I suspect digital exams are the way of the future albeit I see challenges in getting there after around 100 years of doing things on paper.   Change will be a key challenge but is not the only challenge as was evidenced by the digital exam I supported this morning.

Now our support for these exams goes above and beyond what is normally possible however myself and my team do this to try and ensure the students have the best experience of their online exams.   We had around 35 students sitting the 2hr online test and myself and two of my team had made ourselves available.  A ratio of 1 tech (if I count myself as such although this is debatable these days) to 10 students isnt something that could be achieved if exams such as the GCSEs or A-Levels went heavily digital so this is the first point to consider.    If exams went largely digital the tech staff to student ration would be way higher than this and I would suspect run to 1:100, 1:200 or higher.  But for this exam we were heavily staffed and this morning, this was a good thing.

In terms of our infrastructure and Wi-Fi as a school we have invested heavily in infrastructure to support 1:1 devices and the embedded use of technology throughout the school.  As such having the infrastructure to support digital exams isnt an issue although going forward we would need to look at additional Wi-Fi capabilities in the large sports halls where exams might be held, but where we hadn’t previously installed more than a single access point, which may struggle as soon as you have 300 students sitting a digital exam at once.

Client devices is easy as we are 1:1 and for those external students sitting the digital exam with us, as we operate as an exam centre during the process, they are simply told to bring a suitable device and we then provide them access to the Wi-Fi.   So all good so far.

And this is where the difficulties appear;   During the course of the exam a number of students were unable to start their exam.   Their devices were ok, they had access to Wi-Fi, they had the software, but still they couldn’t get in.    The issue was on the exams platform end.  The admin portal we could see showed everything was fine and they were listed and had joined the exam, but on their devices it wouldn’t let them proceed.   The usual steps were taken by myself and the team;  Log out and back in, shut down and restart the app, etc, but to no avail so the next step was a call to the exam board help desk to see if they could resolve the issue.    After around 40 minutes or so the issue was resolved and the students went about their exam but this was maybe 5 students from 35, 14% of students.    How would that work when there are 300 students, that would be 42 students with difficulties?     And what about the students themselves, nervous enough about an exam and then presented with issues while their fellow students get on with their exam, forced to listen as we wade through a help desk automated call options to finally reach a person who could help?    And even when we did get through to someone they then had us work through a resolution check list of steps, where most we had already done and were unlikely to resolve the issues at hand.

This is where we will see the challenges in terms of the infrastructure provided at the exam board end to minimise the risk of things going wrong, and then the support provided to deal with issues where they do go wrong.   If the infrastructure is robust then you hope to have a failure rate of maybe 1 or 2% of students, which would be manageable even at 300 students.   I wonder if the exam board from this morning would ever release data on its failure or issue rate;  I suspect not however from our exam session the rate was around 14%.   And if the support is there then you would quickly be able to get to someone who can help and then resolve the issue, ideally in 5-10 minutes as a maximum, rather than the 30 to 40min we experienced.     For me it is clear that for digital tests the work the exam boards need to invest heavily up front as otherwise students will suffer.

It s a bit like EdTech in general;  If you don’t invest in the fundamentals which includes your infrastructure, including hardware and software, plus your support provision, it is likely your tech will not be reliable enough to provide a good service to users.    From an EdTech point of view this is bad enough but put this in the context of students sitting their terminal exams which might shape the options they have available to them at the next step in their educational journey;   the stakes are too high for things to go wrong.

I recently received a request from a teacher in relation to getting some software installed on their school device to support them in marking for an exam board.    Now I know this isn’t part of their school role however having been a standards moderator in the past, I understand the benefits to schools and colleges of having markers or moderators within teaching departments.   I am therefore eager to try and enable staff by supporting such requests however this request involved a piece of software which requires admin rights to the laptop, both for install and for the operation of the application according to the exam board.   When the concern re: cyber security was raised the exam boards final reply was that the staff member should install the software on a personal rather than school laptop.   This got me thinking about how technology has changed but how exam boards have been slow to change.   This is all the more evident currently.   Just look at the advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) with ChatGPT over the last six months.

Traditionally, examination boards have relied on paper-based tests and manual grading systems. However, these methods have several drawbacks, including the potential for errors and delays in results processing.    One way examination boards could modernize is by moving towards computer-based testing. Computer-based testing allows for faster and more accurate grading, as well as the ability to customize exams to the specific needs of each student.  I very much believe that adaptive testing is the way forward, with this also enabling students to take exams in their own time when they are ready as opposed to at a set time with all other students.   Adaptive testing also supports students taking their tests anywhere, including at home, rather than having to be crammed into a large exam hall where the conditions themselves are not exactly designed for optimum student performance.    Additionally the results would be available much quicker reducing the stress associated with a long waiting period between the exams and the results being released.   There is also the potential benefit in the reduction in the amount of paper used in exams, transporting of these papers, etc, which may help with making the exam process more environmentally friendly.

Another way examination boards can modernize is by utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) in the grading process. This appears all the more relevant at the moment with development in LLMs like Chat-GPT.   AI-powered grading systems can quickly and accurately grade exams, allowing for quicker results processing and reducing the potential for errors. AI can also analyse student performance data to provide insights into areas where students may need additional support and guidance.   Now I note here that the use of AI may introduce new errors to the marking process however I would suggest that the volume or magnitude of these errors when compared with human based marking is likely to be lower.  It isn’t “the solution” to errors but definitely a step in the correct direct.

Related to the above, exam boards need to acknowledge the existence of AI and LLMs and the fact that they will become an increasing part of life and therefore a tool which students will increasingly use in their studies be it for revision, to help in developing critical thought or for creating coursework or other learning content.   So far only IB (International Baccalaureate) have really acknowledged ChatGPT and how they see it impacting on their courses, providing at least some steer for schools on what appropriate or inappropriate usage might look like and proving at least some direction for schools and teachers for managing these new technologies.

Moreover, examination boards can use technology to improve exam security. Online proctoring tools can help ensure that students are taking exams in a secure and controlled environment, preventing cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty.    Related to this, I have seen exam boards continuing to send out resources on CDs or USB drives, or requesting student video or audio work using similar formats.   It is about time that they provided appropriate online portals to allow the quick, efficient and secure transfer of such exam and coursework data.  

Finally, examination boards can use technology to make their exams more accessible to students with disabilities or special needs. For example, screen readers, text-to-speech software, and other assistive technologies can help students with visual or hearing impairments to take exams on an equal footing with their peers.   This is already happening for a subset of students however I suspect eventually will need to acknowledge that all students are individual and having differing learning preferences including their device use and the online tools they use.  In classrooms teachers support students using a range of tools and techniques so it is only correct to seek to support the same in the final exams which are, at least for now, viewed as so critical in a students format education.   As such examination boards will need to adapt to this.

Conclusion

Technology has the potential to revolutionize the examination process, making it more efficient, accurate, and accessible. Examination boards must embrace these technological advancements to ensure that their exams are of the highest quality and that students receive accurate and timely results. By doing so, they can help prepare the next generation of students for success in a rapidly changing digital world.   

And at a time when the pace of technology, particularly in relation to Artificial Intelligence solutions, has never been faster, the exam boards will need to significantly increase their agility and their ability to adapt to and embrace change.

I recently wrote an article for the ANME on ChatGPT and on the benefits but also risks.   You can read this here.   My view is that AI models like ChatGPT are going to become all the more common and also more and more accurate, and therefore we need to explore them and identify how they might be positively used within education.   Seeking to block their use is, in my opinion, guaranteed to fail.   

Following my post, I saw a reply on twitter to the article with ChatGPTs view on AI and education.  You can see this here.    It picked up a couple of points which I hadnt included in my piece and I note that some of my piece actually included content generated by ChatGPT itself.    It wasn’t obvious that ChatGPT had a hand in both pieces which suggests it wont be easy to identify where ChatGPT is used.

All this got me thinking about how ChatGPT might benefit IT Services and the IT teams particularly in schools.   As such I gave some quick thoughts as to possible uses cases, which I have outlined below:

User guides and Help

ChatGPT can be used to create a knowledge base of information that can be easily accessed by IT staff and other school personnel including simple user and help guides.  This seems like the most obvious and easiest use of ChatGPT;  I have already tried asking it some questions in relation to iPad related issues and its responses were clear and accurate.

Creating software and other solutions

Where schools are creating their own internal software solutions including website solutions, ChatGPT can help with the basic code building blocks, thereby speeding up development.   It will still require human input to finalise the projects and add that bit of creativity and flair however ChatGPT can get us part of the way there, thereby saving time and resources.

Policies, processes and procedure documentation

Writing policy and process documentation can quite often be a long and laborious job but ChatGPT and other AI language models can quickly put together a basic document which human staff can then refine and customise to fit the school.

Chatbots

ChatGPT can be used to create a chatbot that can interact with students and staff, answering questions and providing information.   This therefore allows IT support staff to focus on more complex issues or more strategic tasks.

Language Translation

Where schools include non-English speaking students ChatGPT can be used to assist IT support staff in communicating with non-English speaking students and families by providing translations in real-time.

Process automation

A number of the above relate to process automation where ChatGPT is used to automate common support tasks, such as answering frequently asked questions, troubleshooting basic technical issues, and providing instructions for software and hardware.   There are likely other areas where simple processes can be automated through the ChatGPT or other AI Language models.

Conclusion

I think one of the key conclusions I arrive at from my thinking is not related to the benefit of using ChatGPT, or other AI language models, in itself, but for the potential for ChatGPT and a human user to work together.   This hybrid approach of AI and human is, in my view, the way forward as both complement each other.  The AI solution can easily do the basic and repeatable parts of a task, such as creating a user guide, while the human can bring that flair and creativity to make such guides engaging, accessible and usable.    It isnt a case of ChatGPT or humans, or ChatGPT replacing humans.

I suspect there are many other applications of ChatGPT within an IT Support or IT Services capacity which are yet to be realised and I look forward to finding out more in terms of how AI Language Models can enable IT staff to deliver, enhance and even redefine the services provided to users in schools and colleges, and to the communities they serve.

These are interesting times!

Have been experimenting with ideas for the use of VR kit in schools for a while now.  So far, my focus has been on some uses in Art, uses in Design Technology plus also in History and Geography.   The other day however I thought of another possible application focussed on pedagogy and self-review.

In terms of pedagogy, one of the most powerful tools in terms of supporting improvement has always been that of peer or self-review.  Now I am not talking high pressure lesson observation here, I am talking constructive low threat observations where colleagues sit in and watch each other teach then discuss.   I remember spending time as an IT teacher watching a colleague teach History, and I remember taking much away from his approach, which was very different to mine at the time.

The challenge here however has always been that of inviting someone in to watch your lesson.   For some this can feel somewhat daunting.   It is also important to acknowledge that we are all individuals so just because someone else prefers an approach to teaching, behaviour management, etc, doesn’t necessarily mean it is right for you.  

While working with teachers some years ago this brought me to the use of video footage where a camera was placed in the room, under agreement with the teacher and then they could watch the footage back and conduct a self-review.     This largely got over the issue of reluctance or nervousness in relation to having someone else in the classroom observing.   It wasn’t however a perfect solution as video footage is the limited view it presents.   It can be focussed on the front of the room, if there is one, but that misses out the edges of the class or it could be a wide angle, but then loses the detail.    Two camera setups would help address this however result in additional cost plus setup requirements as well as the potential need to edit the footage together for review.

So where does VR come in?

My thought therefore is the use of a 360-degree camera to take the video with the camera sat in the centre of the room as much as is possible.    The footage can then be either viewed on a PC, using VLC for example which allows you to pan around, or better still uploaded to a VR headset such as the Oculus Quest 2, where the teacher can then sit virtually in their own lesson and look around as the lesson progresses.  Basicallly this allows the teacher to put themselves back in the lesson but from the viewpoint of a student, dependent on the location of the camera, but able to look around the room as needed.    Looking at Hattie’s Visible Learning research (see more here) “video review of lessons” has a high effect size of 0.88 and that would have been based on standard video camera based footage so my hope would be that 360-degree based footage would be equally effective if not more.

Limitations/Challenges

So cost is an issue here as you need the camera however the VR headset is an optional although nice to have.   The next issue is the fact that having a camera in the room may encourage students to play up to the camera, however I think this can be managed and if usage became common students would grow accustomed and therefore eventually ignore the cameras presence.

And when using the little Theta 360 camera I am currently looking to use the recording is limited to 25mins per recording which represents only a fragment rather than the full length of a lesson.

Conclusion

Now at this point this is only an idea which I am looking to experiment with.  My thinking is that anything that supports self-review of teaching and learning will have potential for significant impact.  Whether the VR element adds enough additional impact over the lower cost video solutions, I am unsure of, however I am equally unsure of the potential benefits of a more immersive lesson review experience.   

So, for now its onwards with the experimentation.

Firstly, AI can cover a very broad range of activities.   Is it AI designed to interpret natural language such as your Alexa can identify and then respond to you verbal queries, or are we talking about a more general AI solution more akin to Commander Data in Star Trek?    There is quite a gulf between these two extremes, with the 2^nd of them likely to be some time off before it is achievable.

If we therefore accept we are looking at using specific focussed AI solutions in schools by 2025 I think they have clearly got the year wrong as we are already doing it now, in 2022.    We have our spell checker and grammar checker in Word, we also now have our transcription tools in Teams and PowerPoint including the ability to offer real time, or near real time, translation of spoken content.  These are all AI or maybe machine learning based solutions being used in schools and colleges, being used by teachers today.   Not 3 years away in 2025, but today.

So, the headline seems on initial inspection to be quite aspirational and inspirational, for teachers to be using artificial intelligence in their classrooms in only 3 years time.   But a more detailed look and we find it isnt so inspirational as we are pretty much already there.   Maybe the headline hints to a greater use of AI or more advanced AIs being used more often and to greater effect but that’s not the way the headline comes across.   Maybe we will use more AI based platforms, such as learning platforms which direct students through personalised learning programmes, although I have some concerns about this too.  Or maybe there will be greater use of AI and machine learning in the setting and marking of both summative and formative assessments.

I suspect AI use in schools will grow between now and 2025.    I suspect it will grow to be more common in general so wont be a school centric thing, however I suspect that a teacher will still be a teacher and the key to teaching and learning, and the use of AI tools, like the current EdTech tools, will be skilled teachers to wield them as and when appropriate in crafting the best possible learning experience for their students.

One of the big challenges with technology in education is going to be investment.  For example, some schools are in inner city locations where access to internet infrastructure is easy.   Others however exist in rural locations where access to appropriate broadband internet is not easy, or in some cases, not possible to come by.    There will also be schools which have planned the replacement of network and server infrastructure on a regular basis where others have not.

Going forward, as there is little achieved in looking back on why things arent as developed as they could be, the key things in my view are:

1. Investment

Looking generally across all schools and colleges it is reasonably clear that there is a need for investment.  There are schools which lack some of the basics where other schools are streets ahead.   But even across the board there is an opportunity to invest and drive things forward making sure our schools and colleges are set for the future.

• Sustainability

And this is critical.  Investment cannot be seen as a one-shot deal.   We cant simply invest in devices or infrastructure in the next year and consider it job done.   Any investment must include planning and provision for the replacement of devices and infrastructure, plus the ongoing upgrade as based on the changing needs at the time.   I remember laptops for teachers and the benefits it brought, followed by the issues presented when the centralised funding wasn’t there when the devices came to need replacing.  We cannot repeat this, so any plans must be longer term plans.

• Support and training

We also need to acknowledge that the technology has to work, and in meeting this requirement there needs to be adequate support.   IT Services teams in schools and colleges need to be put in place to ensure that the technology works on a day to day basis plus need to be there to resolve issues when things go wrong.    And in line with the need for technology to simply work, the teaching staff using the technology need to have the relevant skills and experience to know how and also when to use it.   This is about ensuring training is provided but also that opportunities exist for the continual professional learning and sharing required to make the best us of ever-changing technology solutions.

Conclusion

To get all schools and colleges to the same point, where they all can realise the same potential in the use of technology is a major piece of work.   Schools are at various stages on this journey.    As such the best approach for all is not to seek to make this potentially significant jump but instead to focus on the smaller steps, the little changes in practice and tech use, in the short term, which form part of what will be a big journey over the longer timeline.    Let’s start now, do what we can, collaborate, share and petition those who can support us to ensure all schools can improve in their potential to use technology in teaching and learning.

Delivering the curriculum beyond the physical classroom: how can schools effectively implement hybrid learning plans?

Some schools have been doing this for some time, using the flipped classroom for example.    The issue is it needs to work for your school, your context, staff, and students.   It needs to work for your hardware and infrastructure, etc, so just because an approach worked in other schools doesn’t mean you can simply pick up that solution and replicate it in your school.    So, for me it’s about experimenting a little, and taking it slow.   A large part of effective hybrid learning, is the same as traditional face to face learning, and about building up effective learning habits and routines, but this takes time;  We need to allow for this time.   Use what has been learnt over lockdown as to what worked and didn’t work in your school and go from there.   But yes, look at other schools and what appears to work, but pick carefully at the elements of their practice that you wish to implement, and then give these approaches time to embed before seeking to advance further.   And make sure to engage the teachers, students and parents in planning.

Do we finally have enough proof of the pedagogical efficacy of EdTech?

Given the variety of uses of edtech, edtech products, planned outcomes (e.g. academic, or soft skills, global awareness, etc), staff skills, equipment level, student tech skills, etc it is difficult to assess general efficacy accurately.   As I wrote in my last post, it is a bit like assessing the efficacy of a bunch of hand tools, including some hammers, screwdrivers, hand drills and saws.   Their efficacy depends very much on what they are being used for (e.g., using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail) and the skill level of the user, that of a DIY’er or an expert craftsperson.  As such I am not sure what value there is in the question, given the large number of variables involved.   I also note that the more variables involved the greater the likelihood of high levels of variation in results from different research studies plus a tendency for the generalised results to regress towards the mean, and a likely insignificant impact being suggested.   I therefore believe we need to look at a different question, and whether EdTech has the potential to bring about positive improvements or impact in teaching and learning.   Her I believe we already have proof that when used well, it can have a positive impact.   We also have proof that without it learning during a pandemic wouldn’t have been possible, or not to the extent that was achieved.   And we can see we now live in an increasing technological world.   So, if the core of the original question is do we have evidence to support the continued use and required investment in Edtech, I would say yes.

How can leaders empower educators to discover the potential of technology in teaching?

This is about sharing and the organisational culture in my view.  Establishing opportunities for people to share ideas and what worked as well as seeking support on what didn’t.   It is also about encouraging sharing beyond the school using the various sources out there such as Apple Distinguished educators or Microsoft innovative educator experts.   For me twitter is often the go to place and I have heard it described as “the best staffroom in the world”.    So the sharing gets the ideas as to things to try, and then they need to be put into practice and this is where culture and climate come into play.   The climate of the school has to be warm and supportive, and the culture open, thereby empowering people to try things in the knowledge that, they may not work as planned, but where they don’t this simply serves as a learning experience to be shared to help the collective teaching and student body move forward.   In all my years working in education, and using EdTech, or simply technology in education, I have tried lots of different approaches, apps and other tools, with some working well and some not so well.  The key has been I have been lucky to work in schools and colleges which were supportive of these attempts, the potential for them to bring about improvements, but also the acceptance that some might not work.    Now obviously this isnt about throwing out a new app for all students in a school to use and running the risk of a negative experience for all students, but more about piloting and trialling with small groups where, should things don’t work, it is easy to discontinue the trial and recovery or address any negative impact.    Looking back to the question, the key words are discovery and empower;   This requires experimentation, people to feel valued and supported to innovate, the need to share so experiences are collective across staff/students rather than limited to a given teacher or class, plus there needs to be acceptance that the discovery made might simply be that a given tool or approach doesn’t work for your students.

Conclusion

I think the pandemic has both shown the importance of technology in education, plus has helped move schools and colleges forward, driven by the immediate need of the pandemic.    Now the pandemic is (hopefully) receding, we now need to build the intrinsic need and want to continue the development of the use of technology in schools.    It also needs to be something not just put in place now, but something sustainable in the longer term, so a simple purchase of infrastructure and devices in the coming months or year is insufficient if it isnt backed up with a plan for ongoing upgrade and replacement into the future.     I suspect we now stand at the point where the rubber band may be stretched, encouraging a tendency for us to start to rebound back to the “way things were before the pandemic”, so it is now, more than ever, important that we push forward.

I have long believed the exam boards have lagged a bit behind in terms of technology use.   I remember being a visiting moderator for a vocational IT qualification some 15yrs ago and being presented by mountains of print outs.   I was visiting schools across England to carry out moderation activities relating to the evidence students had created in working with technology tools such as website development tools, spreadsheets, email clients, etc, yet it was all being printed out for me to look at.   I dread to think, on reflection, how many trees were cut down in the process.     It was around this time that I decided as a teacher of the same vocational qualification that I wouldn’t repeat this mistake, so I worked with our network manager to come up with a way to structure student evidence such that it was easy to extract and burn onto a CD (remember this was 15yrs ago!) which could be handed to the visiting moderator, rather than trying to bury them under mountains of paper.  Through the CD the moderator would have access to all student evidence in a structured and easily navigable form as opposed to a pile of A4 folders of printed evidence.

Office 365 and Google both allow for the easy sharing of digital evidence, which solves the above issue which I had previously solved with a CD, some network setup and a few batch files.    Recently working with one department who were using OneNote to store student evidence, we made use of the Parental Link functionality (See instructions here) to share the content with a moderator.    In some other areas we are using SharePoint for example to share video evidence of student work.   Now some planning does need to go into this, as some schools will have external sharing turned off in relation to data protection, however with a bit of thought and configuration, a solution can be found. 

This all highlights for me the need for exam boards to catch up.   Why arent exam boards providing more guidance to schools in terms of easily sharing digital student evidence with moderators?  Why is it being left to schools and their moderators?   Given most schools will now have either Microsoft’s or Googles suite in place, now is the time to drive things forward.   And it is about time, as looking back, I was trying to go paperless 15yrs ago, prior to the bandwidth and sharing tools which now greatly enable this to easily occur.

Additionally, and looking a little broader, why are we still making so many students sit in large exam halls to complete paper-based examinations following 2 years where the pandemic has meant that students and teachers all over the world have been reliant on technology to collaborate, communicate and engage in learning.   Why arent we looking at how technology can facilitate exams?  Now I note some initial pilots are being trialled but to me it all feels a little late in the day.   Again, there is a need for things to be driven forward here, and I don’t sense the drive and urgency I would expect.  

I feel schools have driven forward their use of technology over the last few years, urged on by needs resulting from the pandemic.   This has been great to see and has left schools in a stronger positive in my eyes.   But why are some of the services which underpin our current education system, such as the exam bodies, not working harder to do the same.   My main concern is that these services may serve to drag schools back, losing some of the technology-based advances we have so recently made.

The pandemic has forced so much of our lives to move online.   Meetings moved to Zoom, Teams or Google Meet so we could meet online.   Lessons and teaching moved online.   General working moved online.   And so did Continual Professional Development, with educational conferences and summits all moving to a virtual rather than face to face experience.   But what were the implications, benefits and drawbacks?  And what are the implications for training in schools using video content?

Benefits

The first clear benefit in moving conferences online was simply the fact that it allowed conference events to continue even where it was no longer possible to meet face to face due to the pandemic.    The last face to face conference I attended was Digifest 2020, in March, just before the 1^st lockdown came into force in the UK, but since then I have attended a number of events all online.     It wasnt until the other week that I returned to a face-to-face event.   If the events hadnt moved online I would have missed out on the learning opportunities I have received through online events.

Access to events may also be a benefit in that virtual events overcome geographical boundaries where attendance would be difficult and/or costly to overcome if events are face to face only.   As such, on reflection, I may have accessed a more diverse range of opportunities because of the move to online events than I would have otherwise accessed had events remaining as they were pre-pandemic.

Drawbacks and Challenges

Motivation is one of the key challenges in my view in relation to online events.    I registered for several events over the last year, with these happily taking up allocated space on my calendar, reminding me of their existence.  Yet, when time came for a few of these events, the immediately pressing work I had to do meant that I didn’t always attend.   All I needed to do was click a link and maybe just listen in, or flick in and out of the event, but I didn’t even do this.   Had these been face to face events, this wouldn’t have happened.   I may have had to book travel or book accommodation; I may have arranged to meet people, or I may have planned activities in and around the event for before or after.   Basically, I would have had intrinsic motivation to ensure I attended to avoid financial or opportunity losses, beyond the loss of the learning opportunities presented by the event.   This intrinsic motivation just doesn’t exist to the same extent with online events.    I suspect event organisers will have plenty of data to show the drop off rate or non-attendance rate for online events is significantly higher than that for face-to-face events.

Video based training in schools

One of the key challenges for conferences is engagement.   We may create awareness or training materials but how do we ensure that teachers or other staff actually engage with the content, and watch it?    Having the content isnt enough if it isnt being watched or if it isnt then resulting in changes in teaching or other behaviours.    Personally, I don’t have an answer to this other than to suggest the below:

1. We need to make the cost of watching low, by keeping content short and simple.   If the cost is high, it is likely staff will always prioritise other work which is immediately to hand over training materials which may have an unknown future benefit.
2. We need to vary the content or style of materials such that they do not become boring or predictable.    Where content is always the same or presented in the same way it quickly becomes boring and predictable and therefore disengages users.
3. We need to seek ways to engage users and make watching content worthwhile and interesting.  This could for example be through extrinsic motivation associated with prizes, electronic badges or department-based competition.
4. We need to build in opportunities for collaboration and discussion beyond the content materials.   Content has a greater opportunity of sticking if it is internalised and discussing and debating with others is likely to be one of the best ways of helping this happen.

Conclusions

I suspect online events and online based training is very much here to stay.   If we consider it as simply another tool, I think this is a good thing, but I think we need to be careful of considering it as “the” tool.   I have long seen the enterprise world push staff towards online based training content, with staff complaining and then proceeding to find creative ways to complete the training without actually spending the relevant time or actually learning anything.   I have seen the same in some schools with data protection and even safeguarding training becoming an online tick box exercise rather than a valuable learning experience.

I am also a little concerned regarding the potentially high costs of developing lots of good training content only to receive limited engagement from busy staff.

I have a positive view regarding the potential, in an ideal world, of well-developed video and online training materials for use in schools.   I also have a realistic view to temper this, in relation to likely engagement given the busy lives of staff in schools.   Is mandating the number of hours content consumed per year per teacher a possible option?   Have seen this before, and I my view no, but let’s leave that one here for now.

For now online training and events are here to stay and for me, as long as they are part of a balanced programme of opportunities, also including face to face events, then I think this is a good thing.

I recently read with interest the plan for the Scottish government to issue “devices for 700,000 children”.   My first reaction was a positive one in the potential impact this could have on learning for the children concerned.   Taken as a simple headline, issuing a device to every pupil in Scotland seems like a good thing.    I suppose that’s part of the reason it works as a headline as it conveys a simple positive message, although as with most headlines it fails to encapsulate the complexity.   But then I started think a little more deeply and this raised concerns.

Infrastructure (in schools)

The article mentioned they would be “considering how to deliver consistent digital infrastructure” across schools.   This was my first concern.    Students might all have devices, but they wouldn’t necessarily have access to reliable infrastructure in schools to allow them to access online resources and services.   They also wouldn’t have access to allow them to keep the devices up to date with operating systems and other updates.     The article mentioned “an internet connection” where required, however without an internet connection I would see devices as limited and potentially a security risk. So limited use in the short term, and a sustainability issue in medium term.

Infrastructure (at home)

Even if school infrastructure is eventually supplied, devices will spend a significant amount of time at home and therefore ideally we would want students to be able to access resources and services while there.   This would also be critical in any situation where online learning is required, such as snow days or pandemics.    The challenge here is that not all students are likely to have internet access at home. Provision of internet at home didnt appear to be mentioned

IT Support

700,000 additional devices in Scottish schools;   This makes me wonder what additional resourcing will be put in place within IT teams to support all of these devices and the increased usage which school infrastructure and technology solutions will see should this project be successful.   It is also worth noting, as with the beginning of any new academic year, the introductory period will be the busiest, so if this project is to be successful there will likely be a massive need for IT support immediately following any rollout.

Pedagogy and confidence

Probably one of my biggest concerns is that this project feels like it may focus too much on devices and not enough on the support and training in relation to how devices and the apps they allow access to might be successfully used in teaching and learning.   We have already seen examples of a focus on devices without the training and support, and the resultant lack of impact when compared with cost;  The Interactive whiteboard is but one example.

Sustainability

There is also the issue of sustainability and the long term.   I experienced this years ago with the laptops for teachers scheme.  It is great for the government to fund or supply devices now, however will they commit to continuing the funding or supply of devices in the future, when the devices become worn or obsolete.    Assuming they will likely look at tablet or laptop devices, I would suggest this will be in around 3 or 4 years of use before needing replacement, although it might be possible to push this out to 5 years. After this additional funding will then be required to mount a renewal/replacement scheme.

A single solution

I am also concerned that this centrally driven approach will likely result in all schools getting the same device, albeit with some variation based on the ages of students catered to within the school.   This fails to take into account the local context of individual schools, staff interest, experience and skills, students viewpoints and preferences, parents, etc.   I increasingly believe the wider you try to deploy a singular solution the more likely it will be unsuccessful due to increasing variance in the context and people, students, staff and parents, involved. I think looking for solutions at a local level is more likely to work over trying to apply a single consistent solution.

Conclusion

It is important to acknowledge this is a good attempt at enabling technology in schools.   It needs to be lauded as such as at least there is clear evidence of an attempt being made by the Scottish government.   The same cant be said for other countries or regions. My concern is it seems to fall into the common trap of focussing on devices without considering the other factors which are needed for a successful educational technology project.    That said, I very much hope I am wrong.