Touch and go

Since the introduction of the iPad and the subsequent parade of similar touch screen tablets, there has been much speculation about exactly what impact the devices might have on learning and teaching. A lot has been written about the potential of the devices, and much has been purely anecdotal. Clearly tablets are easy to use and have potential to revolutionise the way people access information. But what about formal education? I have contributed to the dialogue on this blog and there is much to discuss in relation to pedagogy, teacher roles, assessment and curriculum issues. There are also huge potential benefits in untethering learning - allowing students to roam while using the devices as mobile learning platforms. Recently a book was published with the title iPads in Schools, and several conference papers and articles are emerging which debate the place of touch tablets in formal education. Will they be a welcome addition to formal learning, or will they be a distraction? The intuitive design of touch screen tablets and their usability serve to fuel the hyperbole. But what impact are iPads really having on learning in formal education?

Until very recently, little empirical evidence had emerged to demonstrate clear learning benefits from tablets. The publication by NAACE (authored by Jan Webb) will add to our knowledge. Entitled 'The iPad as a Tool for Education' the report is one of the most comprehensive yet on the impact of tablets in schools. It is a case study conducted at Longfield Academy in Kent, one of the first schools in the UK to adopt a school wide roll out of iPads to all of its students. Results of the study were mainly positive, showing that iPads were instrumental in encouraging better collaboration and increasing the motivation for learning. The tablets were used to develop beyond school activities and for supporting homework, and the quality of student work and learning outcomes has improved. This will be the first of a range of studies that will emerge in the next year or two, as more school adopt one iPad per child strategies, and time is taken to realise tangible and measurable outcomes from embedding the tools into daily learning and teaching.

Image by Fotopedia


Touch and go by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Net worth of the iPad

Much interest was shown in yesterday's post iPad or iFad? It focused on whether schools should provide iPads for all their students. In the UK several schools are already doing this, and all have received great criticism from pressure groups who claim that it is an expensive gimmick. All down through the history of technology, as each new tool is introduced, there are those who will resist and complain, usually without any real evidence to justify their complaints. The main objection against one iPad per child projects is that there is little evidence to show that the new devices actually improve learning gain. The schools counter this argument by saying that with projects in their infancy it does take time to set up research and gather data, interpret it and discover whether an affect is in evidence.

The discussion on iPad or iFad was very interesting and thought provoking and I would like to express my thanks to all those who participated. The gist of the discussion centred not so much on the technology (and rightly so) but more on the pedagogy. You can follow it for yourself here, but generally, those participating agreed that if a new technology such as the iPad is introduced into the classroom it will only be effective if the the teaching and learning changes to harness the power of that technology. Too often we have seen new technologies placed into the classroom, and then used in exactly the same way as the old technology they are meant to replace. This video shows what not to do with an iPad:

One school I featured in yesterday's post was Mounts Bay Academy, near Penzance, Cornwall. Mounts Bay is one of the secondary schools in the UK that has adopted one iPad per child, and at the cost of over half a million pounds, has been the target for a lot of flak from groups such as the Tax Payers Alliance. Sara Davey, head teacher of Mounts Bay was yesterday interviewed on BBC radio, and reported an initial set of results from their school-wide iPad project as follows:

In a recent student survey 90% of Mounts Bay students agreed that iPads were very useful for their learning, especially in Science, English, Religious Education and History.  They reported that they made personal learning gains by working faster and getting more done. The students found the iPads very useful for their research and homework and they liked the fact that it is inclusive with a personal device for every student. Teachers observed that there were gains in Literacy learning, with communication now excellent between staff and students and improving greatly with between the school and parents.  There is a report on the website of a visit by teachers from nearby schools Penrice and Callington yesterday with comments, and an iPad showcase section. Data collected by the school indicate that Year 11 achievement looked very promising this year with a possible 10% increase in students gaining 5 GCSEs (including English and Mathematics).

As Sara Davey herself warns, these results cannot and should not be solely attributed to the introduction of the iPads. Yet it is significant that students have reported that they revise earlier because they are more interested in studying using the iPads than they are using text books.

Image courtesy of Fotocommunity

Net worth of the iPad by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

iPad or iFad?

In 2002 I was so enthused by the idea that a school could provide one desktop computer for every child, that I launched a research programme to study one of the first schools in the UK to achieve that goal for each of its 41 Year 6 pupils. We placed a research assistant in a classroom for several hours each week, over an entire term at Broadclyst Community Primary School, near Exeter in Devon, to observe and record what happened. The results were later published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, and the 1:1 ratio certainly made a difference to learning engagement, but not necessarily to learning gain. Our major findings were that the 1:1 ratio of laptop provision encouraged greater creativity from the children, and improved their levels of engagement and enthusiasm across subjects.

Now, ten years on, more and more schools are finding the resources to offer their students a laptop each, and some schools are trail blazing by providing iPads for each of their learners. One such school, Cedars School of Excellence, in Greenock, Scotland has discovered that providing an iPad for each of its children has many benefits. Fraser Speirs, the teacher primarily responsible for the roll-out almost two years ago, argues that what attracts children to using the iPad to learn is its portability, accessibility and intuitive touch screen interface. The touch screen enables users, teachers and students, to get very quickly to the heart of learning by using natural gestures, without having to spend time discovering which key to press, how to navigate around, or start up a particular software tool. The school treats the iPads as 'everyday' rather than special, because when students leave school and enter the world of work, technology will surround them. Speirs claims that the iPads facilitate learning that is 'more flexible, engaging and interesting.' He says that it is too early in the project to report if the iPads have made a significant difference on achievement. You can read more about the Cedar School iPad project on Fraser's blog.

Another school taking the plunge into 1:1 iPad provision is Mounts Bay Academy, a secondary school near Penzance in Cornwall. Headteacher Sara Davey is a visionary who wants to transform learning in the school and facilitate world class learning. She is not short of critics, many of whom claim the scheme, costing just over £300 for each of its 900 students, is little more than a costly gimmick. She counters these criticisms by arguing that in the long term, iPads will be more cost effective than purchasing expensive books which go out of date. It will also be an improvement on the ICT suite, which takes up valuable space and resources and can only be used by small groups of students at a time. She sees learning on the move for all as preferable, because each child can take their iPad into lessons, use them across the curriculum, and take them home to continue their learning seamlessly.  Similarly to Speirs, Davey argues that the iPads will improve student engagement and make learning more interesting. Again, this project is at an early stage and time will tell whether there is a direct impact on the quality of learning.

What are your views about one iPad for every child? Is it innovative and far-sighted, or just another gimmick with little evidence to justify the cost?

NB: You can read more on the debate about whether every student should have an iPad here.

Image source


iPad or iFad? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Rock and a hard place

Earlier today Shelly Terrell tweeted that she would prefer to see schools invest in mobile technologies than in Interactive White Boards (IWBs). Here's what she said: "Personally, I feel $$ better spent on mobile devices in classrooms vs IWBs." Actually, I can see her reasoning behind this, because although I have observed some excellent learning and teaching using IWBs in some schools, they are few and far between. Many teachers I have watched tend to use IWBs like an expensive display board. They won't let smaller hands anywhere near it. Perhaps the boards are positioned wrongly on walls so the kids can't reach them, as in Neil Selwyn's account Revisiting the promise of digital technology in schools. Perhaps the teacher simply wants to maintain control of the classroom, and feels that letting kids interact with the screen might unleash some kind of diabolical anarchy. Kids at the front of the class? Never! They should be sat down behind their desks, listening quietly, making notes! 'Elf and safety mate. Perhaps the teacher thinks the kids might damage the board, because after all, IWBs can be expensive to repair? Sticky fingers all over the board - not on my watch my friend. Or perhaps, most likely, the teacher is too hard pressed for time to dream up activities in which the children can actually leave their seats and interact with the resources on the screen.

It's a shame, really it is. When kids are allowed to interact with the IWBs in the ways they were intended to be used, there is a great deal of excitement, and a lot of engaged learning. When they are not allowed to touch the screen, it becomes just another teaching tool, and it's a 'so what?' from the class. I have seen both in the classroom, and I know which one I prefer to watch.

Mobile phones are different. Many children have them, and they are very adept at using them, but usually only to send texts or access their Facebook accounts. How many of them would actually consider using their phone to access learning? And waht's worse, many schools have imposed a ban on mobile phones in the classroom, because they consider there is greater potential to disrupt, bully, subvert or otherwise use the devices in ways too nefarious to mention.

Perhaps Shelly meant that schools should invest in iPads, or the more affordable mini-iPads? (er, I mean iPod Touches) Now there's an idea. I can think of a whole raft of ideas for learning activities using iPods as a tool. Then there are games consoles such as the Nintendo DS with its Pictochat features. We could go on - the world, as Del Boy once said, is our lobster.

Here's my take. It would be a shame to abandon the Interactive White Board in favour of mobile devices, just because many teachers can't seem to use them in an engaging way. The same could apply to handheld mobile devices, if teachers haven't got the time to think up good uses, or there is not enough cash available to purchase them because - well, the budget has all been spent on installing IWBs that are not gong to be used properly. Hmmm. I think we're caught between a rock and a hard place. Anyone know a way out?

Image source by Rob Schenk

Rock and a hard place by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

2020 Classrooms

Will we still need classrooms by 2020? If so, what kind of learning environments will they be? Or will students learn on the move, in their workplaces, at home, and through the multiple connections facilitated by new communication technology? This is a difficult question to answer, because school and education, although not synonymous, are deeply ingrained in our culture and have become a key component of our social, political and economic thinking. Implicit in the question are a number of issues, including the relationship between teaching and curriculum, and nature of state funded education and the role of teachers. Also under the spotlight are the demands of society, work, family and community, and how these are balanced against the needs of individual learners.

I recently used Twitter to crowdsource a number of responses to what would be obsolete in education in 2020. The discussion can be found under the hashtag #learning2020. In this post I would like to present some of the tweets, and provide a critical commentary around them, in the hope that it will provide a useful contribution to the discourse surrounding the purpose of education and the future of learning.

The design and configuration of classrooms was a particular concern for several people. Melissa Brown Boyle, an elementary school teacher in the USA, predicted that school classrooms of the future will have "fewer individual student desks and more tables or open floor space conducive to discussion and movement". She also believes in moving learning beyond traditional settings: "open discussion space must be global not just local, virtual links are just as real as graffiti on desks.” She has a point, because often, classrooms are cluttered with furniture, and provide less space for creative activities to be organised. These are sentiments echoed by another teacher, Vanessa Camilleri, who calls for more creative options through flexibility - the global classroom is already there for the making. So, do we need to redesign classrooms to make them more conducive to personalised and creative forms of learning? Evelyn MacElhinney is even more radical. She envisages 'hologram rooms' where students can 'learn in the scenario' and she advocates doing away with tables and chairs completely in schools of the future.

What about the way education is currently conducted? What about the closed nature of the classroom? Mr Colley, a teacher in the UK wants to see closed door classrooms become a thing of the past. He also predicts that teachers will very soon need to determine the differences between cheating and collaboration. Martin Homola, a PhD student in Slovakia, made the prediction that education behind closed doors will be obsolete by 2020. He suggests that 'online, open channels' will be the building blocks of future education. By this, I assume he means that open content, open source and open learning will come to the fore, and schools will be less protective over their content and classroom methods. Theo Kuechel agrees, and hopes to see 'more CC' and less 'C' on learning content in the future.

Sonia Cooper, also a teacher, wanted to see learning environments where each child had one device that 'did everything' including connecting to each other, the teacher, and content for learning. The scots had a lot to say about future learning: Kenny Pieper, an English teacher in Scotland, saw a future where the classroom was replete with iPads, Kindles and other personal tools for learning. Others such as Fraser Speirs, a head of computing, at a school in Scotland, also called for 1-1 technology provision, but added wisely that children should be presented with challenge-based learning. Yet Ian Stuart, a Deputy Head teacher in Scotland, warned that perhaps the "idea of 1-1 tablets in 2020 is like man in 1900 thinking we'd have really fast steam engines by 2000". He's right of course. When gazing into the future, we should certainly not constrain our thinking to current mindsets and conceptions of technology. Instead, we should try to be like the children in our classes - to let our imagination run riot, because from this can come the creative solutions for the problems of the future. What is your vision for 2020 learning?

Previous posts in this series on 2020 Learning include 2020 Learners and 2020 Vision.

Image source by Shuichiro


2020 Classrooms by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Very touching

Under consideration during one of my tutorials were the affordances of touch screen tools such as Apple's iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. Regular readers of this blog may remember a post I wrote last month on natural gesture interfaces entitled It's only natural. In it I reported that there are a number of ways to interface with a computer now, including touch screen, non-touch (e.g. the XBox 360 Kinect), touch surface (e.g. MIT's Sixth Sense wearable), voice activation, and a number of other operation modes, many of which are spin-offs of adaptive technologies developed to support users with physical disabilities. Even facial feature recognition has been mentioned as a future interface mode.

But it was the Apple iPad tablet and other touch screen tools such as Dell's Latitude laptop that were in our focus today. (A review of the new Latitude 2110 will feature on this blog in the near future) I speculated that it was not only the tactile characteristics of the touch screen that were important, but that haptics could also be a key factor. Non-touch interfaces will no doubt become popular in time, as has already been shown by the rapid rise in popularity of the XBox Kinect. But the Nintendo Wii remains a popular gaming technology, possibly because of the haptic feedback system built into the handset. If you hit a golf ball too strongly for example, not only do you hear the fateful sound of an overhit golf ball, and experience the view of the ball overshooting the green, you also feel the vibration in the handset, which convinces your nervous system that you have made a mistake. Although the iPad screen doesn't vibrate, it never the less provides pressure resistance feedback to the user. It is a sort of middle ground between the flexible 'give' of the conventional keyboard or mouse, and the 'nothingness' of the XBox 360 Kinect. Haptics, I think, will have a big role to play in the future acceptance of natural gesture interfaces and may influence which systems ultimately become the 'Killer App' replacement for the keyboard and mouse. People may not be as ready for the completely non-touch interfaces.

A second point we discussed was that natural gestures such as pinching, flicking and swiping are intuitive, and offer students a tactile, transparent window to manipulation of content and quicker learning. Transparent technologies are those that require learners to invest a minimum of thought and effort into navigating and operating a system, thereby allowing them more cognitive processing capablity to learn. Conversely, an opaque technology (some institutional VLEs fall into this category) is a technology that forces students to concentrate more on using the tools than they do on actual learning. The former is clearly more desirable than the latter, and iPad and iPhone type interfaces provide this transparency. Students 'see through' the technology to more easily find, organise and assimilate the content.

The third important aspect of touch screen interfaces is their capability to support learning, communication and interaction with surroundings while on the move. New and emerging applications such as Augmented Reality, GPS and 3D visualisation also have a lot of appeal, particularly for those who find themselves having to navigate through unfamiliar neighbourhoods. We will probably see a lot of new developments around computer interfaces in the coming few years, but I think Apple have nailed it with the iPad touchscreen for a while at least.

Image source


Very touching by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The future of learning

The Future of Learning

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

What is the future of education? With the upsurge in ownership of smart mobile devices such as iPhones, Androids and Blackberries, the rapid social penetration of touchscreen computers such as iPads, and an increase in the purchase of Kindles and other e-reader devices, the future of learning is definitely smart mobile. 80 per cent or so of the learning that most of us engage in is of an informal nature. Informal learning is becoming an increasingly enriched experience with personal tools, and there is improved connectivity too, ensuring that anyone who has a mobile smart device is more likely to be able to connect to the Internet quickly and seamlessly. Social networking sites and online media sharing sites are also enjoying exponential increases in membership, leading to the supposition that this generation is a profoundly connected generation. Students will use Facebook when they want to, and their institutional managed learning environment when they have to.

It is clear that education will not share the same future as the state funded school, because education and school are not synonymous. It doesn't end at school either. Those who pursue formal learning to the level of further and higher education will experience a growing gulf between the capabilities of the technology they arrive with in their hands, and technology that is provided in the classroom. They are different tools, for different purposes. The Blackberry or iPhone will be used to connect to informal learning and friends, for fun, entertainment and social purposes. The institutional system will be used for connecting to formal learning, and activities that are more formalised and by their nature, less entertaining and engaging. The personal technologies will be sleek, attractive, must-have, rapid action and intuitive devices, while the institutional systems will be rule-bound, clunky, opaque and bland. It follows that many students will prefer to access learning resources, their tutors and peers through their own personal technologies. We will thus witness a gradual decline in on-campus learning, with an increasing number of blended programmes made available to meet the demand of an increasingly mobile student population. Because students will increasingly rely on smart mobile tools for learning, FE and HE institutions may agree special arrangements with telecommunications companies to offset the call cost for students, as a trade off to the money the save by reducing their on-campus operations.

The blended learning courses of the future will be those that combine formal and informal learning features. Formal learning will be undertaken mainly for the purpose of gaining accreditation, informal learning will be engaged with for the remainder of the waking hours. Unless we can harness the power, excitement and richness of the informal personalised learning experience and translate it into formalised settings, we will continue to see a widening rift between school and education. The slideshow above - a part of the keynote speech I gave at LearnTEC in Karlsruhe, Germany, earlier this month - illustrates these and other thoughts about what we might see in the future of learning.


The future of learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.