Tag: Interative Whiteboards

22 Years of EdTech

Having turned 40 years old not so long ago has made me a little more reflective than I have previously been.   The last week or so in particular I have been thinking back to my now 22 years experience in education (Note: I include 4 years of teacher training which included regular serial placements) and on how educational technology has evolved during this time.

I remember 1997/98 and introducing a flat LCD panel for use with a conventional overhead projector, to a technology department I was doing my placement in.   The LCD panel sat on top of the old style projector and allowed the images from the computer to be projected in much the same way as a data projector does.   I think the lesson was regarding orthographic projection and I was using a small piece of software I had written in order to show students  the 3 views of a 3 dimensional object.  This was the time when the Archimedes and the BBC B still had a place in schools.

1998 saw one of my first jobs as a qualified teacher morph into something different as I introduced a network to the technology department I was working in, in order to facilitate both file and print sharing.   I think it was Windows 95 if I remember correctly.

1998/1999 brought me away from Scotland and secondary education and saw me start working in Further and Higher education.    The college I worked at was still largely working on Windows 3.1 however during my first year they engaged in the migration to Windows NT.    This was all a major undertaking as everyone had to adapt learning materials and approaches to learning to the new operating system, new software and the overall new user interface.   It was also not without a few technical challenges.

In 2001/02 I took possession of a number of Promethean whiteboards for use in my department while working in a 6th form college.    I don’t remember actually choosing the boards, instead I think they just appeared as was the way at that time.   My initial response at the time was very positive however on reflection I think I was taken in by the “shiny new thing” phenomenon and a certain amount of naivety.    What followed was a period of engagement as my team all sought to use the devices as best we could, accompanied by a lot of lost interactive pens!    My feelings on interactive whiteboards started developing at this point as I started to see limitations.    Today I would class myself as being NOT an advocate of IWBs.

Learning management systems were the subject of the year in 2003 (I think it was 2003!) as we looked at various options before finally adopting Learnwise as the chosen platform.    Since then I have also used Sharepoint, Moodle and a few others and overall I am not a fan of the LMS, VLE or whatever you want to call it.   Or at least I am not a fan where the system is applied to all, as one size does not fit all.

2005/06 saw me take possession of a new set of Xbox 360 devices for the colleges gaming club which had begun just over a year previously using the original xbox gaming systems.   We used the systems as an enrichment activity but also to build interest in games programming and games graphics among other games related IT roles.

At the end of 2008 and start of 2009 I found myself working in a totally new context of schools in the UAE.   Technology availability was minimal with most classrooms lacking any tech at all.   The IT labs included standalone desktops with no network and the schools overall internet connectivity was a domestic connection which had developed into an unstructured network providing internet access, albeit unreliable access, to the school as a whole.    At the time I engaged with schools to try and resolve this situation by putting in place more structured networking as a temporary solution to bridge the gap until the education authority deployed its own IT improvement project across schools.    I was also lucky to get involved in the IT project.

2010/11 saw me working with a school using Intel Classmate laptops which were little notebooks complete with a touch screen and stylus.    These were Intel Atom based units so not exactly fast however this was the start of putting devices into students hands.    I combined the devices with a solution which allowed students to wirelessly send their screens to a projector and even to allow for 4 way split screen which all added to the flexibility.

My first educational blog was created in 2013 although initially it didn’t see much use.   It wasn’t until the following year that I made more significant use of my blog plus a number of other micro blog sites I created for specific training programmes.    It was around the same time that I also started making use of social media including Twitter and Pinterest in particular for my own professional learning.

2014/15 for me was the year of the iPad as finally after many years resisting Apple devices in favour of a more techie Windows or even Linux solution I had to give in and admit the iPad had its place.     This was the year that first saw me singing the praise of the Apple eco-system and the large number of educational apps which were available.

Its interesting reflecting back on how technology has changed over the time I have been working in education.   It is also interesting how the technology differs within different contexts and countries, plus how my own viewpoints and beliefs have been shaped by my experiences.    I wonder what the next 20 years have in store?

BETT 2016…..Some Pre-Event thoughts

The BETT conference is now only two days away.  Now I won’t actually be going on day 1 however I do plan to be visiting with some colleagues on Thursday.    I haven’t attended the BETT conference in over 8 years having been out of the UK for that period of time although I have attended similar events in the UAE including BETT and BFE, before they were discontinued, and then GESS and GEF following that.

As I prepare to visit BETT I would like to summarize some of my predictions and hopes for the event.

Interactive display technology including the humble Interactive Whiteboard is likely to still occupy a significant number of the vendor stands on display.   I am unhappy with this given that IWB technology is now around 25year old however equally I can understand why this might be the case:  IWB technology is interactive plus can be demonstrated without any real preparation and where visitors are not required to have any pre-requisite skills, experience or learning.   In a class this lack of need for pre-requisite skills is useful at the start of the year when students are new however students don’t remain new for very long.

I expect to see a number of content vendors on show selling interactive content designed for various subjects.   Again this is not something I am particularly fond off mainly due to the wealth of free content available on the internet plus the ease with which content can either be created or adjusted by teachers as needed.

I have noticed an increasing number of learning platforms, especially cloud hosted systems, making appearance.   I would suspect this trend will continue at BETT.

I expect to see most vendors offering solutions which are incremental improvements on what they previously have offered.    I accept that this incremental approach may result in improvements although I question the magnitude of the improvements.    I doubt we could consider the improvements to be innovative and it is something innovative I am seeking.   I also question whether rather than seeking to be slightly better we should be seeking to do something different, something creative and to bring about disruptive innovation.

My hope is to see some vendors with something truly creative and original.   I know of one vendor who will be in attendance who will be demonstrating something which at least partially fits my criteria.   They will be demonstrating giant dice like devices which students can sit on but also which students can interact with as part of the lesson, passing and throwing around, answering questions by orientating the dice in various ways.  Student interactions with the devices can then be communicated back to a teacher device via Bluetooth allowing for assessment of learning to take place.    As such learning becomes both a physical and mental activity while providing teachers with data as to student learning.

I observed another example of what I consider innovative at an event in the UAE.   It was a School Management System styled like a social media site with the system making predictions as to what information and users may be useful much in the same way Amazon or similar shopping site predict what other items we may wish to consider buying.   The system also made use of a very visual user interface.   Sadly since the demo I have been unable to locate this solution so either it never went beyond demo stage or it went out of business at some point.     Although the fact it doesn’t exist now is hardly a great selling point, I think the underlying idea had lots of merit and was in a number of ways, innovative.

I hope that BETT will include a number of creative and new solutions for use in learning and that my visit to BETT on Thursday fulfills my expectations!   Only time will tell!!

 

 

“Computers in schools” – My thoughts

A recent BBC article cited an OECD report which seemed to indicate that the use of computers in schools did not have an impact on student outcomes.    The article cited PISA results, comparing the countries with reportedly high usage of computers to those will significantly lower usage of computers within classes.    The evidence as cited showed that the countries with high usage performed worse than those with low usage leading to the banner headline of “Computers ‘do not improve’ pupil results, says OECD”.    Now the first issue I have with this is the total disregard for the massive number of variables which may impact on the results of the study however were not mentioned or discussed within the article.    It may be that socio-economic differences may have influenced results or maybe difference in the prevalent teaching styles and techniques in given countries, or the national or educational culture or climate.      The overall sampling of the student is also of concern.      The study involved examination of results across a wide range of countries and as such only took account of a small number of schools within each country.    As such the chosen schools were considered as representative of the average school in each country however schools differ in such a multitude of different ways resulting from culture, climate, staffing, curriculum, location, local economics, local job market and available finance to name but a few.    Given the above the results are at best are suggestive and the articles headline nothing short of sensationalism.

The article also identified that countries in Asia were inclined to be reluctant adopters of computers use in classrooms while achieving excellent PISA results.    The fact that these specific schools exist within a given geographical location and that this may in fact be related to the high results as opposed to any specific reluctance to adopt technology should have been identified.   Sally Weale in her article suggested that the high PISA scores for schools within Asia may not just be related to specific teaching styles in the region but may relate to the prevalent culture in the region and in schools in the region.     Their study didn’t even make any mention of technology or the slow adoption of technology as a potential factor impacting on high PISA results.

Moving away from the research side of things there is also the issue of what computers are used for in the classroom.    Computers and technology in a wider sense are just tools to be used in the classroom by the teacher much in the same way as a whiteboard, pens and paper.   How they are used depends very much on the teacher.    Some may use it a way that adds value to teaching and learning while others may use it in a way which detracts from the potential learning experience.    So maybe the issue isn’t as simple as looking at technology in isolation but instead should focus more on how technology is used.   Other aspects worthy of consideration include technology professional development and sharing or collaboration among teachers with regards technology usage as each of these may have a significant impact on the success of technology usage.

There is also the issue of why we are educating students however I will only briefly mention that as I suspect it will be a post in itself in the not too distant future.   The BBC article looks at PISA results as the outcome, suggesting that education is all about student results however as a teacher education is about more.   It is about shaping students in adults prepared for the world with the skills and characteristics to survive and thrive in the world they find themselves in beyond school.   No we all know that the world they go to will be very much a technological world beyond the current already technological world we live in.     So how can anyone think that taking technology out of classrooms or banning it from classrooms is a good idea?

 

Sources:

Computers ‘do not improve’ pupil results, says OECD,   Sept 2015, BBC, Sean Coughlan

‘Culture, not just curriculum’, determines east Asian school success, Oct 2014, Guardian, Sally, Weale,

Alternative to an Interactive Whiteboard

On a number of occasions I have made a variety of negative comments about Interactive Whiteboards and the fact that they now represent an old technology yet still seem to take pride of place at conferences such as the GESS event in Dubai every year.   They also seem to be almost a standard item being installed in brand new schools being built in the UAE without any real consideration for the cost and impact.   I suppose 140 interactive whiteboards pale into insignificance when you are building a brand new school for 2000 or 3000 students.     I strongly believe interactive whiteboards have had their day, and in all honesty I don’t believe they ever truly lived up to the hype which surrounded them.   Now despite being very negative towards interactive whiteboards I haven’t made many comments with regards possible alternative ideas and thoughts so I thought it was about time to correct this oversight.   Given below are a couple of items which I would purchase ahead of an interactive whiteboard.

1) Apple TV and an iPad per teacher

Now a lot of schools are going down the road of 1:1 however not every school can afford to implement this and the cost is certainly more than an interactive whiteboard.   Instead schools could provide an iPad for each teacher and classrooms all with a data projector and apple TV.   This will cost less than the interactive whiteboard and provides the teacher with flexibility in that they are no longer tied to the from of the classroom in order to present or in order to get student involvement.    In addition the iPad provides teachers with access to an eco-system filled with useful and interesting Apps for use in teaching and learning plus also provides opportunities to capture individual or group learning and share it with the full class.   This is only scratching the surface of what an iPad and AppleTv can bring to the class.

2) i3Lighthouse

Came across this only recently.   Its a projection device with interactivity however it projects onto the floor rather than a wall.    Students can then interact and manipulate the projected image.   The beauty in this device is it mobility as it can be moved around the classroom unlike a fixed data projector given all it needs is a flat surface to project on.   I can see plenty of opportunities to take one into a sports hall or multi purpose room.    It is also perfect for those younger students including those in foundation stages as the height of display boards even where they are height adjustable is always limiting however with projection being on the floor students can access the whole area of the display.   I also feel that floor projection is more in line with the habits of young children playing in groups sat on the floor and therefore is more suitable that wall based projection.

3) Two Screens

If you are saving money by not purchasing an interactive whiteboard then why not purchase an additional data projector or display screen.   With two screens you can provide the learning materials via one screen and a back channel for students via the other.    For example the second screen could show twitterfontana focussing on a specific hashtag for the subject or group with students encouraged to tweet feedback or questions via the hashtag to the display.    This allows the teacher to identify emerging ideas plus also common misconceptions or difficulties the students are having as the lesson is progressing.    A second screen could also be used to allow students to develop a mind map of concepts, key words, etc as new content is being delivered.    Another option might be to use the second screen to allow student to indicate their confidence in their own understanding of the content being taught possibly using google forms to gather this feedback.

 

Now the above are just three possible ideas which could be used rather than spending money on an interactive whiteboard.   Some people at this point will be wanting to point out the success they have with interactive whiteboards and I am sure they are correct however in general they are expensive and seldom effectively utilized or at least for only a limited period of the year.   If they really are needed then deploy a small number to key areas of the school and save the rest of your money to implement some of the ideas above or similar other ideas.

Another EdTech Conference…..

Just a quick post today as I attended the Digital Education show in Dubai at which there were some excellent guest speakers however they are not the focus of this particular blog entry.    The focus of this blog entry was the educational technology visible on the show floor where various IT vendors hoped to sell schools learning management systems, datashows, interactive whiteboards, student voting systems, learning content and all manner of other tech.   IT vendors must hope that schools are in search of something that will impact on their school, and that they will wander around the stands of edtech in search of that something.    I saw demonstration after demonstration of flashy functionality or capability, of various hardware and/or software solutions

The issue is that the purchasing of edtech will not bring about improvements as tech is nothing more than a tool.   It relies on the person wielding the tool and it relies on the purpose to which the tool is being applied.    So if the purchasing of tech is on the basis of the tech and what it can do as according to the expert demonstrator, without consideration for who the users are and the purpose for which they are using the tech, then it is doomed to have only limited success at best.

Schools need to look towards the purpose of tech use.   What do they hope to achieve with tech?   What will tech use look like in their specific classrooms with their specific students?    How will tech impact on students and learning?    What constraints on tech use exist in their school?   How will the adoption of tech by staff be encouraged and supported?    How will tech use be supported and maintained over time?

In addition to schools rethinking their approach to tech maybe vendors need to relook at their approach as well and instead of showing what their tech can do, focus on showing off the purpose of their tech and the impact it can have on schools.

GESS/GEF, Dubai, 2014

OK so a year has passed and once again I find myself back at the GESS/GEF Conference in Dubai.    Again I have taken a wander around the event and the various hardware, software and service vendors with stands at the event.   My hope was that something would stand out or at least I would see progression from the stands available last year (You can see my post resulting from last years GESS/GEF conference here).

Walking around I saw some very interesting stands providing quite specialist engineering equipment such as pneumatics equipment for students studying technology, or robotics equipment.    There were also specialist stands for those seeking furniture, uniform or manipulatives for use with younger children.   Now I suspect last year these stands were at the conference however I myself failed to notice or pay much attention to them.    This year I paid a little more attention.

So, to the more common stands……..and yes, once again Interactive Whiteboards were very predominant.     There were a mixture of fixed boards and datashows, datashows with integrated IWB capabilities, as well as touch screen displays.      Vendors demonstrated the various “unique” features of their software;  One vendor showed how the display could be split into 4, so that 4 students could interact with the display at once, with each students contributions individually coloured.   Despite all the “unique” features of each vendors offering I could not help but see an IWB as being nothing more than an IWB; a technology created over 20 years ago, which is fixed in place almost always at the “front” (Why does a learning space have to have a front?    Does the teacher really need a desk as the centre of classroom attention?   Should an IWB be the focus of attention?   Or should the space be about learners and learning, changing as required?)  of the class and can be interacted with by only a small number of students at a time.   Also, after over 20 years, these devices still remain relatively expensive.    Why is this technology still so popular and why isn’t it seen as old technology?

The other thing that was quite common at the conference was media rich content.    A number of companies were providing their answer to where schools can find content to engage learners.   Now some of this seemed ok especially where the content was designed for younger students and as such was very graphical and simple in nature in order to appeal to younger children.    I could see this content working across most schools assuming it is multilingual or in the language of the school it is aimed at.   However I questioned the materials available for older age students;  Why would I pay for content when I can easily find content on the web through YouTube and a multitude of other websites.   I can have students develop their own content using a number of applications or can even develop my own materials as the teacher, such as where I intend to use the flipped classroom model.       How often am I going to use the content I purchase and is it worth the cost given this?

Now you may be reading this and thinking I have a very negative view of GESS/GEF; I don’t.    The conference had some very good presentations, and I only visited on day 1.    I am sure this will continue to be the case of days 2 and 3.   The fact that vendors at the show seem to focus on IWBs and also generic content meant to fit all schools, is a concern.     So what is the solution…….I am not sure at this point, although I suspect it will be different for each school.   I think it relies on dynamic content created by teachers and students to match the needs of students and learning, as they/it changes from day to day, week to week and year to year.

Maybe GESS/GEF 2015 will include a vendor with a solution.   We will need to wait and see!

iPads in Education: 2010s Answer to the IWB

Over the last 2 days I have had the opportunity of attending the GESS and GEF conferences where a number of speakers have presented their ideas and thoughts at to the integration of technology into learning and teaching.

As I was walking away from the conference venue I noticed the number of exhibitors using iPads to show off their software, apps, hardware, etc.   It then dawned on me that over the 2 days I had heard an unusual number of the speakers outlining the benefits of iPads in learning.    iPads had clearly made their mark on the conference yet thinking back to the presentations on the “benefits” of using these devices, all I could remember was anecdotal comments on the benefits or results from student satisfaction surveys.    Now I do believe that there are specific positive applications and uses for iPads however the generalised “benefits” provided did not strike me as being significant evidence as to the impact or “benefit” of using iPads.    The lack of evidence is made all the more stiking when you consider the costs of the devices, associated infrastructure, training, etc.     It was at this point I suddenly remembered another device which was heralded as having significant impact on learners without ever producing much in the way of solid evidence……

It was in the 1990’s that the Interactive Whiteboard first made its appearance.   The 90s and even 00’s were filled with advances in software and hardware, and claims of engaging learners and impacting on learning, yet little solid evidence exists as to the general impact of IWBs on learning.   Yes, I will admit some specific studies exist for a given subject, in a given school, with certain students, however these studies are that narrow in focus, that it is not appropriate to consider their positive results as an indcation of the impact of IWBs in learning in general.   So over 20 years later and after so much fanfare and there is still limited evidence as to the benefits of IWBs on learning in general.     Even stranger still is the fact that shows like GESS continue to feature such a large number of IWB providers.

So could it be that the iPad is the IWB of 2010s?    Promising so much, but delivering very little.   Even less when you consider the cost, or “Added Value”.