16 September 2017

Radioactive Overreactions

Yes iPads emit radiation; as do we all...

From time to time certain pernicious myths emerge from the depths of the internet, like this video that resurfaces periodically. The net result is usually the creation of considerable stress for loving parents who dread to think that there is even a vague  possibility that the devices that they and their children use everyday could possibly be harmful.

Some helpful facts...


Screen time

The actual percentage of the school day students use these devices is relatively small. They certainly never use the devices in close proximity to their heads, which is the basis of the research that makes claims about damaging radiation from mobile devices, and the models of iPads that schools use do not contain mobile SIMs that generate GSM frequencies.

Airplane Mode

Asking for Airplane mode to be activated is not a practical solution. Aside from the fact that most schools use MDM (Mobile Device Management) systems that rely on wireless connectivity to manage and monitor these devices, as well as to share student learning with parents via platforms like Seesaw; disabling WiFi on one device will not mitigate the issue when there are 10-20 other devices in the room emitting the same frequencies and, more to the point, when there are (harmless) wireless signals being bounced all round the room all day, all around the college and indeed all over the planet every day.

Radiation

Do iPads emit radiation? Yes. But a radiation is no more intrinsically harmful than your body heat, which is also a form of radiation. The comparisons in the video made between the radiation emitted by a phone, and that emitted by a microwave are, quite frankly, ridiculous, like comparing body heat to a blast furnace. Wi-Fi signals use very low intensity radio waves. Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation, the intensity of Wi-Fi radiation is 100,000 times less than that of a domestic microwave oven. So if you encounter someone who talks about both as if they are the same should give you good reason to be suspicious of everything else they say as well... The amount emitted by a an iPad is millions of times less than the amount of radiation you are exposed to through natural sources such as going outdoors in daylight hours.

1:1 does not = increased use

A common misconception is that the provision of a device increased the amount of time our kids spend using a device, this is not why we use 1:1, we use 1:1 so it is easier to manage student content, and so students don't accidentally delete the work of other students, for more about this, please see my other post.


As a college we understand why parents who having heard rumours have concerns about the potential effects of microwave radiation from mobile devices such as iPads. A parent's concern for their children's welfare is of course understandable, but please rest assured that the College also puts the children's welfare foremost in all its decision making.

Radiation from Mobile Devices

When looking at any health or safety issue we do need to make a decision about where we gather our data from. In this day and age it is an easy process for an individual to present a specific viewpoint and to easily spread that message via the Internet. Once this message goes viral, as messages like this are prone to do, bear in mind the advertising revenue and free publicity generated are a motivating factor.

As an example of how individual sources can easily contradict each other, consider this Forbes article for an alternative viewpoint, and this article from “Wired Science” with a similar viewpoint.

22 October 2016

1:1 - Why?


1:1 via edtechteacher.org

Every now and then I come across an article that, while on the surface level seems fairly innocuous, causes me incredible consternation, articles like this,

"Kids Who Have to Share iPads Learn Better Than Kids Who Have Their Own".

The article is not a new one, but like many articles of its ilk, it has a habit of resurfacing periodically, as it did this week, finally motivating me to put fingers to keys.

There are so many things wrong with the assumptions made by the writer of this article, that it’s hard to know where to start. So in the absence of any better course of action, I’ll start at the beginning.

Firstly can we all just assume that of course sharing is a good thing, and so by implication is learning to share, but the truth is that it's the sharing that is beneficial not the device being shared, I see kids sharing and collaborating all the time even when using their own screens; the extent to which this happens is all to do with the classroom culture carefully crafted by a caring teacher and nothing to do with the nature of the particular item.

Secondly, what is the evidence basis for the the findings of the research? Performance in “a standardized literacy test at the end of the year compared to the beginning”. Oh, that’s okay then; God forbid we should have any other metric in school for judging the efficacy of any initiative other than a test, and I hate to imagine what the nature of this test was, but something tells me it involved a lot of multiple choice questions, maybe even a few cloze passages...   I loathe the way so many of these kinds of studies assume that standardised tests as the measure for success for everything is acceptable, it's not acceptable it's completely unacceptable, not to mention completely irrelevant... Just because it's easy to measure doesn't make it valuable. There are plenty of other people who have done a better job than I could do here, starting with the magnificent Alfie Kohn.

An improvement of 28% v 24% in a study of 352 students really is not statistically significant, despite what the study's author says, another reason why we don't rely on one source for anything of any real substance. Then, if that wasn’t bad enough, the study extrapolated the results of a literacy test, to relate to their work with basic geometry?

I could possibly accept basing the efficacy of a study on a standardised test if the focus of the study was specifically related to the test, eg working on improving spelling for example, but in this case, as in most of the cases of this kind, they make no effort whatsoever to relate the standardised test to the actual nature of the use of the devices. Which tells you a great deal about the study, that they didn't feel it worthwhile to actually describe what they are using the iPads for, which would seem to be glorified textbooks, which would explain why they felt standardised test would be a valid measure. All they are concerned about is to measure the extent to which students have absorbed specific surface content, without any consideration about deep conceptual development or creativity and all those other soft skills that really do matter much more. You see a classroom where all the iPads are used for is glorified textbooks, or for educational "games" and skill drill, then sharing one iPad between five, or ten or even twenty really is not a problem. But a classroom where the teacher expects kids to actually create things that are meaningful over time is a classroom that benefits from the lowest possible ratio of student to device.


What has all this got to do with 1:1?

Whenever I encounter someone who is under the impression that providing students with their own device is a little, well, excessive, I know there is something profoundly dubious about the assumptions they make about the way we encourage students to use these devices. The truth is you can be sure that any advocate for shared devices never shares their own device 50:50. Can you imagine how far you would get in your daily work if you had to share your laptop 50:50 with a colleague in the office? You can be sure that the same person so gleefully anticipating a social nirvana where all of these students happily share their devices is suffering from a profound case of media bias, or device disorder. I’m sure the same person would never countenance asking the same students to share a pencil, or a paintbrush. How about an exercise book? You start from the front, and I’ll start from the back... These devices are all tools, very few of which were purpose built for a classroom, but all of which can be very successfully repurposed for an educational context by skilled teachers. I find teachers that are blasé about the need for students to have their own devices tells me more about the lack of importance they associate with the device than it does about the use of it.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that a 1:1 context is a prerequisite for successful learning, many teachers all over the world, do amazing things everyday with limited resources, but that doesn’t mean that this paucity of resources is something they find preferable! Anyone who thinks so, clearly has never attempted to use these devices themselves.

Allow me to illustrate with an analogy.

Cycling is good for you, it’s also much less harmful for the environment than an aeroplane. So next time you want to travel between, say London and Singapore, don’t fly, cycle!

This logic only makes sense if you never had to actually travel between London and Singapore yourself (and if you’re not in hurry). There is something to be said as well for determination, I have a good friend who shares his laptop with the 24 kids in his class, on a rota basis. Do they benefit? Yes. Is the sharing beneficial for them? Maybe. Is this his preferred arrangement? Of course not.

Back to the bicycle.

Would I ever countenance the idea of cycling from London to Singapore? No ... unless that was the only way I was ever going to visit Asia, and time was no object. Consciousness of the desirability of the goal has a direct bearing on one's determination to persevere despite the obstacles that may be present. Would it be good for me? Yes. So am I going to do it? No. I am not. Well, maybe. For many years, teachers who are profoundly aware of the value of designing experiences for their students to enhance their learning with digital tools have persevered despite many obstacles to make this a reality for their students, but would they prefer 1:1? Of course they do. How do I know? I was one, more than once. Scavenging abandoned computers, salvaging parts, and spending hours beyond number to build a rudimentary ‘lab’ for my students was a frequent experience for me when I was wrestling to enhance the learning of my students in the early days at the turn of the century when ‘TEL’ still was yet to become a ‘thing’.

1:1 works better - shall I count the ways?

When my school announced five years ago, that we were embarking on a tech enhanced learning (TEL) initiative, it was assumed that the 1:1 ratio only applied for older students, middle school and up. While the ratio of devices in the Primary School was going to be increased, from about 5:1 to more like 2:1, the intention was never to provide 1:1 in the primary school as well. So what changed their minds? I did.

Can we work with shared devices? Yes. Can we work better when we have our own device? Yes. Interestingly the main pressure to go 1:1 came from our teachers, even when we expanded to a 2:1 ratio, the more effective they became at utilising digital tech, the more ridiculous expecting the kids to share devices became.

The truth is that the benefits of 1:1 have really surprised me, I was kind of oblivious of how powerful that really is, just from a logistical standpoint. With shared devices it is all too common for students to accidentally delete each other's work which is quite soul destroying, and especially with video editing in the junior school attempting to work on a project over several weeks is impossible with a shared machine. This means that any creating on the device (the most important use) has to be confined to short simple activities that can be started and completed within one lesson, this really does diminish the power of those tools.

This means that the main reason for going 1:1 is not really about two kids needing to use the device at the same time, although that is a factor, it's about honouring and protecting the importance of the media created by each individual child. The biggest advantage I found by going 1:1 is to do with the fact that the work on that device cannot be accidentally tampered or deleted by a well-meaning (or maybe not so well-meaning) friend. If all the kids use the device for is shallow tasks like skill and drill apps, taking tests, and passively consuming media, then clearly sharing them is less of  an issue. However I think this is actually highlights a bigger problem! If we are encouraging our kids to do meaningful creative work on these devices and they will have media saved on the device that they would be upset about if it was accidentally deleted by a classmate.


Not to mention the issue of 'ownership', a child who is responsible for their own device, apart from the obvious personal social merits of having to take that responsibility, is also a child who feels like the work on there is work that is all theirs. This aspect became quickly apparent, kids really do benefit from their "ownership" of one device, including in ways we hadn’t anticipated, such as: customising it so that it operates the way they want it to; using a picture of their face for the wallpaper; being able to actually choose to share content on their iPads with their parents directly, this is the kind of thing that a one-to-one environment would make very straightforward but that they shared environment would be quite difficult. This even extends to the physical device itself—sharing ‘their’ device with their parents at parent teacher conference means there is something quite empowering about that kind of "ownership" even at such a young age. This aspect encourages a sense of responsibility that is powerful in terms of 'digital citizenship'; such as the fact that the teacher can expect the student for example to curate and manage their camera roll with their media responsibly; there is no way the student can evade responsibility by blaming other students who also use the iPad—a common issue with shared devices.

So when I encounter people who are under the impression that 1:1 is excessive (the implication in this article) I know there is an assumption behind these ideas that the digital tools are used so infrequently and so ineffectively (ie skill drill, and games) that expecting kids to share them is no big deal, but in classrooms where these tools are effectively integrated and used to record, reflect and create, they are actually very difficult to share, not because of a lack of willingness to do so, but because both kids actually need to use the device at the same time, and really value the content they are curating and collecting on their own device.  You can be sure the journalist who wrote the article wasn’t using a machine she was sharing; why?

She uses it to create

16 September 2016

Creative Commons—Criticised


Ever since I ventured into the world of pedagogical technology/tech integration I have never ceased to be amazed at the way that so many tech integrators wear the Creative Commons (CC) thing like a badge of honour, it annoyed me then, and it annoys me now. A simple bit of Googling will reveal that I am not alone in my criticism, although John Dvorak's stinging criticism of Creative Commons puts into words all of my concerns better than I could or will attempt to do in this post, not to mention this post by Kent Anderson. My concerns here are as an educator who feels constantly pressured by a minority of 'techie types' to push this agenda in my practice. There are few examples better of the way tech types can lose contact with the reality of the classroom than this. So here it is, TEN reasons (in no particular order of importance) why Creative Commons drives me crazy.

Reality Check #1

Ignoring Google for image searches is inauthentic and quite frankly ridiculous. Look, I hate to break it to you, but the stunning fact is that anyone (other than members of the cult of CC) who is looking for an image to adorn any aspect of their digital practice will ... GOOGLE it. That's it, expecting anyone, but especially kids not to use Google but instead search for inferior images in obscure (to most people) corners of the Web really is ridiculous.

Reality Check #2

If IT interferes with the actual goal of teaching and learning, the actual curriculum content, forget IT (geddit?). When I send my kids on an image scavenger hunt (eg find images of 5 famous people on the internet who inspire you) I don't care about CC, I care about their grappling with the key concepts and content, so I want my students to google it, not CC it. To pursue CC practice you will effectively turn what should be a 10 minute activity, into a 40 minute trawl accompanied by tedious (not to mention ugly) attribution. The focus effectively sifts away from the content and onto the technology, the tool, this misses the point; the tech should be the medium, not the message.

Reality Check #3

It's theft? Nonsense. Can we please STOP lying to our kids? While a handful of CC activists relentlessly pursue their moral crusade, the rest of us in the real world will need to figure out how best to work within a web where 'Piracy' is rampant,  symptomatic of deeper issues that are a great deal more complex than the simplistic arguments pushed by those who should know better. Paul Tassi over at Forbes, explains this nicely:

"Piracy is not raiding and plundering Best Buys and FYEs, smashing the windows and running out with the loot. It’s like being placed in a store full of every DVD in existence. There are no employees, no security guards, and when you take a copy of movie, another one materializes in its place, so you’re not actually taking anything. If you were in such a store, you’d only have your base moral convictions to keep you from cloning every movie in sight. And anyone who knows how to get to this store isn’t going to let their conscience stop them, especially when there is no tangible “loss” to even feel bad about.
It’s not a physical product that’s being taken. There’s nothing going missing, which is generally the hallmark of any good theft. The movie and music industries’ claim that each download is a lost sale is absurd. I might take every movie in that fictional store if I was able to, but would I have spent $3 million to legally buy every single DVD? No, I’d probably have picked my two favorite movies and gone home. So yes, there are losses, but they are miniscule compared to what the companies actually claim they’re losing."


Reality Check #4

If you don't want it stolen (or used) simple‚ secure it. Now I can accept that there are 'starving artists' out there who desperately need to paid for the work they do, well ... if you want to get paid for it, you need to take some basic steps to secure your own intellectual property, just like you would do with your physical property—lets face it, it's not hard to watermark an image, or only use low res images for browsing purposes (these are just two examples from many). Look, I own a car, motorbike, and a bicycle, but when I park them I ... LOCK them, to prevent their theft, if you're going to put your content out there, without restriction, then you can expect it to get used; in fact I operate on the assumption that the images thrown up by Google fall in this category, either free to use (public domain‚ and let's face it, domains don't come much more public than Google search results), or the owner doesn't really care—like the newspaper I perused the other day that some other kind soul left on the train, the friend's book I've borrowed, the DVD I watched at a relatives abode, my public Picasa albums, this is fair use. More on that later... 

Reality Check #5

Not everyone is bothered about getting credit. In fact in the 'real world' the norm, especially amongst teachers, is to 'freely receive freely give'. When I share teaching resources with teachers, do I expect to be cited or credited? No. Why does it matter to me that a bunch of people I don't know, have never met, and likely never will meet don't know that I created it? My name, my credit, my status are not important here, I would rather my content gets used regardless of who gets credit, that's the goal, not status, not ego, but helping others with materials I had to create for myself anyway—I'd rather they got used than languish in obscurity. So my resources are out there, free to use, granted I used images I acquired freely via Google, and for that reason I'm happy for the content I 'remix' or repurpose to be used likewise, it would be rather hypocritical of me if I didn't. Let's face it if you really believe that everything you create is truly—never been seen/done before—unique, I am sorry to say it, but you are naive my friend, and you need to watch the 'Everything is a Remix' videos, and/or the TED talk ASAP.
"If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with the general copyright notice, I can simply say that it is in the public domain and be done with it. I do not need permission from Creative Commons, nor do I need to mention Creative Commons or anything else. It's in the public domain by my personally allowing it to be so. This is my right! I don't need a middleman—a Creative Commons Commissar—to approve my decision. And yet there is this perception that I do." (Dvorak, 1995)

Reality Check #6

Not all content is created equal. There is a big difference between the use (and reuse/repurposing) of text and use of image. When we're watching someone's amazing, riveting, bullet point riddled PowerPoint, I do not assume that any images contained therein are images they created themselves or 'own', in fact, like most people, I believe, we assume the opposite; the images they use to illustrate their work are not theirs unless they say otherwise. BUT, the same can not be said to be true for their writing... Any writing in a published piece of work is assumed to be the creation of the author unless is appropriately cited; put simply, copyright is a very different issue to plagiarism, let's not convolute this issue by confusing them. So, as far as I'm concerned I accept the reasons why it is important to cite text but don't feel the need to attribute images I found in a 'public domain'.

Reality Check #7


Attribution is not simple, and it is not age appropriate. In a primary school, just teaching 8 year old kids how to search for an image in the default search window is tricky enough without further complicating things by making them only search specific types of databases, and of course extending that practise home is even more tricky. A CC search doesn't even aggregate images, so kids could need to go to literally 10 different sources  (Europeana, Fotopedia, etc.) to search effectively for one image. CC attribution in relation to their licences and and the permutations thereof are complex (not to mention contentious). CC is understood by very few people, especially the permutations of the six types of attributable licences that may be applied. Are we really expected to get into this with school kids, and their teachers who are struggling to rename a folder? Sounds like misplaced priorities to me.

Reality Check #8

Most of us are not living in the USA. US copyright law does not have global jurisdiction. For example Singapore (where I live and work) have their own version of 'fair use' copyright law, called 'fair dealings':

Permitted Acts
12.1.11    The CA has several provisions permitting certain acts which do not constitute copyright infringements. These acts are intended to strike a fair balance between the interest of copyright owners and the public interest. They include acts (popularly known as “fair dealings”) for the purposes of research and study, criticism or review, and reporting current events.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-12


'The effect on the potential market' being a critical element. The use by our kids of Google images, has/does and will not effect the market potential, ie I'm not charging for these, and they're not losing income by my use of them, there is no way I could have paid for any of them even if I wanted to, as actually locating the original copyright holder is very difficult, and certainly not something I would encourage primary school kids to do, "Hey kids, email <complete and utter Internet stranger> and ask if you can use their Flickr image: ... ? No way. And yet this is exactly the advice I hear CC proponents giving. No, really.

Reality Check #9

This is not a legal issue, it is a moral one. We're no longer talking about a question of blind adherence to law, we're now engaged in a moral argument instead. And that's where I get uncomfortable, I have all sorts of moral positions I keep to myself, and I feel that this is a case in point. It feels too much like someone else's moral perspective being forced upon me.

Let's face the FACT (see what I did there?) that this is a moral issue, and accept that like many moral issues there are nuances to these arguments that are perhaps best not placed in the hands of a teacher who just wants their kids to find a picture of a Pol Pot and Mother Theresa (probably not in the same image) for a project illustration.

What with T-Shirts and passionate evangelism, the proponents of CC sound a lot more like religious activists than people who are serious about engaging in the nexus of technological tools, pedagogy, and subject content (TPACK). So, like fundamentalist religious beliefs, let's keep moralising to ourselves, and please, keep it out of the classroom, the rest of us (yes I'm a 'fundamentalist'—but about what?) manage to do that, all I'm asking is that CC fundamentalists do likewise.
Fundamentalist: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views... 

Reality Check #10

Treatment of virtual and actual property needs to be consistent. If we're going to continue down this road of virtual content as 'property' are we going to follow through? No more lending of books, DVDs to friends, no use of any music you 'own' (you don't own it) purchasing your media in multiple formats, that film on DVD, mp4 and Blue Ray—things will get very tricky very quickly.

A case in point: I'm currently reading a book given to me by a friend, of course he read it himself first, but now will I purchase that book? No. And what if he picked up the book in a used book store in Phuket (like I often do), that's two purchases the publisher (with 10% to the author) will never see, and if I pass my copy on to someone else?

The point is the book is a COPY, and ownership of a copy is a very different matter to intellectual ownership, ie at no point in this little chain of exchange did anyone assume that any of the parties was actually the author of the book; likewise with images found on the Internet. In my experience the people who shout loudest about intellectual property do so because they are oblivious of its complexity and its irrationality, and is there any chance that they have no problem with loaning copies of their books (et al) to their friends?



Creative Commons Conclusions

In the interest of keeping an open mind, I have tried to embrace CC... this post is largely the result of the frustrations of those attempts. Whenever I have attempted to restrict myself to CC images, the pickings were very poor, so I voted with my feet, and went back to Google.

The images I found in CC sources were generally, well, less than useful; I'm not looking for pretty desktop 'wallpaper', I'm looking for a powerful image to illustrate a point. Like 'problem solving' 'frustration' 'gaming' 'balance' the images in CC = useless, Google = awesome.

All of my presentations definitely fall within the legal definition of:

"for the purposes of research and study, criticism or review, and reporting current events"

Like one I worked on about Gaming - where I needed to illustrate all sorts of things, lots of game covers for starters, COD4 etc., but also images of kids gaming, broken tennis racquets, frustration, anger, joy, flow, boss fights, screen shots of recommended websites (that incorporate incidental trademarks). But I need powerful images to make my point, my Keynotes are about 90% images, 10% text. Does anyone really expect me to talk about the pros and cons of COD in a presentation and not have an image of the game covers under discussion on display? I mean check out these puppies, I got for a search on 'call of duty'. Or ironically I could get this, which is listed as 'Showing Creative Commons-licensed content' but clearly is NOT.

More to the point, most of the game covers I showed will more than likely be purchased by parents in the audience, for their children, specifically because of my recommendation. So my use of non CC images, far from conflicting with a 'potential market' is actually creating a potential market.

I actually began the laborious process of finding those images (about 80 in total so far) in good faith, using CC, Wikicommons etc, all added to my search engine list, and it was/is dire. It quickly became apparent that it was/is utterly impractical.

Would I encourage expecting this from my students when I can't cope? No way.

Fair use is most likely our best solution...

fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) The doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder

Free & Easy

It all boils down to the old adage—Do as you would be done by—or another one, from one of my favourite books, "Freely you have received, freely give". From time to time I find myself forced into creating content, only because a thorough trawl of the web yields nothing suitable, so I find what I can, create what I can't find and cobble it all together (remix) to make something fit for purpose—do I smother it in CC? No, I don't—it's out there, it's public, help yourself, sure it would be nice if you gave me credit for creating it, but do I really care that a bunch people somewhere who I don't know, that I've never met, and I most likely never will, heard or read my name? Not really.

Do I want my work to go further than myself? Absolutely. 


Do I condone anyone stealing someone else's intellectual property? Absolutely not. 


There is a world of difference between copying and repurposing content, and copying and pretending that you are the original creator/author of it. Blurring these boundaries with confusing and condescending 'creative [not so] commons' is not helping anyone, least of all the creators [and REcreators] of content themselves, and certainly the not their teachers, the vast majority of whom ignore it or are oblivious of it anyway.


15 June 2016

Laptops and Lowest Common Denominators


A colleague shared the outcome of recent research into the efficacy of 1:1 laptop schools, more specifically it was a meta-analysis of 10 studies that examine the impact of laptop programs on students’ academic achievement.

I read it with mixed feelings. On the one hand the fact that the researchers concluded that schools where students have their own laptops see a "significantly positive average effect sizes in English, writing, mathematics, and science" was encouraging. They felt that "the impact of laptop programs on general teaching and learning processes and perceptions was generally positive".

So that's good then. Right?


Well, no; not really.

I couldn't help but notice that their expectations of the actual use of these devices was, to put it mildly, far from tapping into the true potential of these devices. This is despite their inspirational opening clarion call to change the world,

"We believe that the affordances of computers for learning and knowledge production are radically different from those of radio, television, and film, which explains why computers, unlike those previous technologies, are bound to have a very different educational fate from the one suggested by Cuban (1993a, p 185), who wrote that “computer meets classroom: classroom wins.”

So exactly what uses do they have in mind? How do they envisage these radically different affordances? By inspiring the creative expression of learning through the exciting synergies between video, image, text, audio and the deft analysis and application of data?

No, they see the main affordances of these devices in terms of use "to write and revise papers, conduct Internet searches, and engage in personalized instruction and assessment using educational software or online tools". (p 2)

What? That's it? These devices hold the potential to radically transform their world, but let's just use them to type up reports (so they're nice and neat), Google stuff, and take online tests.

How depressing.

Then it gets worse. Having applied the law of the lowest possible expectations of these tools, they proceed to use the worst possible measure to determine their efficacy. We find ourselves in the familiar territory of, when faced with the option of assessing those aspects of learning that are the most important (creativity, solutions, innovation etc), but of course the most difficult to qualify, instead they opt to measure the aspects of learning that are easiest to quantify, with, yes, you guessed it, standardised tests:

"quantitative findings of the impact on students’ academic achievement. [...] Measurements of academic achievement were standardized assessments or norm-referenced district- or school-wide tests." (p 5)

So the measure of efficacy all boils down to that which can be measured on a standardised test. How depressing, and how inappropriate for a medium as rich as that of digital technologies. Like judging a ballerinas dancing ability, based on her spelling. So we use them ineffectively, then assess the efficacy of their use in ways that are utterly unsuitable. Is this really what we expect when we talk about 'technology enhanced learning' in 1:1 environments?

I sincerely hope not. I tell you what though, it would make my job a lot easier if I did.

To be fair to this study, they do accept that there are problems with the ways they are assessing the efficacy of these devices, "studies on this topic have largely done a poor job of assessing learning outcomes that are not well captured by current iterations of standardized tests. As the United States and other countries move to more sophisticated forms of standardized assessment, these new measures may be better aligned with the learning goals believed to be associated with laptop use." (p 25)

I have to wonder whether the corporate world is as obsessed with trying to validate the influence of digital technologies in the workplace as we are with attempting to defend them in the classroom? Do any of us really believe that the corporate world would be better off without digital technologies? Then why would we would we believe that classrooms would be better off without them? Do we really believe the corporate world would spend the millions if not billions it must cost every year to maintain their IT infrastructures if they did not feel they was essential, important, effective?

Don't Settle

As it is I'm not prepared to settle for a lowest common denominator approach, where we abandon any attempts at using these devices anywhere near their potential, and instead settle for using them in the ways that are the easiest, and therefore the most common, even if they are far from being the most effective. By easiest/least I mean ways of working that most closely replicates the traditional approaches to learning that were the norm before the advent of the digital revolution; writing becomes typing, and researching in the library becomes Googling, the results of which we present, in writing. That's it.

Vitamin D[igital] Video, Image, Text, Audio, Data. VITAD.

No, these laptops should be used to create in all five domains, not just text, but image, video, audio and data, and all sorts of overlaps between them. These technologies should exploit all of the attributes that digital tools excel at; situated learning/working, access to global communities/experts, multimodal artefacts, mutable work flows, sharing and collaborating on content using social networks.

In the paper, they state,

"Contrary to Cuban’s (2003) argument that computers are “oversold and underused” (p 179) in schools, laptop environments are reshaping many aspects of education in K–12 schools." (p 24)

But the truth is that if all they are exploiting is their use is as word processors and web browsers, these machines are definitely underused. I guess this could be described as giving up on transformation and focusing on amplification instead, if I'm honest, is this a bad thing? It would certainly make my job easier... Maybe having tech being oversold and underused is better than having them ignored and unused.

I guess the question that I need to wrestle with is, if I need to lower my expectations... Maybe if we just focus on using one domain effectively (text), we'll still see benefits in terms of learning, but perhaps more effectively and consistently—less is more? Perhaps, but I doubt it; focusing on just one domain out of five strikes me as making as much sense as buying a car and using it to keep you dry in the rain, or cool in the sun.

Useful? Yes.

Appropriate? Maybe.

Ideal and Effective? ... 😕🤔😬


Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654316628645.

09 April 2016

Desktop Zero - 4 compelling reasons to make this an essential habit

Yes, this is mine. No I did not cheat, well maybe one folder... 


You don't need me to tell you that your environment affects your productivity. Since a great deal of our work is now done with a screen, it stands to reason that your desktop environment can play an important role in your productivity. Seriously can you really look me in the monitor and tell me that you'd rather work on a desktop that looks like, this?

Messy Desktop by RuthOrtiz


Five Reasons to Change

There are plenty of reasons for making the effort to aim for 'desktop zero', I'll attempt to lay out a handful for you here:

It is Irresponsible. 

Desktop etiquette—every teacher is a role model, and as a teacher, every time you share your desktop with your students, you demonstrate to them the kinds of organisational and work habits you expect them to imitate. 

Everytime we share a cluttered desktop with a class, or even with parents, we effectively also share our inability to self manage, our lack of organisation, perseverance, diligence, need I go on? The biggest problem is that all of these behaviours are built on bad habits, but these are bad habits I see teachers (and parents) passing on to their children every day.

It is Insecure.

Ironically one of the most common reasons I hear for storing files on the desktop, is their critical importance, 'those are files I need, and I can't afford to lose them...' Really? Because unless you are in the habit of fastidiously backing up your Mac with Time Machine, like every day (in which case you are probably already at Desktop Zero, or close enough), you run the risk of losing it all, one hard drive failure, and that's it, all gone. Desktop files, are the most common space/place where data is lost in my experience. If those files had been placed in a Google Drive folder (or DropBox) then they would have been safe. literally every edit, backed up, in real time—but nothing on your desktop (and your students, if they're imitating you) is being backed up to the cloud, nothing.

Top Tip -  on the Mac, you can create an Alias (right click, or command+option drag and drop) from any 'buried' folder/file so there is a shortcut or alias of it on the desktop, it acts just like the real thing (the parent folder) but with the advantage that it's really ensconced safely within a cloud backed up folder. 

It is Inefficient.

Your computer's desktop is a starting point for your entire computing experience, but—like anything else—if you let it get cluttered your productivity will take a dive, and your stress levels will rise; few things are as frustrating as you or our students not being able to find that file exactly when you/they need it, especially if that entails creating it again... and again... Next time you save a file to the desktop, wouldn't it be nice to be able to find it immediately, and not have to engage and a insanity inducing game of 'Where's Wally'. That's a game I have to aly almost every say that I work with a teacher on a desktop like ... that *shudders*


Clean-desk-high-productivity-toblender.com [modified]

It literally impedes

Because of the way OS X's GUI (graphical user interface) works, the icons on your desktop take up a lot more of your resources than you may realise... Just remember that every single icon on your desktop is actually a small transparent window with graphics (the icon) inside, so if you have, say, 100 icons on your desktop you have 100 windows open, each one stealing memory. And no, dumping them all in folder doesn't really help much, the fact that there is 2764 files in ONE folder, still means that OS X will still have trouble handling one folder with that many files in it..


Computer Desktop & Table Desktop

When we work with students on this, we are attempting to inculcate good habits, habits that will last a lifetime, one such habit is to work from desktop zero, an analogy we find helpful is for them to treat their computer desktop the same as they treat their table desktop in their classroom, as busy as it can get in the course of a normal working day, every day before they go home they are expected to return that space to what is effectively desktop zero 'IRL' (in real life). Everything gets put in it's right place, whether they have finished with that project or not, it goes in the appropriate folder. The difference being with computers being that you can actually work in files while they are in the folder, there's no need to take it out, and so need to put it back, this is why Desktop zero on a computer is easier than desktop IRL. In the same way when you place a folder in the appropriate folder (in Google Drive in the Finder) you can leave it there, and work on it while it is in there.

So, with this in mind, you shift your conception of the role of the desktop, the desktop becomes a temporary, easy to locate, grab, upload, rename "I need it in ten minutes or so" dumping ground. I only use my desktop as a temporary holding place for files I'm working with. Nothing remains there past the end of the day.

Cluttered desk via abcnews.com (Getty Images)

Upgrade Your Workflow

In actual fact the desktop is a folder, it's just a folder that you start from, and while it can function as a storage folder, as so many people have unfortunately proven, that is not its purpose. It was only created as an allegory so people would have something analog to relate the new digital experience to, just like the trash can in the corner‚we don't really keep tiny trash cans on the corner of our table tops, but it functions as an approximate analogy. And like most analogies, it has it's limits. One way forward is to start working the way you do when you use an iPad or similar device. 

New OSes like iOS and Android have thankfully ditched the "file icon sandbox" idea. The only things you are presented with when you look at your device is a launchpad for apps and services. Your data is invisible and agnostic and available only when you are in a program that knows how to display or use it, and you know what it works just fine, no clutter. 

Become more app oriented and less file oriented

In iOS, if you're working on a file, you start by opening the App, then you locate the file from within that App, well the exact same method work on the desktop. Working on a word document? Don't look for the file first, open Word, then you will easily find any recent files in the recent files view. All you need to is drop down the menu bar 2 spaces from Open, to Open Recent—there that's not so hard is it?

Open Recent, don't just Open.

You will find the same feature in any application you use. Trust me. These are conventions that are cross-platform, that means you will be able to take advantage of this workflow no matter what computer or platform you ever use. Invest in now, and you will reap the rewards the rest of your life.

File less, search and sort more

I've written about this already here, spend less time creating and organising folders (although that is important too) and make sure you name your files with keywords you can search for. On all your devices now instant search is everywhere, and on your Mac, you can search in literally any folder you open, from 'All my Files' to 'Documents' if it's in there, somewhere, search will find it, regardless of the folder it's in, but that's no use if the file is called 'Untitled.doc' or "Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 5.38.12 am". Rename it, then move it.

Sort out your Sorting

When you have a bunch of files on display in your finder, make sure you take advantage of the button which lets you 'change item arrangement' pick whatever option will make it easiest to move the files you want to the top - I personally find the 'Date modified' to be the most useful, but there are options there for everyone.

Illustration by Ben Wiseman via nytimes

Don't procrastinate you can do it today!

The solution is not to just create another folder (which is actually inside the folder which is the desktop) and dump them all in there, it just means you've buried the problem. By all means dump all the files in a (cloud connected) folder (or 3 or 4), just make sure you've deleted the files you won't need again, and give the ones you do need a name you can search for. Once you've done that you'll probably find there are 'themes' forming that lend themselves to folders, but don't let that be an excuse to procrastinate, as you can always change your mind later, computers are convenient like that... 

Clean desk[top] policy via awanbee.com


07 April 2016

Aims, objectives and semantics


One of the first goals we were faced with on our first visit with the T2T Cambodia team was to really establish what the fundamentals of a lesson need to be. It is not until you are forced to defend your rationale for the structure of a lesson that some of the issues of semantics really do come into focus.

Take the typical traditional lesson structure:
  1. Objectives
  2. Activities
  3. Outcomes

With some seasoning from our recent workshops in formative assessment with Dylan Wiliam, this quickly morphed into something a little more nuanced ... When combined with the  5 key strategies of formative assessment, the first three of which are more or less synonymous with the traditional lesson structure...
  1. Clarifying learning intentions
  2. Eliciting evidence
  3. Feedback that moves learning forward
[Students as learning resources for one another
Students as owners of their own learning]

We ended up with something more like:
  1. Learning intentions/objectives
  2. Activities that elicit evidence 
  3. Outcomes as a result of feedback  

And before you know it, with a room full of teachers, it looked like this:
  1. Learning intentions/Aims & objectives
  2. Activities that elicit evidence though active engagements 
  3. Outcomes informed by feedback and based on clear success criteria 

Now trying to explain all that though a translator to a room full of teachers in a room without air conditioning in a temperature in excess of 30° with only the most rudimentary of teaching resources...

What I have found is that you find yourself having to distil everything down to the absolute bare essentials which for me now look something like this, something which funnily enough has enhanced my own understanding of my own practice an intern hopefully improve my practice as a teacher.

For me it is ended up being as simple as:
  1. Aim or Goal or BIG IDEA
  2. Activity
  3. Feedback

But, and this is essential, it has to be iterative.
[Aim, achieved? Great. No? Either change the activity (or maybe even the aim) then try again]

Getting the Aim right is CRITICAL, if the aim is any good then in order to achieve it you will have to move through a series of "objectives" which will automatically require the achievement of "learning intentions" and the design of an activity that facilitates those goals, but that ultimately has one outcome, the achievement of the aim...

Example...

The last IT lesson I observed had learning intentions of:
  • Create a table in a spreadsheet
  • List occupations
  • Add a new column for images
  • Insert images that match the occupations

But what was the AIM? And a well considered aim would make the individual learning intentions redundant. Of course the aim has to be worthwhile, authentic, meaningful… in this case because it was a FOCUS lesson I was able to intervene and redesign the lesson with the teacher) right there, right then. What we did was establish an aim which in this case was...

Use a table to compare a range of at least 5 career opportunities that interest you. Consider the following aspects of each of the occupations you have chosen:

  • Title
  • Brief description
  • Illustration
  • Positive
  • Negatives
  • Salary
  • Qualifications required

With a well-written aim, the specific articulation of learning intentions naturally follows, agonising over them is no longer actually necessary as they will have to be identified in order to fulfil the aim of the lesson. Don't they need to be expanded? Articulated in sentences? I don't think so, any teacher worth their salt will out the mat on the bones, and hopefully also provide feedback in relation to those specific learning intentions, whether or not they actually need to write them on the board is another question.

What was even better about this was that it quickly became obvious that there were quite a few aspects of the occupations that interested students that none of us were in a position to answer… for example salary, instead we asked the students to estimate what they think the salary per month would be, the we did the same for  of the other aspects of each of the qualifications that they chose. Then (using the student resources for one another) we are the students to compare their work… this sparked some passionate discussions as some students had (for example) the lowest paid as a police officer while other students had the police officer highest paid… Discuss!

What was fascinating is when we get the students to then research online to find out what the actual answers are and then compare the estimates with the reality and then to reflect on the disparities or consistencies that they found.

What started out as a rather banal activity in table creation and meaningless data entry became a transformational lesson in career guidance while also fulfilling the (arguably more mundane) ICT requirements. It's all about the aim

06 April 2016

21st Century Spelling


Spilling had never bin maw impotent

Spelling has never been more important, as my example above attempts to illustrate. In an age dominated by screens, misspelling is tantamount to an admission of idiocy—but the ways we teach spelling needs to evolve to take advantage of the unique affordances and challenges of spelling in a screen environment. Please note that none of the words in the title are actually misspellings, but mistakes they are, and a right twazzock you will look if you spell in a way that is overly reliant on proofreading tools as a safety net. It's time we took account of the fact that in a world dominated by screens the ways we teach spelling needs to evolve to take advantage of the unique affordances and challenges of spelling in a screen environment.

These days the likelihood of interacting with others in a digital environment is an extremely commonplace scenario. Even more critical, people who misspell in these environments are generally assumed to be less intelligent, less articulate, and despite their possible intelligence/experience, their perspective will be dismissed or demeaned if it is littered with misspellings. It has never been more important to master the ability to spell correctly. Unfortunately most schools, despite the criticality of spelling in the 21st-century, still rely on 19th century strategies to teach spelling. This really does need to change. So, with that in mind...

14 critical considerations:

  1. Spelling should be managed within the context of writing, and not as a separate "subject", For that reason keeping a separate spelling book is discouraged; a better practice is to think of and learn about words and misspellings and sounds within the context of writing, so for example words that are encountered that are challenging to spell should be recorded at the back of a student's writing book, not in a separate spelling book.
  2. Less is more, more frequent opportunities for kids to think about spelling, but for much shorter periods of time (10-15 minutes per day)
  3. Make direct connections between spelling and handwriting, the actual physicality or skill of the formation of the letters as they are literally connected is meant to reinforce the way the sounds are connected, and builds a visual reinforcement. The idea is to combine physical visual, oral and aural practise to reinforce the feel, the shape and the sound of a word.
  4. Children (and adults) can only spell words they know, sounds obvious, but so many of the spelling lists that are used with students contain words they do not know, so could not possibly be able to spell, other than through guesswork, which leads us to...
  5. There is a much greater validity to the skill of being able "guesstimate" in a TELE (technology enhanced learning environment), and ‘phonological awareness’ is more essential than ever, as an accurate phonetical estimation is relied on by computers to substitute for a correct spelling. A student who cannot phonetically 'attack' a word is unlikely to be able to approximate something that a computer can correct. Related to this is the critical importance of being able to spell the first half of a word correctly, most modern computing devices can now auto complete a word if a student is able to spell the first half of it correctly. Apple's 'QuickType' in iOS 8, and apps like "SwiftKey" utilise this approach very effectively, and the power of Dictation (speech to text) has never been greater, but it will still struggle with homophones (same sound different spelling and meaning). An alternative approach in a 'spelling test' context is to award 2 marks to each word, one mark for being able to spell the word phonetically correctly, or for spelling the first half correctly, and 2 marks if the word is perfect. 
  6. Stop using spelling tests for whole classes with lists of words, this is a nonsensical approach, considering the sheer quantity of words in the typical English dictionary, somewhere in the region of 400,000 words. The words that children learn should be unique and curated from their own literacy life, related to their own writing, reading and speaking, and viewing and listening experiences, or related to specific vocabulary that they are using/used (not will use) in a current unit of study.
  7. Wordlists curated by students should be seen as a source of vocabulary expansion, not just for spelling. Becoming a personal thesaurus/glossary that they should review regularly when writing to enhance the richness of their prose; use it or lose it.
  8. Less reliance upon "spelling rules" which are very rarely consistent, and in many cases can lead to a great deal of confusion. Like when students are asked to note the position of a certain vowel in a word and its impact upon other vowels or consonants within that word, also using acrostics like 'big elephants can always understand...' you get the idea, and of course they only work for one word… Instead focus on more reliance on building familiarity with the way words look and the way words sound, so 'look say cover write check' still works well as a useful skill/drill practice, but with fewer words, more often. This is strongly related to the student's reading life as a synergetic enabler in their spelling life. This becomes a context where students are encouraged to see words as 'friends' and building a large community of 'familiar faces' ie, the more they see these words the more likely they are to be able to spell them, or arguably just as important in the 21st-century, to recognise when the word is not spelt properly, ‘it just doesn't look right'.
  9. Skill drill tasks (practise makes permanent) should also be related to an activity that reinforces their comprehension of the meaning of the word, so ideally students should also invent (not copy) a sentence that uses the word, or even better, more than one of the words in the same sentence, that clearly demonstrates that they can use the word/s with an understanding of it/them. For some students it might be better for them to make an oral recording of them speaking the sentence rather than writing a sentence, if the writing is a challenge to reluctant writers, as the focus is on understanding meaning, and oral recall can be just as effective for building meaning, this is especially important with homophones.
  10. More recognition of the kinds of spellings that are particularly relevant to a screen centred writing environment, this means a greater emphasis on distinguishing between words with similar sounds and different patterns, homophones, homonyms, homographs.
  11. Making smarter use of digital tools to facilitate this kind of practice, while spelling activities that are built on skill drill using pre-set wordlists have their place, particularly for high frequency for younger learners, for older/more proficient students, encourage spelling drills that are built on individually curated wordlists. Unfortunately Apps that facilitate this kind of curation are not very common, but at least one that does this very well is Squeebles SP, although you have to ask students to pretend to be a teacher to do so.
  12. Use a word processor to spell check, before using a teacher. This could be a simple as a Notes app on a mobile device) to enable students to check spellings without the tedium of using a dictionary. Then the teacher reviews the spelling for careless mistakes, or more likely mistakes resulting from misconceptions about phonetics/word structure. Students need to be empowered to build habits of capturing/collecting words that they know, but cannot spell in their curated lists. The point is, it is better for the student to attempt to type the word in a text application and have the computer suggest corrections than it is for them to try and search for it in a dictionary. While the latter is still helpful, the former is a better cognitive process for learning the spelling of a word, and is also more relevant/likely as an activity or skill set in the 21st-century. Very few adults look up words in a dictionary, most rely on the prompt given by the computer in a word processing environment.
  13. Encourage students to learn how to use the "define" search term in Google, effectively turning any Google search window into a handy Dictionary, eg - define: magnificent
  14. Digital technologies are changing which words are traditionally understood to be "tricky" words/spelling Demons/sneaky spellings… so for example any word typed in a text environment will automatically switch the 'ie' in a word like receive, but will not be able to distinguish between homonyms.


Squeebles Showcase

Squeebles Spelling - multimodal drill and practice
I'm not usually one to emphasise a tool, but from time to time a tool emerges that has affordances that are ridiculous to ignore, Squeebles Spelling is one of those. Digital tools like Squeebles can transform spelling practice by making traditional equivalents pale in comparison, consider the following:

Flexibility


Click to see Squeebles in action! 
Kids can 'masquerade' as a parent or teacher to curate their own lists, careless errors are mitigated by the built in spell check—obviously this feature is not activated when they are actually practising! Alternatively, there are a wide range of built in word lists to choose from that cater to all skill levels.

Multimodality and meaning

It's not enough to spell a word, they need to know how it sounds and understand the meaning. In Squeebles kids can record the sound of the word, as well place it in a sentence, eg "Pear. I like the taste of a pear better than an apple. Pear." Better still make it fun by having the kids make up silly sentences, as long as it shows they understand the meaning anything goes! This makes the activity aural and oral - this way the kids say the word, hear the word, and see the word. 

Immediate feedback - differentiated

No need to wait for a teacher to collect in all the spelling tests, then wait a few days to get them all back, even then, actually acting on the spelling errors is a chore, never mind tracking these over time. Squeebles provides immediate feedback, but even better keeps a record of any errors in a collection called 'Tricky Words' that reflect the words that this individual is struggling with.

Motivation

Last and maybe least, Squeebles 'gamifies' the successes into mini games, so kids feels a tangible sense of reward, over and above the real reward—improved spelling.