as being anti-social or changing in their behaviour or attention spans. The last week has however shown how the online world can provide opportunities for socialising as much as the real world can, albeit in different ways. We have seen virtual pubs, lots of online Karaoke, community groups and much more form quickly online to overcome the challenges of social distancing and the potential harm of individual isolation. Thinking about children, and how parents may be overprotective and concerned of the dangers in the real world, therefore leading our students to be more isolated than they would have been in the past; For me I remember parental comments about returning home “before the street lights come on”. This kind of freedom to socialise in real life isn’t afforded in anyway to the same extent for the current generation of children. Is it therefore any wonder they would look to use the online world? I think going forward there will be a greater acceptance of the benefits of the hyper connectedness which our students already experience through the many apps they use.
Although most of the above is positive I do have some concerns. I am worried that as people rushed to find solutions to overcome isolation, maintain social connection, etc, that they didn’t show due care for the protection of their personal data and for the resultant cyber risk. Great communities may have formed overnight using free services but what data did we give away regarding these groups and the individuals within them. It worries me that when things do settle down, we may realise that some decisions made have negative consequences. I suspect the pendulum which swings between individual privacy and public good, and which previously tended towards individual privacy may have shifted somewhat and may now tend more towards the public good. In some ways this may be a good thing, but what may be a good thing in a crisis may not be a good thing when everything returns to normality or near normality.
The issue of risk to others is one that particularly interests me and possible the issue which helped me eventually make the correct decision to remain at home. In thinking about this risk, the concept of near-misses and remote-misses in relation to the World War II bombing came to mind. Heading into World War II psychologists were worried about the significant impact on mental health which widespread bombing of London would have. There were fears that society would collapse. The reality was far from this, as people came together and developed a community spirit and resilience, almost the opposite behaviour as to what was expected. As psychologists sought to understand what happened they came upon the concept of near and remote misses. A near miss meant a person physically felt a bomb go off and saw the aftermath in the dead, including friends and relatives. These people suffered psychologically and often physically from bombings. Remote misses referred to those people who heard the bombs fall and saw the damage to building but who did not experience any direct loss or see injuries and deaths first-hand. The vast majority of Londoners fell into the Remote Miss category. For these people, they were spared and may have seen themselves as lucky, and with each subsequent bombing they survived they felt more and more lucky, and even invincible, each subsequent bombing reinforced their belief that bombs didn’t impact on them. It is through these people that the community spirit and resilience built despite all the death and destruction across London during the bombing. Taking this idea and applying it to the Corona virus we have near misses in those who either contracted the virus or have loved ones who have contracted it, and even died from it, but we also have the remote misses in those who haven’t contracted the virus, or had mild symptoms or even who are infected but asymptomatic but who were aware through the news, social media, etc. The remote misses, like in London, significantly outnumber the near misses and through this and the sense of invulnerability or “it won’t happen to me” which may have developed, may have been behaving counter to the guidance being offered by the government. As such “social distancing” wasn’t being adhered to as it wasn’t important, or at least wasn’t perceived to be important. To be clear, the concept of remote misses helps to explain behaviour but it doesn’t excuse it. For me, in understanding behaviour and my own thinking, I was better able to question it and arrive at what I consider the “right” decision.
It is important to firstly acknowledge that our views on technology are very much the result of our experiences. My experiences include learning to code in Basic on the Commodore 64 at an early age, before moving on to AMOS basic on the Amiga and then QBasic, Visual Basic and C++ on the PC. This early use of technology, and the ability to develop software to solve problems has very much shaped my views. Now, today I walk around with a mobile phone with over a million times more memory than my commodore 64, from less than 30 years earlier, and the growth rate across the period has not been linear. A perfect illustration of this lies in how long it took various technologies to reach 50 million users. Radio took 75 years whereas TV only took 38 years. Bringing us close to today, Facebook got the time to 50 million users down to 3.5 years before Pokemon go managed it in less than a single month. It is clear from this that the pace of changing is quickening.
The more I think about the pace of change and the way that technology is becoming an integral part of our everyday lives the more the movie Ready Player One comes to mind. In the movie Wade Watts makes use of virtual reality to live a double life, living as Percival in VR. As the film progresses it becomes clear that his two lives aren’t as separate as he would like and that events in virtual reality impact on real life and vice versa. For us, like Wade Watts, our lives in real life are inseparably linked to our digital lives. In fact, I believe that it no longer serves us to think of digital citizenship as the term implies that there is something else available, a non-digital citizenship, when in fact there is not. Possibly the discussion should not be of digital citizenship at all but simply citizenship. As Danah Boyd, in her book, Its Complicated said, although the apps might change our online connectedness, our need to share and the challenges around privacy are “here to stay”.
Looking at how we prepare our students for the world and the issues listed above I can see the things which we do satisfactorily, through our eSafety programmers, however I can also see those areas where little or nothing is currently offered. We currently discuss the importance of privacy settings on social media, of having strong passwords, of how online content, once posted, will remain permanent and of the need to be aware of bullying online. These areas are currently covered. Sadly, however little is said in relation to the conflict between user convenience and individual privacy, between individual privacy and public good, and between social media reporting on or actually creating the news and truths which we come to believe. These are the areas which we need to discuss, for which there isn’t a single answer and therefore where the most we can do is help students develop their own views through discussion. It is through discussion that we can hopefully ensure that students, when presented with the infinite challenges of technology use, will approach them with their eyes wide open.
I thought I would share some initial thoughts following day one of JISC DigiFest. The event was launched with a very polished and professional pre-prepared video displayed on screens scattered around the events main hall, focussing on the rate of change in relation to technology and some of the technological implications of technology on the world we live in. The launch session also included a room height “virtual” event guide introducing the sessions and pointing you in the direction of the appropriate hall. In terms of the launch of a conference this was the most polished and inspiring launch I have seen albeit on reflection there wasn’t much particularly innovative or technically complex about it.
The keynote speaker addressed the changing viewpoints of different generations of people focussing particularly on Generation Z, the generation which currently are in our sixth forms, colleges and universities. I took away two key points from the presentation. The first was how each generations views were shaped by their experiences particularly between the ages of 12 and 20 year old. Jonah Stillman used thoughts on space as an example showing how Generation X might have positive views focussing on the successes of the moon landing whereas Millennials may have a more cynical view following the Challenger disaster. Additionally, Jonah mentioned movies as a social influencer and how those in the Harry Potter generation may view cooperation and trying hard, even where unsuccessful, in a positive manner. Those born later than this may draw on another series of films, in the hunger games, resulting in a greater tendency towards competition and the need to succeed in line with the movies storyline of everyone for themselves and failure results in death. The second take away point from the session resulted from the questioning at the end of the session around what some saw as the absoluteness of the boundaries between generations. I think Jonah’s use of the word “tendency” addressed this concern in that the purpose of the labels was for simplicity and to indicate a general trend and tendency rather than to suggest that all people born on certain dates exhibited a certain trait. It increasing concerns me that this argument keeps coming up when surely it is clear that there is a need to use simplistic models to help clarity of explanation and that no model, not matter how complex will ever truly capture the real complexity of the world we live in.