eLearning future: Device independent

It was a single tweet about a university that was providing iPads for staff and students, followed by a Periscope session with a teacher whose school was providing iPads for all its students and teachers  that made my mind up to write this post. For years I have been espousing the need for educational institutions to build their IT infrastructures on a cross-platform, mixed device strategy and I think, at last, we are in a place where it not only makes sense but is actually easy to implement.

What follows is a brief overview of why and how you should look at your IT infrastructure strategy again.

Why

Most of us would agree that a successful learning environment is one that caters to the individual needs of the learner rather than the administrative requirements of the institution.

Even when I was young (many thousands of years ago!!) we all personalised our books by wrapping paper around them and drawing/writing on them. When computers arrived individuals personalised their computers by adding backdrops and moving icons around. Small things but important. Of course, when the first computers arrived pupils were thankful to get any time on a school computer as such time was rare and hopefully exciting.

But now we have many pupils from early ages with access to their own, powerful computing devices which they can freely personalise, manage and modify without any intervention from others.

Why then should we make young people, and indeed staff, who have invested time, learning and money in the use of a specific type of device/software and ask them to learn to use something that they will only see in school? Surely it is much better to build on their own personal investment in a device and create an environment that enhances their chances of success using a device that they already have some experience using?

Moreover, not only would such a strategy encourage the individual it would also take pressure off the IT support teams within the school. Users are much less likely to ask for support if they are using a device to which they have access 24 hours a day and which they have some personal investment in.

How

Let's be clear, this is not going to happen overnight (I hope - because that would be AWFUL). An institution needs to plan and prepare for a change to a more flexible, individual-centred approach.

Let's start with your core, cross-platform toolset. Many people choose between Office365 or Google Apps. I say, WHY CHOOSE??

Office 365 & Google Apps! 

Use both of these great software toolsets and you have a great deal of your learning and teaching needs covered. It's perfectly possible to combine both sets of tools together and to make use of each component as an when it is applicable. This has been made even easier recently by the great updates to Microsoft Office tools for a variety of platforms.

Use the web

Make use of the cross-platform features of the web. More and more great educational tools and resources are becoming available through the web and, for the most part a great deal of the curriculum, even computer programming and video editing can be carried out through a web browser.

Other Cross-Platform Tools

Start to develop your learning and teaching activities that can't be delivered through the above tools by using software that is available across platforms. Many educational publishers are now developing using cross-platform tools since it makes economic sense not to lock oneself out of a specific computing platform.

If all else fails - remote apps

If something is only available on a specific platform see if you can build a remote app server that can be accessed through a web browser (incredibly easy using systems such as Microsoft Azure) and deliver the functionality to users through their web browser.

Where could it take you ....

By moving towards a cross-platform, device independent learning environment you not only free yourself from the 'we must have the latest device' approach but also open up the possibility of removing the need to purchase devices at all in the future. Think about it, we already have Microsoft touting its ability for Windows Phone devices to be used like a desktop PC when connected to a monitor, keyboard and mouse. This is a trend that will almost certainly be adopted in different ways by other manufacturers and, if it takes you 2 years to move to a fully cross-platform environment you may well be in a position to say to staff that they can choose their own device and use that. Perhaps the following year this could be followed up by a similar scheme for some students. Over a five year period you could move the school from a provider, and supporter, of hundreds of devices to a place where personal, individually owned devices are enabled to be used on a high-speed, high-quality infrastructure that is a bonus for everyone.

Computer Science Teachers - Should they be required to develop an application for others?

For a while now I have been concerned about how Computer Science, and particularly programming, is being taught. This was brought into highlight when I met an enthusiastic young student who wants to get into computer game development. She is keen to learn and has enrolled in an FE College but was more than a little disgruntled when she was told that she would be learning ActionScript, a language that surely belongs in the dustbin of history, especially as Flash is rapidly making an exit from most developers toolbox.

This made me think about the issues we hit in the 80's, when computer programming lost it's 'fizz' in education. Back then we had few real 'programmers who could teach and few teachers who could program. A great deal of programming was taught from textbooks and worksheets using standard application templates, such as the pretty boring 'Video Store' development as a template for 'learning programming'. Computer programming became fairly stale as a subject, compounded by pretty awful exam structures that failed to address relevant and up-to-date topics and this, by and large, acted as a real 'turn off' for young people who wanted to learn how to code to satisfy their own needs.

The low levels of expertise, confidence and experience within the teaching profession and the generally boring lessons being taught (I saw so many that I nearly fell asleep in!!) pushed young people to develop on their BBC B's and Sinclair Spectrums in their own bedrooms rather than in the shiny, new computer suites that schools invested in.

IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN!

What worries me is that it seems to be happening again. Yes, there are examples of keen teachers who produce great lessons and enthuse their pupils. But these are few compared to the army of teachers who are having to teach Computer Science with little or no experience of actually coding themselves.

Developing a computer program is more than just 'computational thinking' and learning some code structures. Unless you have actually developed a piece of software that actually solves a problem and/or adds some value, for yourself and others, then it is really hard to impart the knowledge required to empower young people to get the most from a Computer Science course.

Back in the 80's some of the best computer programming lessons were taught by teachers who had developed software for themselves, some of which made it into the Microcomputers in Education Programme packs that were shared with schools across the country.

Perhaps now is the time to get every computer science teacher to design, develop and ship an application that solves a problem ir adds value to their staff and/or students and share it with others on Github, perhaps with some prizes offered by computer companies? If the process of developing this application was seen as CPD and funded by the school as such - with time and perhaps some money put aside for support - then everyone, not least the students, may gain a great deal from the experience.

If nothing else, it would give CS teachers some real life experience of code development and may help them contextualise their teaching,

College of Teaching - A thought experiment about its role

So what will the proposed College of Teaching ACTUALLY be able to do for the profession?

Having read the BBC News article about the findings of research that suggested classroom design had an impact on academic success I asked  on Twitter how a College of Teaching would be able to support the adoption of the findings from this research into real classrooms.


I posed the question as a thought experiment to try and stimulate some discussion about how the College of Teaching may supplement and compliment the responses already active around research such as this. I am particularly keen to explore how our 'research-led' profession could use a College of Teaching to enable more professionals to make use of research such as this.

Gareth Alcot (@GalcottGareth) came up with some interesting suggestions ....

• research champions providing support advice access online
• work with training schools to support ITT
• research buddies/mentors supporting local/national collaboration between schools
• ...members/authors in school via staff meeting
• as well as local/national events, CoT teachmeets...
• ...research/discussion forum, 
• website with auto alert email, 
• online forum/discussion rooms, 
• >workshops ....

and the ever insightful Angela McFarlane (@AEMcFarlane) added ....

• one thing COT could offer is fora for discussion of research2unpick implications4practice- w authors ideally

Now Twitter is probably not the best place to explore more complex issues such as this so I thought, having stirred the pot, I would ponder on how the CoT could add value myself......

Rather than taking the role of the CoT from a point of view of the 'here and now' I think it is worth projecting a few years into the future when, perhaps, there are a large number of professionals enrolled within the College and it has matured a little, becoming accepted as a mechanism for exploring new ideas with the teaching profession. So the following thoughts are predicated on the assumption that there are thousands of teachers who engage, even in a minor way, with the College on a fairly regular basis and that the College has an 'active core' who engage regularly. So let's envisage this ...

The research, as reported on the BBC, carried out by Salford University would have been funded with a requirement to actively involve the CoT in the dissemination of the research and possibly in the design of the research itself The funding would also require the researchers to engage in a range of 'follow-up' activities with members of the CoT which would include online discussions and even opportunities to support individual CoT members or institutions in setting up small-scale action research opportunities based on their research. Since the funding would include these as part of the initial bid there would be no  issues around capacity to deliver and this would encourage those in the profession interested in the findings to explore them within their own learning contexts.

Furthermore the College could utilise the high-level connections that it has made with the commercial sector and Government to identify building projects, that already have funding allocated, which could be used to apply the results of the research in real-life contexts, possibly with some form of medium-term follow-up research associated with these projects. Again, the commercial sector would be encouraged to link some form of research to their bids, in association with the CoT, in order to qualify for the procurement in the first place. Using the resources within the CoT and the expertise that the College could call upon would mean that such research funding would not increase bid costs a great deal and would provide value both for the institution itself, the CoT and the profession as a whole.

Lessons learnt would be disseminated through conferences, etc. with profits from conferences and speaking fees going towards the CoT in order to help fund further activities.

Those who wanted to take on 'action research' projects within their institutions could be encourage by enabling them to earn academic credits towards post-graduate qualifications and recognition through a CoT-based pyramid of qualifications aligned to other accredited qualifications but based around criteria set by the CoT.

I'm sure there are many other ways that the CoT could be used to move research like this from 'nice to have' to a 'reality' in our classrooms and I look forward to seeing more ideas about its usefulness in the future.

Good code is important

Good, clear, well structured code is key

I responded to a tweet from @CSTeachingTips  which stated 

"Loosen your requirements for style sometimes to keep students motivated to write programs."

My response was

"This just is so wrong. Good structure HELPS those who find it difficult. Motivate them with fun, side activities nt bad code"

Now first let me say that I think a lot of the tips on the site CSTeaching Tips site are great and especially so for inexperienced teachers or those lacking confidence with coding and computer science in general and I like popping in and reading them from time to time.

I also see where they are coming from with this tip. Coding can be hard work. Getting it right, typing in lines of code (although many professional coders will use libraries of code and seem to type less and less) and the inevitable bug tracking can be a pain.

But that's where I differ from the tip that the team gave. It seems to me that keeping to an accurate, well-defined style and structure when coding is one of the most important parts of helping our learners get the most from their coding experiences. Without these structures and conventions it can quickly become very difficult indeed for someone trying to help a learner with their code to track down a bug or a feature that is not working as hoped. This is especially so for the inexperienced teacher.

The key to assist engagement is to teach in creative ways, keep a good pace to a learning activity, provide a variety of experiences within the lesson and aim to make the tasks relevant and interesting. There is no reason a lesson, or series of  lessons, needs to be filled with pure coding all the time. Mix things up with some fun activities that demonstrate a particular issue, concept or outcome. Add some discussion about a topic and set some interesting 'computational thinking' problems that explore the problem solving aspects of Computer Science and there are lots more.

But please, please don't relax standards and styles, it will only make things much worse.

Digital Strategy for Learning & Teaching

Following an interesting Twitter chat about digital strategies on the #BettChat group I decided to share some of the things I have learnt over the years about developing digital strategies for learning and teaching. My experience helping develop these strategies ranges from small, country primary schools, large inner city secondary schools and even whole City strategies designed to address the needs of over 100 schools.

Rather than take days, weeks and months to finish such a document I decided to open up the process of developing the document by sharing it here and writing it, mistakes, errors and all, using a Google Drive document, for all to see. This will very much be an on-going work in progress and I would appreciate any comments, feedback etc. from any experts out there.

So here it is - Developing a digital strategy for learning and teaching

IT Skills Gap Whitepaper - Some thoughts

IT Skills Gap - Time for companies to step up

The recently released BCS Whitepaper on the IT Skills Gap provides some sober reading for those in business and education alike. One statistic that stood out for me was ...

'IT is the sector most affected by high staff turnover, with an overall figure of £1.9bn per year. The research suggests the average IT worker takes more than seven months to reach their peak productivity, at a cost of £31,808 to the business.'

This is interesting on a number of levels:

Surely 7 months is far too long to allow an IT worker to reach their peak productivity. This suggests that companies should be looking at their induction / on-boarding programmes in more depth and looking to find ways of securing a more productive worker in a shorter period of time. Of course, we all know the reasons for this tend to be a little self-fulfilling .... the new hire enters an under-resourced, over-stretched unit where no one has the time to fully bring them up to speed because their time is spent on 'must have now' activities. Thus the new hire has to find out much of what they need to know through a process of gradual 'osmosis'. And why is the unit under-resourced and over-stretched? Why the IT Skills gap of course!!

That £31,808 cost to the business for having a relatively un-productive worker for 7 months should wake up managers into thinking about the costs that they apply to on-boarding their IT Workers. Even for relatively small organisations such a cost is large and they need to develop strategies that reduce it over time.

The document pushes the ideas of broadening partnerships with local organisations and widening the talent pool from which to draw IT workers. This is the way I would go to address this on-boarding issue. Companies should look to have links with academic institutions, schools, colleges and universities and build those links into concrete opportunities for everyone. Actively engage with schools and colleges in the area to develop educational programmes that deliver the skills that you WILL require and the culture that you are looking to develop within your company.

If a group of companies worked together to develop one or more support programmes with local schools and colleges around computational thinking and computer programming or IT Service and Support then they could, with relatively little investment, start to develop a pipeline of potential IT professionals that would help them close the local IT Skills gap. CISCO started to do this with their CISCO Networking Academy but for many schools and colleges this ended up costing them too much money and other resources. The same was true to a lesser extent for Microsoft, although the costs their were less.

One of the best models I saw was back in the mid-90's where a local IT consulting company 'donated' some of it's consultants time to working within  local schools to teach pupils about computer programming. The best pupils were offered further training, free of charge to the pupil, with the expectation that within a year they would be earning the company money, whilst still learning, and that by the end of three years they would be ready to earn as a fully-fledged developer. The scheme worked because the company was local, they understood local conditions and knew the local schools and colleges who they treated as real partners.

They understood realities of education but counted that for every year they would be able to bring in enough new recruits to make it viable. They treated it seriously and worked WITH the schools and colleges to develop their educational programmes to not only fit in with the potential qualifications on offer but also to fit in with the atmosphere in the institution. They sent their BEST people into teach alongside the teachers, supporting the staff in schools to bring their programming expertise to the classroom activities and helping to give some validity to the process of developing computational thinking. As important, they brought an understanding of the current and near future needs of the commercial sector. After all they needed to have developers who would develop using the latest, most commercial technologies not ones that had been set by an exam board 3-5 years before.

Undoubtedly the cost to the company was considerable but they had done the sums and it made sense to them. It also made sense to the schools and colleges. Having experts from business working with their staff and students in the classroom was a real bonus to everyone.

Perhaps local Chambers of Commerce should initiate some activities that involve schools and companies that need IT workers working together to develop the skills, knowledge and cultures that will help reduce the local IT skills gap?

Both schools and companies will need to resource it appropriately but for companies it will surely help reduce that figure of £31,808 that it costs for a new hire to become productive?

Learning to Code ...... Needs more fun

Learning to code needs to be more exciting and involving

I've been an educator for over 30 years and been involved in computing and IT-related fields since I built my first ZX81. Back in those days you had to do your own coding if you wanted to get anything worth using on your computer. So I've programmed in BASIC, assembler, PASCAL, the wonderful LOGO and many more, including things like HTML, etc.

I've written small utilities, modified open source software to fit my purpose and even built a large web application that utilised Microsoft SQL Server at the back end and integrated tools such as JQuery, etc.

So I was interested to see what tools were being presented at the recent BETTShow 2015 that aimed to develop coders of the future. Having surveyed some of the tools I was overwhelmed by how potentially boring, and therefore harmful, they could be in the hands of a teacher who is not a coder and is either wary of coding or just 'not that in to it'. These teachers, and I am not being negative about them personally, tend to follow a script that is in a published lesson plan and rely heavily on a pre-determined route of lessons. But that's just not how coders are developed, or how computational thinking should be introduced and nurtured.

Most good coders develop software to scratch one or more 'itches'. They are incentivised by an internalised need to get something done for themselves.  The challenges inherent in programming are accepted as exciting hurdles on the way to a goal and it is this goal that helps them conquer the bugs, the need to learn new things and the requirement to break things down into smaller, easier to handle goals.

Many of the resources presented at BETT just did not support the inexperienced/time-constrained teacher in creating a classroom/teaching environment that was both exciting and involving. Whilst they may have taken teacher and pupil through the mechanics of coding and, in some cases, attempted to create some excitement through various 'challenges' they fundamentally failed in helping a teacher establish a 'hacker' culture.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe that this is easy. If it was we would not have 'dumped' computer science in the late 80's, early 90's.  But just because it is hard doesn't mean we can't aspire to provide it. There are obviously some great Computer Science teachers out there, creating some excellent resources for their pupils  but often, when these resources are transposed into the class setting of a less confident teacher their effectiveness is dulled.

Somehow we need to find a better way.