NESTA's Decoding Learning [90 pages, 4.4 MB PDF], published today, was written under contract by Rose Luckin, Brett Bligh, Andrew Manches, Shaaron Ainsworth, Charles Crook and Richard Noss from the Learning Sciences Research Institute at Nottingham University and from IOE/Birkbeck's London Knowledge Lab.
The report has caught the attention of the media, with much of the coverage having a strong "money wasted by stupid people and organisations" flavour. (BBC - Costly hi-tech kit lies unused in schools, says study; Telegraph - Schools 'wasting £450m a year' on useless gadgets.)
But this is an important report, because it gets right to the heart of the challenge of enhancing learning with technology in schools (and elsewhere), whilst retaining an underlying (and evidence-based) optimism.
To encourage you to read the report in full, and to give you its overall flavour, here is its concluding section in full.
We looked for proof, potential and promise in digital education.
We found proof by putting learning first. We have shown how different technologies can improve learning by augmenting and connecting proven learning activities. This approach
gives us a new framework for evaluating future innovations in education.
The numerous examples of good practice identified in this report show that there is also
a great deal that can be done with existing technology. It is clear that there is no single
technology that is ‘best’ for learning. We have identified technology being used effectively
to support a variety of learning activities and learners across a wide range of subjects and
learning environments. Rather, different technologies can be used to support different
forms of learning, either individually or in conjunction with others.
There is a growing body of invaluable evidence that demonstrates how technology can
be used effectively to support learning. However, if that evidence is going to be useful in
practice it needs to address the contexts within which the technology is used; and it needs
to be presented in ways that are accessible to industry, teachers and learners.
We found clear potential to make better use of technologies that are widely available and
that many schools have already purchased. But this potential will only be realised through
innovative teaching practice. Teachers may require additional training that enables them to
use technologies in new ways.
There is enormous potential for further innovation in digital education. Success will come
from commercial developers, researchers, teachers and learners working together to
develop, test and spread imaginative new technologies.
We also found many areas of promise; that is, areas where technology is currently
undervalued and underused. We found relatively little technological innovation in some of
the more effective learning themes we considered in Chapter 2. For example, the market
is saturated with drill and practice games (particularly for maths) to support Learning
through Practising despite being regarded as one of the less powerful learning themes.
Meanwhile, there has been relatively little technological innovation aimed at supporting
Learning through Assessment – which can be a powerful aid to teaching and learning.
Over recent decades, many efforts to realise the potential of digital technology in
education have made two key errors. Collectively, they have put the technology above
teaching and excitement above evidence. This means they have spent more time, effort
and money looking to find the digital silver bullet that will transform learning than they
have into evolving teaching practice to make the most of technology. If we are to make
progress we need to clarify the nature of the goal we want to satisfy through future
innovation. Much existing teaching practice may well not benefit greatly from new
technologies. As we continue to develop our understanding of technology’s proof, potential
and promise, we have an unprecedented opportunity to improve learning experiences in
the classroom and beyond.
A US view on Richard O’Dwyer's contribution to Higher Education
Jim Farmer [biography, email jfx "AT" immagic "DOT" com] sent me this guest contribution today.
This morning we learned Richard O’Dwyer will not be extradited to the U.S. This was not surprising here in Washington DC. The copyright infringement cases brought by the U.S. are crumbling when reviewed by the courts. O’Dwyer’s barristers Ben Cooper and Edward Fitzgerald QCcrafted a brilliant agreement to save the public reputation of both the U.S. prosecutors and the British government. Even though some of us believe O’Dwyer would not have been found guilty of a crime, the pressures and risk were not worth making this a test case.
O’Dwyer was an excellent representative for UK students. He was always calm, thoughtful, focused, and informed—this is how we want the public to perceive students. This took courage, insight, and patience. His video on today’s Guardian — an increasingly popular news source here in the U.S. — was an excellent representation for students.
In the video O’Dwyer gave credit to his mother Julia for her support through a difficult experience. Those of us who followed the case closely admired her for her persistent effort and for bearing the burden of a parent.
In Washington DC Jimmy Wales’ “Save Richard O’Dwyer from Extradition” created a fear of repeating the Wikipedia blackout last January as Congress and the President consider changes to the copyright and privacy legislation .His efforts likely encouraged the U.S. to settle.
O’Dwyer did not do anything that is not done by thousands of students in the U.S. Companies like Google make such references to copyrighted work consistently. Current practice to include Internet address (URLs) for references in academic works often are to copyrighted documents The U.S. legal interpretation, not yet fully tested in the courts, appears to consider these references to a copyrighted work as a crime. I have asked faculty members if they have considered what O’Dwyer did—with advertising or not— illegal and, if asked by a student, would they have said. All have replied they would have answered “legal”.
The recent National Union of Students/Intellectual Property Office study said 57% of students had never learned about intellectual property issues before coming to the university. The report also quotes a 2006 article in the Library Review saying: “The current climate regarding IP in the UK HE sector has been described as 'both confused and confusing'.” This confusion makes faculty hesitant to give needed guidance to students that may later be found wrong. This confusion also impedes the effective transfer of information that is important both to research and to instruction.
The NUS study concludes:
The report fails to suggest how a faculty member could learn what guidance to give students; the implied recommendation cannot be implemented in the current uncertain environment.
Richard O’Dwyer was an unlikely hero. But no one could have done better.
Posted on 29/11/2012 in Guest contributions, JimFarmer, News and comment | Permalink | Comments (1)
|