From interactive whiteboards that aid language learning to virtual reality headsets that demonstrate Newton’s laws of motion, technology has the potential to yield strong results in the classroom. And yet the benefits are far from universal. Some teachers struggle to get the most out of expensive gadgetry, meaning schools risk investing thousands of pounds in hi-tech apparatus that fails to deliver, as reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2015.
Meanwhile, school technology budgets are falling. The average ICT budget for 2017-18 is forecast to be £13,800 for a primary school, a 4% decline year on year, and £58,230 for secondaries, a 7% fall, according to the British Educational Suppliers Association (Besa).
So how should schools prioritise to ensure this money is spent on the most useful technology?
To discuss the way ahead, the Guardian held a panel debate, sponsored by technology provider Brother, called Technology: Money Saver or Money Waster? A panel of four experts in the field discussed the issue with an audience of educationists, teachers and technology specialists.
The right tools for the job?
“We’ve gone through 10 years of device fetishism,” said panellist Donald Clark, founder of technology in education company PlanB Learning. He said schools had been investing in tablets for their pupils, despite evidence indicating that they are poor teaching tools.
“You have to look from a pedagogic and learning point of view,” he added. Research shows that when children write on tablets they have a high error rate. “It slows kids down, they resort to a truncated style and it is a disaster in terms of literacy – also, you can’t code.” He said tablets should be seen as a consumer device rather than an aid for learning.
However, a member of the audience, art teacher Gill Jenkins, said she had successfully used tablets for an art project with year 10 pupils and they were “really engaged in it”.
Success depended on the context in which technology was used, said panel member John Galloway, an advisory teacher who used technology with children with special educational needs. If the iPad was used for the wrong activities – such as writing or coding – it would give poor results, he said. Used in the right way, however, it could be a powerful teaching tool. “One of biggest barriers to technology adoption is teachers being given the time to be trained to use it,” he added. Research published by Besa in January revealed that about 60% of teachers had made training in technology one of their key aims for this year.
Galloway added that some technology may not have worked originally but may yet become commonplace. Virtual learning environments (VLEs), for example, failed to take off in the UK when they were introduced 10 years ago but may have been ahead of their time, and Google Classroom has now picked up the baton.
Testing, testing…
Michael Mann, an educationist at the innovation lab at Nesta (formerly the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) – a charity that promotes innovation – believed educational technology was struggling to fulfil its potential. To address this, Nesta was giving grants to companies to measure the impact of classroom technology, and looking at ways to help teachers test out technology in their classrooms.
Mann advocated small-scale trials of technology before making big investments. “Do small-scale testing with a teacher passionate about it and they can show other teachers where it is relevant and where it isn’t,” he said. “If they find out it doesn’t work – which is often the case – a costly rollout can be avoided.”
Naureen Khalid, a school governor and co-founder of @UkGovChat, a Twitter forum for school governors, said governors are demanding rigorous evidence before splashing out on new technology. “Schools are poor and funding isn’t going to get any better. We are custodians of public money and as a governor I can’t commit to doing a trial and then writing it off.”
The panel was split over whether teachers should be the arbiters of technology investment in schools. Clark argued against this, saying schools should rely on in-depth research into the educational effectiveness of the technology. If teachers tested out technology in their lessons, they risked wasting valuable teaching time and using pupils as guinea pigs. But others pointed out that much teaching was risky and experimental, with uncertain results, and technology was no different – although more expensive if it failed. Furthermore, research reports may be paid for by the technology companies involved, making them far from independent.
Sharing ideas and experience
From the audience, technology writer Terry Freedman doubted that research reports into classroom technology were much use for teachers, as they were often long, difficult to read and inconclusive.
“Ultimately, anecdotal evidence is really good,” he said. “Teachers trying something in the classroom should ask what problem they are trying to solve, highlight the good bits and offer a five-minute evaluation.”
Mann said Nesta was piloting an online funding platform called Rocket Fund, where teachers could pitch ideas relating to the use of technology in the classroom and connect with corporate and community donors. This was also helping to spread experiences and ideas among schools.
He pointed to online learning initiatives such as Third Space Learning – which connected primary school pupils with tutors in India and Sri Lanka to provide lower-cost online tutoring – as one scheme that had worked well.
The panel discussed whether a centralised procurement approach – whereby an overall body collected evidence on the educational benefits of different devices – could help streamline the process. But concerns were expressed that some teachers might struggle to trust technology recommended by another teacher and would insist on trying it out themselves.
Control groups, where the results of a class using specific technology were compared to those of a class without the technology, were also discussed. But Galloway thought this would be a “messy” approach – as much depended on the teacher, their relationship with the class and the engagement levels of the students involved.
Virtual reality and artificial intelligence
And what of virtual reality? Clark pointed out that VR headsets could be effective in teaching Newton’s laws of motion and demonstrating weightlessness, while Galloway said VR had huge potential for children with special needs: a child in a wheelchair could experience the top of St Paul’s Cathedral or the bottom of a mineshaft; a child with autism could take a virtual trip around the British Museum to prepare them for the real thing.
Galloway also pointed to eye-gaze technology, which helped people control computers through their eye movements, as a technology with useful applications. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence was touted as a powerful technology for transforming the classroom, with applications in marking and exams.
The panel agreed that teachers could benefit from taking part in ResearchEDmeetings. The body, which was founded by two teachers, brings together teachers, researchers and policymakers to share information on technology teaching tools.
From the audience, Ahrani Logan, co-founder of Peapodicity, an educational technology studio specialising in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, said tech startups could run evaluations of classroom technology, since they excelled in analytics.
Sandra Crapper, education adviser at Onefourseven, an educational advisory service providing professional development to primary schools, said teachers could learn about technology from pupils. “Our job is to analyse where it might lead them in a positive and productive way,” she said. The panel suggested that teachers could make use of the smartphones most children brought into classrooms, although there were problems of security and behaviour associated with this.
As schools face yet more budget cuts, governors and heads will have to make some stark choices – but technology is certain to play a part in the classroom of the future. And while there was much debate on how decisions should be made, it seems that finding ways for teachers to share information about what works will be key.
Source: http://bit.ly/2tsu2Rh
