Keeping students safe in a world of technology, and where students are spending increasing time engaging with technology, and even learning via technology, is very important. As I have written in the past, this is also becoming increasingly difficult. Back in March 2021 I wrote about how internet filtering, something that was easy when I started out on my teaching career, is now far from easy and verging on no longer possible (Internet Filtering, March 2021). As such, I suggested that internet filtering can now no longer be considered as a distinct action schools should take in terms of safeguarding, instead needing to be treated as one part of a larger process encompassing a number of stakeholders and actions, all taking within a risk management, rather than compliance framework.
In June I re-emphasised the above in my post, Keeping students safe in a digital world. This time my focus was on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and the implication of students being exposed to TV marketing on the use of VPNs to maintain privacy. My concern was that this would drive some students to using free VPNs where the safety and security of data may not be as certain as the apps suggest. It would also serve to make it more difficult for schools to monitor student online activity in the interests of safeguarding.
Since the above June post Apple have held their Developer Conference. Apple, like a number of other device or software vendors are being very “privacy” focussed following recent high publicised incidents around the privacy of user data and some very well known services. With this, Apple decided to announce iCloud+ and their Private Relay functionality built into the iOS and providing VPN like functionality when browsing within Safari. This means “baked in” VPN functionality provided at the operating system level, on Apple Devices such as the iPad which are widely used in schools. Yet another challenge for online safety. Private Relay, a great facility for privacy but yet another blow for school IT and safeguarding teams seeking to keep students safe online. Now my hope is that there will be some ability to control this functionality using a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution however for now this isnt possible, and I suspect it may only be possible on “supervised” devices rather than on Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Apple devices. Only time will tell.
I often refer to a continuum, when speaking to sixth form students, existing between individual privacy on one side and public good and safeguarding as items on the other side. So for schools this is the privacy of the individual student versus the schools responsibility to keep students safe, and therefore to monitor and filter online activity. Currently the pendulum continues to move further towards the individual privacy side. I wonder if this will continue or if we will eventually see some balance restored. I also wonder whether, given the increasing ineffectiveness of the technical measures schools can put in place, do the guidelines in relation to safeguarding students online need to be re-examined.
Schools and colleges need to focus their available funds on teaching and learning, and in the students within their care. As such it can be difficult to justify significant spending on cyber security. Investing in cyber security is investing in preventing the possibility, a chance, of a cyber incident occurring. The challenge therefore is establishing a way to frame the costs in order to identify what represents good value.
Cyber security is all about risk management. Every risk has a probability of occurring. This might be a 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1 million. This is where the difficulties in justifying spending on cyber security arise. For the last 10 years an institution may not have suffered any significant incidents. As such how can the head of their IT justify spending an additional £4000 or £5000 per annum on cyber security? We are working from the point that it is more likely an incident wont happen that it will. Viewed from the point of view of past experience, the institution has been fine for 10 years, with the probability of an incident assumed to remaining roughly the same, so is likely to be fine in the next 10 years, excepting for this small probability. So, stay as is or spend £40,000 – £50,000 over 10 years to provide additional protection just in case? Viewed from this point it may be difficult to justify the spend especially if the overall budget for the school is low.
Let’s take a more mathematical approach to the problem; If we take approximately 25,000 schools in the UK where I am aware of around 20-25 which have experienced cyber incident this year. Let’s assume I am aware of only a small number of the schools which actually experience incidents, say 10%. So, lefts take a probability of 250 incidents per 25,000 schools or 1 in 100. At this point rather than looking at the chance of an incident occurring, we are assuming that an incident is guaranteed to occur within a given period. Taking this probability, in 100 years, every school in the UK would likely have been hit. If hit, let’s make an assumption that the cost would be £250,000 to recover (this is very much a guess figure and would be dependent very much on the size of the school, its type, complexity, infrastructure, etc). Taking the probability of 1 hit every 100 years, with each hit costing £250,000, this means the approximate annual equivalent cost would be £2500 per annum. The cost for the additional protection is looking a little better at this point. All it would take is for the recovery costs to grow to £400,000 or for the probability of a hit to increase to 1 in 62.5 rather than 1 in 100 schools.
For me the key things is to move from a position of looking at the chance on an incident happening, where we assume it is more likely an incident wont occur and moving to a position of “not if but when.” At this point we are accepting an incident is guaranteed to occur within a given time period, but we just don’t know when. With this viewpoint we can start to make a more reasoned judgement on costs. We can also factor in the schools risk appetitive, with a school with a high risk appetite likely to choose to underestimate the probability of an incident while one with a low appetite for risk likely to overestimate.
We very much need to reframe how cyber risk and cyber security investment is looked at. Hopefully the above presents at least one possible way to do this in an easy but yet meaningful way.
It is becoming increasing challenging for schools to keep students safe in a digital world. This is largely due to the easy with which students can make use of solutions designed with privacy in mind. These technologies weren’t designed with the safeguarding needs of schools in mind. As a result, I believe we need to be increasingly pragmatic about our approach.
One big factor in keeping students safe relates to whether the devices being used belong to the students and their parents or belong to the school. Where they belong to the school there is greater potential to use technology solutions to help keep students safe, however these same solutions can easily be circumvented or removed where the devices belong to the students, e.g. where a Bring Your Own Device scheme is in place. Personally, I suspect we will only see BYOD growing in terms of how common it is in schools. It is also important to note that students will bring their own devices to school irrespective, likely in the form of personal mobile phones, therefore protections in place of school issued devices are rather limited in their effect given students can simply switch to their personal mobile phone should they not wish to be filtered or monitored.
The big reason for writing this post comes following reading a post where it recommended advising students to make use of VPNs in order to keep their communications safe and secure. From a cyber security point of view I can understand this. Using a VPN will stop someone snooping on my personal data in transit. When thinking about it a bit more broadly however I think it would be a bad idea. Firstly, it would hamper school filtering and monitoring, which is in place largely for safeguarding reasons. Also, although there are very good VPNs available, these tend to be paid services. Parents and students are unlikely to want or possibly even be able to afford to spend money on these services, which will therefore push them towards the various free VPNs which appear so readily available. These free VPNs may either be fully malicious in nature, not being a VPN at all or may be gathering and selling user data. Either way I am not sure if the cure, in a free VPN, is any better than the risk.
I think schools must now look to tackle safeguarding in a digital world in a more holistic way. Its not down to the safeguarding and pastoral team to define filtering of sites, or access times for students, nor is it down to the IT dept. to make sure firewalls and filtering are in place. It needs to be a collective approach where all involved discuss the risks and what they have in place, and what they can put in place going forward. Within this, I continue to believe the principle focus needs to be on awareness rather than seeking technology solutions, ensuring students, teachers and parents are all aware of the benefits and risks of technology use, plus aware of how to keep themselves safe and secure online.
As privacy online continues to grow in focus, and as technology companies increasing bake privacy and security into their solutions, the act of keep students safe in a digital world will only continue to become more challenging.
Following on from my previous post regarding Teacher Assessed Grades (TAG) and cyber security, in my first post I focused on mitigation measures around avoiding possible data loss. In this post I would like to focus on the integrity of data rather than possible loss.
Accidental changes made by users with access
Deliberate changes made by users not authorised to make changes, such as students.
The are a couple of issues which could impact on the integrity of TAG data:
Dealing with these issues relies on a number of basic principles which ideally should already be in place.
Least Privilege Access
This refers to simply minimising the users which have access, including minimising those users who have write access over those with read only access. By limiting the permission level provided you therefore limit the users who may accidentally or deliberately make unauthorised changes and reduce the risk as a result.
Linked to the above it is important to fully understand which users have access to which data/systems, with this being routinely reviewed and adjusted to accommodate for staffing changes, role changes, etc.
A checking process
It is likely you will have a process for gathering the data, with this data then reviewed by Heads of Department before eventually going to Senior Leaders then the exam boards themselves. It is also important to have a review process to check that unauthorised changes havent occurred along the way and that the integrity of data is retained across the whole process, from collection to eventually supply to the exam boards.
Audit Trails
If we assume, that there is a reasonable likelihood of an accidental or deliberate unauthorised change, the next thing we need to be able to do is to is identify such changes including the user who performed them, and the changes they made. It is therefore important to consider if the solution we use to store our TAG data has the relevant audit capabilities, whether it is using the audit logs in your Management Information System (MIS) or version history in either Google Workspaces or Office 365.
Conclusion
Generally, when considering cyber security, the important thing is to identify the risks and then identify and employ appropriate mitigation measures. There is seldom a “solution” in terms of a product or configuration or setup which is perfect, however there is a solution appropriate to your context, your organisations view as to risk and risk appetite.
It is also important to note that the best approach is a layered approach. In this and my last post I havent mentioned the use of storage arrays, mirroring of servers and other approaches aimed at either ensuring business continuity or making recovery quick and hopefully easy. Although these options add to the complexity of the possible approaches, the key is once again to assess the risks in your school’s situation and context, and deploy the solutions which you believe best address these risks within the framework of a risk management strategy.
As schools gather their Teacher Assessed Grades (TAGs; We do like a good acronym in education) it got me thinking about cyber security.
The two potential key issues I see in relation to TAGs are:
Loss of access: So, this could be deletion, ransomware or some other issue which means the school doesn’t have access to these important grades and therefore is unable to provide them to the relevant exam boards.
Manipulation of grades: This would be an individual, internal, or external, gaining access to the grade information and manipulating it either for someone benefit or simply to cause mischief.
For this post, lets focus on loss of access: So, what measures can a school take?
The key mitigation measure for loss of access is backup. We need to ensure a backup is kept separate to the main systems on which the data is stored. So, if the data is being stored in the schools Management Information Systems (MIS) then ideally there should be an exported copy stored in Office 365. By keeping it in a separate system, we hopefully avoid any potential issues which might result from a significant problem with the MIS followed by issues recovering the MIS from its own backup. As our data backup is in a separate system, we would be able to deal with this scenario.
Ideally, we also want to keep copies geographically separate, so maybe stored on a separate site or using a cloud-based solution. We may also choose to use a removable media solution to “airgap” our backup.
The key thing for me is that there is no one single solution. You need to consider the risk, the available mitigation options, and their cost, in terms of financial costs, time, staffing, difficulty/complexity, etc. and then decide what works for your school. For example, removable media may help in terms of air gaping our backups, but it also would incur costs in terms of time to remove, replace and store the tapes/drives in use. If staff is limited this may therefore me a less appealing option. It is also about avoiding reliance on a single process/solution. So, having tape backup as a single solution is unlikely to be sufficient. You should be layering the various backup options to arrive at a solution which is appropriate to your resources, your data, your finances, etc. while reducing the risk of any single point of failure.
The other point I think is important to make regarding backups is the need to test them. All too often the only time backups are tested is at the point when recovery is required due to an incident. It is at this point that we can least afford backups to fail. As such it is important to test backups to make sure they work as they should, that you are aware of the processes and aware of any potential pitfalls. By doing so, you can be reasonably assured that when you truly and urgently need them you will know what do to and can be confident in the likely success of recovery processes.
Coming up with your school’s solution to backup doesn’t need to be complex. It is about considering different scenarios and the mitigation options and then identifying what is right for your school based on its needs and its appetite to risk. As I have often commented, it is all about risk management.
Following on from my last post I thought I would have another go at an EdTech graphic but this time focussing fully on the forgotten technologies.
Some are forgotten, but can be found in a dusty cupboard, and when you come upon them you positively reflect on their impact. For me the BBC B micro is one of these forgotten items, which, had it not existed, I am not sure I would have become so interested and motivated by technology.
Some are forgotten for the best. These are the technologies which came and went, possibly with some fanfare by sales people on their arrival, but little more than a whimper as they disappeared from use having had little impact on learning but having costs schools a pretty penny.In some cases these were technologies which were good but just didnt catch on. In other cases these were flashy objects with limited use but high cost. The voting buttons which some Interactive Whiteboard manufacturers flogged is just one example.
And lastly, there are the technologies which personally I wish were forgotten but for now seem determined to stay around. These are the technologies where I am not convinced to the impact, but where the cost seems clear, and therefore the value is doubtful. For me the dreaded interactive whiteboard, that 20+ year old bit of technology, fits this category.
I wonder how this graphic might look 10years from now?
Further to my last post I thought I would try and encapsulate the technologies which I have experienced, and which come to mind in relation to my time working in schools, in a graphic. The below is what I came up with:
Now I know I have missed some key technologies such as the BBC B however my experience of this was as a student rather than a teacher or someone working in schools, hence why I didnt include it. Given this I may expand this graphic in the future.
But for now, considering the late 1990s, the 2000s, 2010s and early 2020s, is there anything I have missed?
My last post looked forwards, considering what next, so it seemed natural to also do a little bit of reflection. I have now been involved in schools, including my teacher training, for around 26years. In that time I have seen a number of technology items come and go.
1990s
I went through my teacher training in the mid-90s working as a “technology” teacher in departments where craft and design was still the most significant part of the taught curriculum. Overhead projectors were still widely in use as were the traditional chalk whiteboard. I remember on many occasions arriving home to find the left hand side of my suit covered in chalk dust from where I had brushed the board while writing on it.
During my teacher training, I took a laptop and LCD panel into a school I was attending as a trainee teacher; The panel was basically an LCD matrix, which fitted over a conventional OHP, allowing the OHP to provide the light which then projected the LCD image onto a wall or pull down screen. I was using the unit to display a little 3D animation I had created for a lesson on orthographic projection. The hope was the little animation of a 3D object would help students visualise the 3, 2D projection planes. For me this panel was the precursor for the common data projector now seen in classrooms everywhere.
2000s
The start of the 2000s saw me now teaching Computing/IT in an FE college. Data projectors were now much more common, and from what I can remember, were available in each of the Computing/IT classrooms. It was at this point the Interactive Whiteboard seemed to start to make an appearance. My first experience was of Promethean whiteboards and the often lost pen which came with them, an expensive item for schools given the loss rate. I need to admit to being quite eager in the use of IWBs back then; They were an infrastructure item which was dealt with by the IT Services department so all I saw was their potential, and not the cost; Who would fail to be positive about a new technology item with an apparent zero cost. It would be later in my career where I started to consider cost vs. benefit of IWBs and develop a less than positive view of them.
Around the same time there was a big push on all schools and colleges having a virtual learning environment. Again, I was positive about the potential at that time. I didn’t fully appreciate the amount of time that would be taken creating and keeping content up to date, plus the tendency for VLEs to simply end up as a dumping ground for worksheets. I will however note, the VLE did start to push the boundaries in terms of where learning could take place, suddenly allowing students to access learning resources provided by their teachers at any time and in any place, or at least any place with internet access.
Laptops for teachers came and went during this period. It was great when the funding was available as schools bought their staff nice new laptops which helped in preparing resources, marking, record keeping, etc. The issue was to come 3 or 4 years later as laptops reached the end of their lifespan yet the funding to replace them no longer existed.
Gaming was also something I got involved in back in the 2000s, introducing cross college gaming competitions initially using some Xboxes, then Xbox 360’s and latterly on PCs with the Halo series of games being particularly popular. As I returned to secondary education, my teachers desk drawer hid a PlayStation 2, connected to my classroom projector, while most of the PCs had a number of strategy games such as Age of Empire on them for LAN gaming after school hours.
It was at this time I made an attempt at paperless assessment. As a visiting moderator I was astounded at the amount of paper I was presented with when moderator the BTec IT qualifications so set myself the challenge of presenting our moderator all of the evidence electronically rather than as printed copies. It did take a bit of explaining to the moderator, who like me normally would be presented by reems and reems of printed copy yet was now just presented with a CD-Rom and a PC.
2010s
The start of the 2010s saw me in the Middle East where some schools which hadnt embraced technology yet while others were in similar situations to schools in the UK. Those schools which hadnt embraced technology might have IT labs but these were often not networked and were without internet access. The schools themselves often only had a basic domestic internet service available in a limited number of areas and there were certainly no PCs or data projectors in the average classroom. For these schools, heavy investment would see the basic infrastructure put in quite quickly with training quickly following.
In the schools where technology had been embraced, the 2010’s saw the start of discussions around 1:1 devices with the iPad being a particularly favoured device. Students could now enjoy the power of technology to communicate, to collaborate, to problem solve and to be creative in their lessons, all supported by their own individual bit of technology.
Cloud based productivity suites also made their appearance in the 2010s with Google Classroom being a favourite. I myself made use of the Google suite of apps in a number of schools although when I returned to the UK in the middle of the 2010’s I then switched to the competing solution provided by Microsoft in Office 365. Office 365 quickly developed to catch up with Google, who stole the initial march in this area, with the launch of Microsoft Teams being a key moment in the development and use of Office 365 in schools and colleges.
The flipped classroom idea made an appearance; So, teachers using technology so students can do the learning at home, and then practice it in class with their teachers, rather than learning in school and practising, through homework, at home.
2020s
Its early days. A pandemic has accelerated the use of technology in schools but also highlighted the issues such as a lack of general investment in infrastructure, devices and in professional development around technology use in schools. I have already posted some thoughts for what might come next in this decade however additionally I think its worth mentioning esports and Virtual Reality. I see esports as a key area of growth in the years ahead with Virtual Reality also showing some very clear potential although I do worry that VR may go the way of the 3D projector, and be something which doesn’t quite live up to the hype or mainstream use.
Conclusion
Its interesting looking back. When I think of each decade I have clear memories of the technologies which were becoming common or trending in education. I suspect there are other technologies which I have missed from my post but these are the ones which stuck out in my memory. I also note, that maybe as I have got older I have became a bit more balanced on my views as to new technologies, whereas when I was younger my eagerness may have got the better of me.
Or maybe I am just becoming a little more cynical when speaking with Technology salespeople?
The last year has seen schools and other educational establishments jump forward in their use of technology. Note, I say Technology rather than EdTech as I think EdTech represents a narrower, and often slightly biased view on the technology actually in use in education. The question I now find myself with, when thinking about technology strategy, is where next?
The last year saw 1:1 devices, whether school issued or bring your own, grow massively as schools sought to continue learning despite students being at home. It also saw a massive jump towards cloud platforms including Office 365, Google Workspace for education (I think that’s what its now called!), Showbie and many more. Additionally, video, either pre-recorded or live, became a key part of lessons. Some of these things are now very much hear to stay or at the very least will be significantly more common than they were prior to the pandemic.
But what comes next? What are the next jumps forward?
I decided to give this some thought and try to do a little future gazing. I will acknowledge one thing the last year has taught me, and that is that we cant accurately predict very far into the future; Who predicted 2020 would start with a pandemic? But that said, I think it is important to look forward and at least try and imagine where we might be going.
Learning anywhere, anytime
The pandemic saw creation of massive amounts of learning content largely in the format of videos. There is an increasing amount of learning content which students can access independently both available on the internet, but also within their own schools learning platforms. The pandemic has shown us that learning can take place outside the classroom. As a result I think we will start to see more of this learning anywhere and anytime although possibly it will start of with a growing number of students being directed to, or self-engaging in, such content rather than a momentous shift of learning in general. Maybe we will see the revenge of the MOOC, but maybe not in the same format/shape as in 2012 when the fanfare of MOOCs never quite came to all that they promised. Or maybe we will just see the continued creation of free to access learning content, by educators across the world followed by the curation of such content ready for teachers and students to access as needed. Another possibility might be an increasing in the number of virtual schools. There are certainly a number of options as to how learning anywhere, anytime might progress.
Micro Credentials
Linked to the above, we will likely see students potentially engaging in learning broader than the taught curriculum, but maybe only dipping in and out of subjects or topics of interest at a given moment in time. I think there is the potential for this to reignite the need for micro digital credentials or badges; A way for smaller units of study, much smaller than a traditional GCSE or A-Level, to be recognised with some sort of digital badge. Now, I note that digital badges have been around for some time, however I think the current situation may see them become a subject of discussion, development and greater use. I myself am already looking to make use of digital badges with at least one programmes run in my school.
AI (Artificial intelligence) and ML (Machine Learning)
AI and ML are already in use in schools, in the automatic transcripts created from Teams meetings, in our grammar and spellchecker and in a number of other almost transparent ways. We have also seen the growth in educational products which allegedly use AI or ML, however often in my view this is just these terms being used as buzzwords as opposed to products actually using AI or ML. This is something we need to challenge by asking vendors to explain how their product uses AI or ML. Going forward though, I think we will see increasing applications of AI and ML to teaching and learning, to assessment and to drawing conclusions from the massive wealth of data which schools routinely produce. I see the use of AI and ML in identifying patterns and correlations in school data which will allow teachers to be more responsive to our learners and their learning. The potential is significant however I believe it needs to be led by schools/colleges rather than the tech vendors seeking to sell the next big thing. I therefore think we need more projects like that at Bolton College and all the work the have done on Ada, their student assistant.
Conclusion
The three items above, learning anytime anywhere, micro credentials and AI/ML are the three areas I can see growing in the next five years. There are other areas such as virtual or augmented reality which I also see scope for growth, however the three areas mentioned are the ones I see to be more likely to see significant progress. It is always very difficult to predict the future, and even more so when it comes to technology, however I wonder if in five years’ time I will look back on this post and prove to be correct? Or maybe I will be miles off the mark.
I previously wrote a post on developing confidence in the use of technology within teachers. I therefore thought it would be appropriate to turn my attention to the issue of building student confidence.
One of the challenges with student confidence in the use of technology is possibly the outwardly perception they convey of being highly confident and competent. They naturally seem to swipe ands scroll through different apps, taking on new apps as they arise. This may be the reason that the idea of students as “digital natives” seemed to ring true; It just seems to superficially fit the situation and the appearance students convey. The issue here is that it simply isnt, in my view, true.
One of the first things to pull out is student engagement with social media. Social media apps are designed to be easy to use and are designed to grab and keep user attention. As such it isnt that difficult to become familiar and comfortable with using social media apps, and then to spend many hours swiping and scrolling through their content. The apps are designed this way, to be easy to use and to, dare I say it, be addictive. As students likely spend a fair amount of their time on such apps, and as our perception of them as confident may partly come from observing them on such apps, we need to rethink our view as to how confident they really are.
In discussing Digital Citizenship with students, the one thing which has often surprised me is students lack awareness of, and even lack concern, relating to the implications of their social media app usage. Students are not fully aware of the extent of the data being mined about them through their continued use of apps. And even when made aware, they express apathy; All our friends are on the apps, so we need to use the app. What really can we do in relation to the data being gathered about us? This for me is a very big challenge and one which I don’t have the answer for. I too find social media useful to stay in touch, share ideas, etc, but am concious of the data being mined from my interactions. Am I going to stop using social media to stop the mining of data? I think not, however I think the key here is being concious and aware of the fact that data is being gathered, and then making balanced and informed decisions. I choose to use social media as the gain in the ability to stay in touch and to share ideas and collaborate with others outweighs the risk associated with the data being gathered. Aware of the risk though I sometimes choose not to share some things on social media.
Thinking about being confident always reminds me of the concept of mastery and the need for 10,000 hours of practice. I feel confident in the use of technology however I am certainly way beyond the 10,000 hours. If we want students to be confident with technology use we need them to be using it but not just for social media engagement, which as I mentioned previously has been designed to be easy. We need students using technology in different contexts ideally across the curriculum. If students are using technology to explore concepts, to collaborate on projects, to present ideas, etc, and they are using it in Maths, in English and across the curriculum, there is a far greater chance of them developing the necessary confidence. Linked to this though is teacher confidence, in being able to support the students in lesson, set learning activities suited to the use of technology and even facilitate students to support each other.
When thinking about student confidence in using technology my focus is on technology as a tool. My focus is therefore on knowing what technology tools are available, what they do and the benefits or drawbacks from their use in different situations/contexts. This generally draws the question of teaching about technology within the context of subjects across the curriculum, or as a discrete subject, another of the binary arguments all too common on social media. For me the answer isnt binary, one or other, but to treat these two standpoints as either end of a continuum with the answer lying somewhere in between. For me it is important for students to see technology being used, and to be supported to use technology within different contexts however it is also important for students to learn about the general tools and the implications of using technology tools. As such it is my view that we need to both have cross curricular use of technology combined with some discrete teaching about technology and digital citizenship.
I find students in schools are less afraid of things going wrong using technology than their adult counterparts, and therefore they are happy to try new apps and tools as needed. They are also less concerned about using a wide range of tools. This is both a benefit and a risk; It means students are less afraid of change in relation to how the tools they use work or in the tools they are expected to use, however it also means they are likely to create a larger digital footprint, plus less likely to consider data protection and cyber security. Their lack of fear though shouldn’t be confused as confidence; They are willing to try tools but this doesn’t mean that they know how to apply them effectively to a particular problem. This is one of the things schools need to address, in ensuring students know which tools to use and when, how to use and how not to use them, which tools go together and which don’t and overall how to be effective in their use of technology. It is important we harness their lack of fear and explore how they can positively use technology to enable their needs and interests. We also need to ensure they are able to make educated and informed decisions as to their technology use, so as to manage the risks which may exist.
Technology, in my view, doesn’t scare our students so they are largely willing to try, but what we really need is for them to be sure of their ability to use technology tools well, plus to have the relevant skills and experience. We need them to be competent and confident.
Technology and Learning