tesfeature

24 tes 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

Headache tablets?

CRED

IT

➤

Technology in the classroom is blamed

for bad behaviour and

poor concentration, but is

the problem that devices aren’t being

used in the best way? Teacher

José Picardo knows how to figure out

what will work for your pupils – and

how to get the most tech-phobic

staff member on board

25 SEPTEMBER 2015 tes 25

tesfeature

26 tes 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

In the debate about technology and education, it is expected that you are either a crazy-eyed zealot or a complete and utter Luddite. So, when people meet me, they tend to find me quite confusing.

As part of my role as an assistant headteacher at a secondary school, I study how technology can support the processes involved in teaching and learning. So, of course, I must be the type of person who kneels at the altar of ed tech. But when people actually talk to me, I tell them that one of the most important lessons any teacher can learn about

technology is when not to use it. The reaction I get is symptomatic of what the ed-tech debate

has been reduced to. Since it is much easier to disagree with people if common ground is removed, the debate surrounding technology in schools has become predictably, depressingly binary. For evidence of this, you need only look at the Twitter rows resulting from a recent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report on technology in schools (see panel, page 30) and from discussions on the issue of mobile phones in the classroom (see bit.ly/GreatTechDebate).

Battle lines are drawn across the virtual and physical staffroom, where conversation is dominated either by technology evangelists or by those who still think it’s OK to say that they “don’t do technology”. The majority of us, who are somewhere in between, keep our heads down for fear of being conscripted to either cause.

Identifying the problemsWe need a way out of this impasse. Schools need to have sensible and informed debates about the place of ed tech, but first they must recognise the obstacles standing in the way.

1. The myth of fear. When dealing with staunch opponents of technology, it’s easy to claim that they are afraid of it. But, in my experience, few teachers are actually afraid of technology. In fact, most will happily give it a try if they are given the right encouragement and opportunity.

Look around your staffroom and you’re just as likely to see teachers using digital technologies to plan and deliver lessons – researching on the internet, putting together an interactive whiteboard flip-chart or preparing a worksheet – as you are to see them wiggling their pens.

Students already find technology an appealing and effective addition to their learning toolkit. Whether you approve or not, technology is deeply woven into the fabric of our schools and it is here to stay.

No one in schools really fears technology. Saying they do

➤

Whether you approve of it or

not, technology is deeply woven into the fabric of our

schools and it is here to stay

➤

25 SEPTEMBER 2015 tes 27

tesfeature

28 tes 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

complicates the debate: it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and forces people into defensive positions.

2. Lack of support. Teachers rarely have time to learn to use technology more effectively. This can lead to several issues: they are anxious about being made to use technology beyond their comfort zones; they fear it will not be reliable enough to use in lessons; and, above all, they are disappointed because technology seldom brings transformational change on the scale promised by its more fervent proponents.

If teachers aren’t supported, they are less likely to use technology effectively. If technology is not used effectively, the value it offers to teaching and learning is diminished. If schools see little value, they are less likely to support teachers to use technology. And so the vicious circle goes round and round.

3. The shadow of failure. Even when we have all put the effort in, technology sometimes doesn’t work. Over the years, there have been many examples of technology as a top-down intervention proving nothing short of calamitous. Even when it does work, its impact can be less than compelling.

Analysing the problemsIt’s easy to blame the technology for any issues that arise. If it “worked” then teachers would not fear it, it would be easy to use and it would transform our teaching. Yet, as our knowledge and appreciation of its role grows, an alternative view is beginning to emerge: what if schools are simply “doing” technology wrong?

For too many of us, using technology means sitting pupils in front of Linguascope, Mathletics or a word processor for an hour while we get on with a bit of marking. We feel we need to stop teaching to use technology, and we stop using technology to start teaching.

So it’s no wonder that when we compare the use of technology with more traditional teaching strategies, technology always comes across as the grossly overpaid but inept assistant the boss is having an affair with. The comparison is not a fair one.

Many problems stem from a lack of information. Research by the Education Endowment Foundation and the Sutton Trust, among others, shows that technology is most successful when it is used to plan and deliver lessons effectively, to promote meta-cognition and self-regulation, and to deliver feedback. This information rarely makes it down the line to teachers.

Technology is also not questioned enough. Teachers don’t just need to be better informed – we need to ask better

➤

When City Academy Whitehawk, a primary school in Brighton, procured iPads for every student, teacher and teaching assistant, it was not a case of simply handing over the devices and letting everyone get on with it. The school hired a specialist teacher, who worked one day a week for two years to upskill teachers and help to plan lessons involving iPads.

“There’s no point just giving teachers an iPad and not doing anything to support them in using it for teaching,” says headteacher David Williams. “All our teachers attended training and still do attend training, and the results have been excellent.

The iPads are not a gimmick; they are not kept locked in cupboards and brought out on the odd occasion. They are a fully integrated part of lessons.”

The iPads were acquired after the school received a £250,000 grant from the Fonthill Foundation. Training was carried out in conjunction with Tablet Academy.

“You have to introduce the technology to the teachers first,” Williams says. “You have to empower the teachers to be in charge, to lead the learning with the technology. If you do that, then it has the best chance of succeeding. Just giving them straight to the kids before the staff – that doesn’t work.”

The primary with iPads for everyone

questions. Many schools experimenting with mobile devices still expect magic to happen when they give children shiny slabs of aluminium and glass. It doesn’t. They must first ask questions such as: “When everyone has mobile devices, what will they do with them?” The answer is not as straightforward as it may seem.

Critiqueing the reasoning behind the use of technology makes us more realistic about its potential and more discerning as users. If we are dealing with tablets, for example, many of us assume that the choice of apps provides teachers and students with an smorgasbord of opportunities to conjure up the biggest and most coveted C in education – creativity.

In reality, although there are some laudable exceptions, a proper look at these apps reveals that most are actually terrible, or, at the very least, ill-suited to classroom use. There is no app for good teaching.

Finding the solutionsIf we are to move from problems to solutions, first we need to change the mindset in education. Let us take it as truth that, given the right conditions, technology and teaching can complement each other. By studying what currently works and does not work, we can develop a clearer, more realistic, evidence-informed framework for technology adoption. Here’s how it might look…

Grant teachers freedom to exploreTeachers should be permitted to use their professional judgement to introduce as much or as little technology as they feel is appropriate. After all, we shouldn’t impair the quality of someone’s teaching by forcing them to use technology.

Teachers who think technology is just a gimmick, or that it is distracting, are not likely to change if they’re forced to use devices they are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with. It would be much better if they were allowed to learn and experiment at their own pace, with effective support provided when they require and request it.

It may seem counterintuitive, especially to school leaders, but it is only when teachers have this combination of freedom and support that they begin to explore more sophisticated ways of using technology than just sitting children in front of computers for an hour or clicking their way through a PowerPoint. It’s only when we nourish this culture (think of it in the biological sense) that the cells begin to grow and multiply. To paraphrase Goodhart’s law, greater use of technology when it adds value to the learning ought to be the outcome, not the measure.

Empower teachers to make judgementsAnother valid question is: how do we know when technology adds value? We are all biased, of course, but I’m not going to suggest that everything you know is wrong or that your teaching practice is built on a myth.

Instead, I’m going to be bold and assert that if you are a trained teacher and think something has added value in your specific context, it probably has. If you are still a trainee teacher, find someone who is more experienced and whose judgement you trust and ask them. But feel free to disagree, because even if they are more experienced, you may be more knowledgeable about the use of technology.

You can only pass judgement on what you know and understand. And if you don’t know much about how technology can be used to enhance teaching and learning, you will be a poor judge of it and an even poorer critic.

Analyse the pros and consAt my school, I am currently piloting a mobile device programme in which every child and teacher will eventually be issued with a tablet computer. One of the most common

25 SEPTEMBER 2015 tes 29

Research published by the London School of Economics (see bit.ly/LSEtechnology) suggests that students at schools with a mobile phone ban achieve higher grades than pupils at schools without a ban. The study claims that “mobile phones can be a source of great disruption in classrooms, as they provide individuals with access to texting, games, social media and the internet”.

The idea of prohibiting mobile devices in school may appear attractive, and a ban could be the right call in some circumstances. But suggesting that “all headteachers worth their salt” should ban mobile devices – as Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of England’s

schools inspectorate Ofsted, did recently – does not really address the challenges and

opportunities that the devices

present to schools. Forcing students to enter

an alternative reality every morning

where the mobile internet doesn’t exist is probably not the answer.

Few advocates of mobile devices would suggest allowing children free rein to text each other, play games, interact on social media or roam the internet gathering data on the true size of Kim Kardashian’s, er, ego.

Yet the assumption that this is all children do, or are capable of doing, when they are permitted to use a device is what fuels calls for bans in schools. Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

How it should workWhen mobile devices are allowed or indeed supplied by a school, there is no such thing as free rein. Students use their devices for specific purposes, as and when they are instructed to by their teachers. The idea that children spend an entire lesson in front of a screen getting up to unsupervised mischief is inaccurate.

If a device is required in a lesson (note that all-important “if”) this is typically what

happens: the teacher delivers content and explains the task; the teacher instructs the children to bring out their mobile devices; the children perform the set task; the teacher instructs the children to put away their devices. This process may or may not be repeated in that same lesson. The teacher never says, “Hey, kids, do whatever you like on your phones.”

Some tasks lend themselves to the use of mobile devices. For example, smartphones and tablets are great for multimedia: children may be asked to photograph what they are learning; to make a sound recording of a musical performance or a conversation in a foreign language; or to film a practical demonstration or experiment. This may be just what is required to further their learning.

It is perfectly possible to implement a strict behaviour policy that allows the use of mobile devices in certain circumstances. If a child does not abide by the rules, he or she should face the agreed

consequences. And this policy ought to apply to everything, whether or not technology is involved.

To make sure mobile devices are used appropriately, schools must set high expectations with clear rules and sanctions. Then, when a pupil misbehaves (and they will), teachers can deal with the behaviour, not the technology.

Whether they opt for a total ban, a more relaxed approach or merely asking students to use their devices to make a note of their homework, headteachers should base their decision on the school’s specific circumstances and context.

Governments and schools inspectorates should indeed contribute their findings and views to the debate about mobile devices and behaviour. But, at the end of the day, what works in schools and the reasons why tend to be highly contextualised. So we should all refrain from making sweeping statements that any headteacher worth their salt would know to ignore.José Picardo (pictured, inset)

José Picardo on why the behaviour argument against mobile devices is flawed Watch a videoPupils from José Picardo’s school have made a short film explaining how they use mobile devices in the classroom. Watch it at tes.com/SurbitonHighTech

When mobile devices are allowed or indeed supplied by a school, there is no such thing as free rein

tesfeature

30 tes 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

Last week, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released its first study of digital skills, based on the results of its 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (see bit.ly/PisaDigitalSkills). It finds that in countries where significant investment had been made in technology for education, there was no improvement in pupil performance in reading, maths or science.

The study does highlight better learning outcomes among students who used computers moderately at school compared with students who used computers rarely. However, it finds that pupils who used computers very frequently at school performed much worse.

The OECD concludes that,

in order for ed tech to be effective, it needs to be better implemented.

“School systems need to find more effective ways to integrate technology into teaching and learning, to provide educators with learning environments that support 21st-century pedagogies and provide children with the 21st-century skills they need to succeed,” says Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the OECD.

“Technology is the only way to dramatically expand access to knowledge. To deliver on the promises technology holds, countries need to invest more effectively and ensure that teachers are at the forefront of designing and implementing this change.”

How to deliver on the ‘promise’ of techcriticisms is that the money spent on tablets would be better spent on other things, such as textbooks. This is commonly referred to as a problem of “opportunity cost”.

But microeconomic concepts such as opportunity cost can only take you so far in discussions about education, because they are often used to justify subjective and normative stances. If you suggest that the money spent on tablet computers ought to have been used for textbooks, you are making a normative statement, because you are expressing a value judgement and describing what you think ought to have happened.

This approach does not work in the case of technology in education, because it does not compare like with like. Tablet computers and textbooks both have a cost, and the financial cost of one is much higher than the other. Leaving aside the fact that cost is never restricted to the financial, the opportunities that books can offer are different to those offered by tablets. Textbooks never run out of battery, for example. On the other hand, they can’t access the internet or record science experiments in high definition.

The opportunities lost need to be balanced against the opportunities gained. Which is why, when investing in technology, it’s so important to invest in staff development too, so everyone understands the new opportunities (see panel, page 28). Only then can people make accurate comparisons between what may be lost and gained.

Create your own ‘truth’It’s clear that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to technology. It is down to every school to carefully implement the strategies they feel will contribute to improved teaching and learning. The specific challenges and opportunities that might arise from greater use of technology need to be considered within this wider context.

Acknowledge how far we’ve comeLet us remember that in most schools, teachers are already imparting knowledge and delivering content in effective, creative and engaging ways, supported by technology. Interactive whiteboard flip-charts, PowerPoint presentations and web-based multimedia resources have been features in our classrooms for years.

However, the success of lessons is almost always down to the quality of the teaching, with technology cast in a supporting but nevertheless important role. Teachers could deliver the same lessons without any tech at all, but they probably wouldn’t want to. Technology helps to engage students. And it helps them to learn.

José Picardo is assistant principal at Surbiton High School in Greater London

The mean number of students per computer in nine OECD countries, according to the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment

Pupils per computer

Aus

tral

iaFi

nlan

dG

erm

any

Kore

aSh

angh

ai, C

hina

Sing

apor

eSw

eden U

K US

0.9

3.1

4.2

5.3

2.9

2

3.7

1.41.8