ACEC Conference
Perth, Australia
02-05 October, 2012

At the recent ACEC 2012 Conference, held in Perth, Western Australia, it was clear that almost everyone is starting to think mobile: there was a plethora of papers about iPads, iPods, XO laptops, BYOD models, and indeed mobile technologies in all their shapes and forms.

In her talk, Pedagogy! iPadology! Netbookology! Learning with Mobile Devices, Therese Keane reported on a study comparing two schools, one with a 1:1 netbook programme, the other with a 1:1 iPad programme.

In general, the iPad was used for more interactive tasks and the netbook for transactive tasks like handing in work. Teachers on the whole were more enthusiastic about the iPad. The students thought the netbooks had a positive impact in all subjects where they were used; the iPads were seen as particularly beneficial in some subjects rather than others.  This may be connected with individual teachers’ enthusiasm and use of the devices. Keane noted: “The iPad and Netbook seem to have both influenced and enthused teachers and students. Time for professional development was always at a premium and dedicated teachers needed and wanted more of this.” She highlighted three main findings:

• Finding 1: The actual digital device was not as critical as the presence of a dedicated curriculum programme.
• Finding 2: New pedagogical strategies were the key drivers of change.  The digital tool was only a means to an end, not the goal of the programme.
• Finding 3: Student engagement was highly related to the enthusiasm of the individual subject teacher rather than the type of device. The device itself was almost inconsequential.

In conclusion, teachers said the key success factor in a netbook or iPad programme is not the device itself, but its use by engaged, supportive and prepared teachers within the context of a broader pedagogical change programme.

In our own talk on mobile technologies in schools, entitled Choosing to Teach with Mobile Technologies: Guidelines from Early Adopters, my colleagues Grace Oakley, Robert Faulkner and I gave an overview of our recent AISWA-funded research project, Exploring the Pedagogical Applications of Mobile Technologies for Teaching Literacy, which focused mainly on iPads. We outlined the nine general considerations about teaching with mobile technologies, with associated recommendations, which we derived from this project:

1. Consider analogue vs digital tools.
2. Consider free vs proprietary tools.
3. Consider technology vs pedagogy.
4. Consider traditional vs contemporary pedagogical approaches.
5. Consider consumption vs production.
6. Consider teachers as learners vs teachers as experts.
7. Consider collaborative use vs personalised use.
8. Consider formal vs informal learning spaces.
9. Consider lower vs higher year levels.

We wrapped up with brief overviews of two case studies conducted as part of the project. The full report, with discussion of the nine considerations and four detailed case studies, can be read online or downloaded.

In her talk, Transforming Learning Using iPods and Web 2.0 Tools, Romina Jamieson-Proctor reported on a study of students’ use of mobile technologies for learning, with a major focus on creativity and 21^st century skills. Observations were made of students using iPod Touches to support their learning in a Queensland school context. The project has now been extended to include iPads.

The project is still ongoing but there are some early findings. More teacher PD is needed. Teachers need to find creative ways of using the devices, and not just use them in mundane ways. Teachers also need more time to explore apps, and to become familiar with how the devices work. Completing tasks for assessment can be limiting for students if they are not allowed much variation in how they respond. Parents have questioned the use of the iPod Touches at home instead of students doing ‘real work’ – this may be because students didn’t get a chance to play with them in school, so they were doing this at home.

Emerging themes included:

• Control – students can’t be creative if their work is too controlled
• Transformation – devices are changing the way teachers think about the content and the classroom
• Motivation – increased for students
• Attitude – iPods impact attitudes to creativity
• Learning Processes – iPods are beginning to change learning processes

In the One Laptop Per Child (Australia) Workshop, Rangan Srikhanta, the CEO of OLPC Australia, noted that a child born today will be entering the workplace around the time when computers are becoming as powerful as the human brain. While traditional numeracy and literacy is important, digital literacy is going to be crucial. There will be no concept of national unemployment in the global workplace of the future. Our kids need to be able to compete on a global level.

There are a number of market failures: One issue is teacher turnover, especially in rural and remote communities; another is maintenance and support of devices; and a third is childhood learning, because a lot of devices are designed for content consumption rather than education.

Srikhanta then described the rollout of XO laptops to remote communities in Australia.  It was noted that there were early adopter and late adopter principals and, similarly, early adopter and late adopter teachers, and even early adopter and late adopter students. Early adopters were people who ‘got it’ instantly and began using the XOs in effective and often original ways, which sometimes hadn’t even been considered by the OLPC team. Now the schools have to pay $100 per laptop, which means that there is greater commitment from the principals and teachers who buy into the programme.

OLPC Australia is now working with a new slogan: “Think globally, act digitally” and a new brand: “One education” (which has started in Australia). Any disadvantaged school in Australia can sign up for this programme, which is heavily subsidised by the Federal Govt. Amongst other things, children can complete certifications as XO-champions and XO-mechanics. Another initiative is the XO-Box programme, where children engage in a robotics programme developed with LEGO.

In her talk, Digital Content for a BYOD World, Kari Stubbs demonstrated the BrainPOP site, which is now also available in the form of a mobile app (which is essential since the web-based version relies on Flash, which doesn’t work on Apple’s iOS). It is now possible for educators to design their own quizzes and activities on BrainPOP.

In his insightful keynote presentation, Schools and Computers – So Where Now? A Cautionary Tale from the UK, Neil Selwyn argued that there is often a gap between the rhetoric and the reality of technology use in education. Technology in education is about politics with a small and a large ‘P’. It is important to take a historical view, a long view, in a field which is often rather ahistorical.

The UK has been pushing technology into schools for around 30 years now, starting with putting computers into schools in the 1980s. IT became a major part of the national curriculum of 1989, and developments continued well into the 2000s. Smartboards and VLEs were a major part of schooling. There was lots of interesting practice around. But things changed in May 2010 with the election of the Conservative Govt, which reversed much of the earlier policy – Becta was disbanded, Building Schools for the Future was cut, and many other programmes were also cut.

But then in 2011, Eric Schmidt from Google spoke about the fact that computer science isn’t taught as standard in UK schools. Students were learning how to use software, but not how to make it. This talk provoked a turnaround from the UK Govt. The NESTA Next Gen report, which made the case that UK industry was suffering from a lack of trained computer science students, gives a good idea of where the UK is going with technology in education. The Royal Society report Shut Down or Restart? made similar points. This led to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, talking about the importance of technology.

There is now huge hype in the UK about programming, coding, computational thinking, and the idea that every child should understand what goes on under the hood of a computer. There are initiatives springing up to help get coding into schools. The BBC, for example, is upgrading its technological literacy offering.  There’s a Code Club movement to get kids interested in coding. At the same time, the Govt has suspended the ICT subject as of last month. The plan is for it to come back in 2014. The Govt is saying it will be flexible and open source. The British Computer Society and the Royal Society of Engineering have been given responsibility for this. Meanwhile, big technology companies are moving into the role previously filled by the Govt in advising schools and providing equipment and materials.

There could be advantages and disadvantages here. The emphasis on programming is interesting, and fits with the arguments about coding from the likes of Douglas Rushkoff.  Old school ed tech is back, ICT is dead. People are talking about Seymour Papert. It is arguably good to take IT out of the control of governments and give it to specialists. By comparison, Israel has had coding in the curriculum for 12 years and is progressing towards a digital economy. Estonia has announced it will introduce coding in school. Business and companies like Google and Facebook are very happy about this.

But there is also much to worry about … Inequality could be an issue, since it’s not clear how the majority of schools and students will have better access to technology skills. These policies may reinforce the digital divide.  Is Raspberry Pi really going to be more exciting and interesting for children, or will it just be a 21^st century version of the school computer club? Will suspending the curriculum really bring improvements, if schools just focus on things that they are accountable for? Coding may not really be the answer for the UK economy; we don’t need a whole generation of computer programmers, since there are limited jobs. In the rush towards coding and programming, what is being lost? Functional Office skills are still really important. The highly creative aspects of the ICT curriculum – as well as collaboration, communication, etc – are still really important. It’s important, too, to retain ICT throughout the curriculum. Indeed, warned Selwyn, the kinds of ‘cool’ innovations being talked about at the ACEC Conference no longer have a place in UK schools. There’s  a loss of the kind of evidence-based research previously done by Becta: now, he suggested, there is evidence-free practice. The Govt is withdrawing from technology in schools, and leaving schools and companies to it. The current Govt has given a Bible to every school – which is very different from a former govt which gave a micro to every school.

The key question should always be: Why? What problem are we trying to solve? A vague notion of the future, and the games industry, is not a good enough basis for these changes.  If education should be about empowerment, then:

• We need strong Govt commitment and involvement. Computers in schools should not be governed by the marketplace; computers should be a key part of education as a public good.
• We need digitally strong schools. There’s no such thing as a digital native. Schools have an important role to play here – kids are not effective users of technology when left to their own devices.
• We need digital technology to be integrated throughout the school system.
• We need a proper debate about these issues. There is great public alarmism about the use of technology in schools and a very low level of debate, when it occurs at all. The reality is that most people don’t care very much about the topic.

The take-home message which Selwyn left the audience with was this: the politics of educational technology are really important.  We should get more involved in the politics of ed tech before the politics come to us.

These kinds of political issues are certainly important macro-considerations, which we shouldn’t forget in the rush to employ mobile technologies on the more micro scale of individual classrooms, or even individual schools.