Now the event started with my usual travel woes and my second train being cancelled leaving me looking for a plan B to get to London.   Am not sure why these things keep happening to me;  Is it bad luck, karma or simply a less than resilient rail network operating in the southwest of England?   I suspect there is a bit of everything thrown in.   Thankfully I managed to find an alternative route and made my way to London, and I will admit using the Lizzy line meant that I wasn’t too badly delayed when compared with previously using the tube and DLR.  

So the hosted leaders event before the main event was fun speaking with a variety of different people outside of my usual EdTech crowd including a head from a school abroad, a school SENCO, a school business manager and someone representing a teachers union.  Additionally there was some brilliant music from two students showing off how important the creative arts are.   

As to the event itself I have a fair few meetings with vendors in the diary with these being useful and giving me things to take away from the event.   This included an impromptu discussion with a company providing a managed telephone service aimed at children, looking to help address the challenge of students with smart devices and keeping them safe.   I also met with a well-known interactive whiteboard provider as to some of their recent developments.    Additionally, as I walked the show floor I bumped into people resulting in discussions, often also meaning I was less than timely in my attendance at my scheduled meetings;  To those I turned up too late, I do apologise.

There were also the usual presentations and panels, although this time I didn’t manage to attend as many of these as I had hoped although I did manage to attend a great session towards the start of the day including both Gemma Gwillam and Neelam Parmar.     One session I was annoyed I missed was the session on AI including Sir Anthony Seldon.   Oh, and then there was the panel session I was involved in, and speaking at myself, looking at phones in schools and whether we should seek to ban them.   I will write more on this session and my thoughts in the near future.    It was interesting on reflection that as a panel we were generally in agreement as to the direction of travel in the need to manage phones rather than ban, and also on the importance of education of students and of parents.  The fact the “ban phones” discussion keeps coming up is frustrating given how long it has been discussed however the panel, in my opinion, seemed to show that progress has been made and that many are adopting a more pragmatic and context-driven approach rather than a blanket ban;  This for me is good news.    I will however note that I am not sure if a panel who are all in agreement is a good thing, or maybe we are an echo chamber?   And maybe this is exactly the challenge facing our children, and more broadly society, is the balance between binary arguments and polarisation, and echo chambers and constant reinforcement of current viewpoints.   How do we reach balance?  The chair did try to stir things up by asking what we would do if research did establish a negative causal effect of smartphones on learning, however in the social sciences I think proving such a causal link is nearly impossible as there are simply too many variables at play.

One thing that made this event stand out for me was the DFG (Digital Futures Group) and being involved in the Schools and Academic Show alongside such valued colleagues as Gemma Gwilliam, James Garnett, Darren White and Abid Patel.   The Schools and Academies Show actually saw the DFG officially announce our launch and I look forward to some exciting times ahead with the group and in the lead up to the EduTech Europe event later in the year.   

Also, it was great to catch up with the team from the ANME as well although I did not spend as much time with them and on the ANME stand as I would have liked.   As a group they continue to offer the IT staff in schools and colleges a source of support, help and guidance which is all the more important as technology use increases and given the challenges associated with IT roles which often operate invisibly to the school except when things are going wrong.

In terms of both the DFG and ANME, the quote I so often use, from David Weinberger, is “the smartest person in the room is the room”, and the DFG and the ANME mean I benefit from being part of a very big room, and hopefully am all the better for it.

And if I am looking at the bucket list then this is the first conference I have ever been thrown out off!   And no it wasn’t due to poor behaviour, or controversial views or similar but due to the fact myself and others were so engaged in discussion post-event that the security staff felt the need to (rudely) force us to leave.   Apparently there were issues with public liability as we stood continuing our discussions.

Oh and also I temporarily found myself drink an orange substance that wasn’t the amber nectar, the Irn Bru.  The photo of me during the panel sessions provides evidence of this although the app for the event listed me twice so maybe the non-Bru drinking Gary was actually a doppelganger.    It was a shock to the system but I promise all that normal service was promptly resumed and upon returning home I will drink many cans of the Bru to clear my system of the non-Bru liquid!

So, I write this on the train heading back to somerset, and a three hour trip, all being well which with me is far from guaranteed.  (additional note:   On the return leg, my second train looked like it was going to be cancelled however did turn up just a little late;  that had me worried as the following train wasn’t until 1hr later and it was already 930pm).   So onwards to my next set of events, and what has so far been a very busy 2024;  Better busy than bored, plus sharing and networking continue to enrich my professional development way beyond any CPD course I have ever attended.   

Maybe the DFG and ANME are the model more people should adopt in forming groups, sharing, collaborating and growing together, across different educational sectors and contexts.

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.