蜜桃传媒

A Framework for EdTech Purpose

To date, several frameworks have been used to examine the general adoption and integration of technologies into the classroom eg TPACK framework, Replacement, Amplification and Transformation (RAT) and the framework of Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition (SAMR) by Puentedura (2006) (all cited in Geer 2017). 

The SAMR model (Puentedura 2006), which is used in studies of  Geer et al (2017) and Moane (2019), consists of four clearly defined levels for the use of technology where a level can be selected to suit the purpose and need; making education technology use more meaningful for pupils鈥� learning and teacher planning. 

The SAMR Model

This has been exemplified at Sandringham School, which introduced a Years 7 to 11 using the SAMR model to plan for and assess impact. It integrated blended learning into the whole-school teaching and learning strategy. 

Their aims were 鈥榯o foster independent, creative and resourceful learners, time-shifted and place-shifted learning,  to extend learning beyond the confines of the classroom and the school day,  to encourage collaborative and active learning, to personalise the curriculum and place no limits upon learning...The student pioneers of the blended learning programme finished their GCSE studies in summer 2018 and achieved excellent results in terms of attainment and progress...over 80% of staff and students and 77% of parents agreed that blended learning had added significantly to learning at school and home鈥� (Moane 2019). 

In Geer鈥檚 (2017) study of four schools, the iPad features and the way the teachers implemented them using the SAMR model enabled the students to use iPads for research, communication and product creation. 鈥楩indings suggest that a structured professional learning program may assist some teachers to move from the enhancement to the transformation stage. While best practice is not evident as yet, and further research is needed in this emerging field, there are promising signs that iPad use will bring about a pedagogical shift supporting enhanced student learning鈥�. (Geer 2017). 

Implementation - Teacher Training

Students were clear in The Class of 2030 and the Life-Ready Learning report (cited in Fullan 2020) - they did not want to be taught by a 鈥榗omputer鈥�. They valued the relationship they had with teachers who knew them and how they learn best. 

Teacher-student relationships remain key to success. Education moving forward must not be an agenda of students learning on their own. Teacher-student partnerships and school settings remain essential elements of a future-focused learning model (Fullan 2020).

Poor implementation is a crucial reason that digital technology fails to meet its potential to improve learning (Lewin et al  2019). 

Indeed, across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, only 65% of 15-year-olds are enrolled in schools whose principal considers that their teachers have the necessary technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction OECD (Fullan 2019),  highlighting training needs within education systems.

Across OECD countries, the least commonly implemented effective and valuable practices were: 

• having a specific programme to promote collaboration amongst teachers on the use of digital devices (36%)
• having a scheduled time for teachers to meet to share, evaluate or develop instructional materials and approaches that use digital devices (44%)
• having a written statement specifically about the use of digital devices for pedagogical purposes at school (46%) (Fullan 2019).  

A cautionary tale exists in the 2013 Los Angeles School District and Apple Pearson $1.3bn project. This project aimed to educate 700,000 students but failed due to limited teacher training and software faults (Lapowsky 2015, cited in Christodulu 2019).

Teachers require exposure to the range of pedagogical approaches that lend themselves to iPad use so that they can critically analyse and ascertain the best approach for student learning (Henderson and Yeow, 2012). In contrast, Burden et鈥塧l (2012) suggest that formal training should be kept to a minimum and that the greatest benefits are likely to be evidenced through experimental learning, taking into account the time required for teachers to familiarise themselves with the technology (Geer 2017).

Implementation - Student Training

Although iPads are intuitive tools, and consequently, students appear to take little time to learn how to use them, they do not necessarily know how to effectively use them for their own learning (Lam at al, 2011 cited in Greer 2017). 

Monitoring how technology is being used, including checking that all learners have the skills they need to use it effectively, is likely to reduce the risk that technology becomes a tool that widens the gap between successful learners and their peers (Lewin et al  2019). Training needs should be built into curriculum plans.

Technology and Assessment

Much of the literature suggests feedback and assessment should become more deeply embedded within the teaching process (Whitelock and Warburton, 2011; Pellegrino and Quellmalz, 2010). Indeed, 鈥榮tealth assessment', assessments embedded within learning, have been found to reduce test anxiety and be less disruptive to the flow of learning (Shute et al, 2010). 

Kleeman et al (2011) describe how embedded assessments can be used formatively as knowledge checks in various multimedia forms, such as wikis, social networking sites, blogs or web pages on computers or mobile devices. In this way, assessment is integrated into the learning process and utilises previous research showing that retrieval practice questions can be powerful motivators for learners (Oldfield et al 2012).

Using technology can increase the accuracy of assessment and the speed with which assessment information is collected.  This has the potential to inform teachers鈥� decision-making and reduce workload. Technology can be used to provide feedback directly to pupils via programmes or interventions, but careful implementation and monitoring are necessary in all cases. Feedback via technology is likely to be most beneficial if it supplements, but is aligned to, other forms of feedback (Lewin et al  2019). 

Technology can enable e-portfolios to track holistic learning and increase self and peer assessment and more assessment of group work and performance (Whitelock, 2010; Peacock, A; Berger, R). e-portfolios have been seen as a significant improvement over previous paper-based portfolios, both for practical (more time-efficient) and pedagogical (increased reflection and quicker feedback) reasons (Stone, 2012). 

Technology can be used to solve the 鈥榯he abstraction between what the teacher intends, and what the pupil understands鈥� by feedback (Lewin et al  2019). For example, , developed an approach using tablet computers to record verbal feedback over videos of annotations of pupils鈥� work. The pupils get two improvement points: a photo of their work side by side with an image of a model text and when improving their text, pupils can replay the teacher鈥檚 voice as often as they like. Unlike other modes of delayed feedback, the only intended audience is the pupil, so the feedback is focused on their needs and moving their learning forward (Lewin et al  2019). 

However, results from other EEF trials illustrate that technology alone is not enough. The Learner Response System trial looked at hand-held electronic clickers鈥� regular use in Key Stage 2 mathematics lessons in 2014 and 2016. In response to the teacher鈥檚 questions, pupils could input the answer on the handset, and both pupils and teachers received immediate feedback. The high-quality study found no impact on Key Stage 2 results and identified teachers鈥� concerns about the feedback鈥檚 accuracy (Lewin et al  2019).

Technology and Collaboration

Collaboration is an interesting area for the creative use of technology. Burden et鈥塧l (2012 cited in Geer 2017) found that having iPads in the classroom caused teachers to rethink their professional role leading to greater collaboration as co鈥恖earners and pioneers with their students. 

In Geer et al鈥檚 study of four schools adopting iPads (2017) data analysis from teacher and student interviews/surveys relating to pedagogy identified four main themes; collaboration, communication, self鈥恟eliance/autonomy and authenticity, which were evidenced throughout the data as being aspects of change due to iPad use.

Technology and Differentiation/Personalisation of Learning

As advocated by Bloom (1984), personalising learning through one-one tuition showed students receiving one-one tuition made gains of two standard deviations compared to groups in classrooms, is cited by  Zuckerberg as showing the value of personalised learning that is equivalent to eight additional months (Christodulu 2019). However, the RAND paper on personalisation of learning shows some of the negative effects when students are given too much control over their own learning. Some students were unable to organise their time to pace themselves through the work to completion. (Pane 2017).

Tutoring systems can provide additional learning opportunities for pupils at risk of falling behind or those who have missed content areas. These programmes offer an opportunity to provide cost-effective personalised support, and some claim to accurately assess pupils鈥� understanding and provide adaptive content. 

Effective delivery requires some level of staff oversight, although a teacher can supervise the practice of pupils simultaneously.  This is supported by a meta analysis of 84 reading programmes showing a small positive impact, but only with teacher supervision (Cheung 2012). However, most programmes are designed to be used as additional support, replacing other forms of catch-up intervention. In these cases, the evidence suggests that they are unlikely to be more effective than other support, and schools should consider what support is the most efficient and appropriate (Lewin et al  2019).

Technology and Learning Skills

The ability for technology to enhance students' learning skills with the aim of developing 21st Century citizens is explored by , an online learning platform which is funded by the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation, as praised by Bill Gates. While Michael Fullan鈥檚 6 competencies for future citizens (Collaboration, Creativity, Critical Thinking, Citizenship, Character, Communication) are articulated in the 鈥楧eep Thinking for New Pedagogies鈥� project (Fullan 2020).

Notes of Caution

Even when technology is introduced as an additional strategy outside of the classroom, it is valuable to consider whether it will have an unintended and unhelpful impact on existing activity. For example, the result recommending an online quiz website could lead students to cut back on other forms of revision unless the site was introduced with some guidance about an appropriate mix of revision strategies (Lewin et al  2019). 

Monitoring how technology is being used, including checking that all students have the skills they need to use it effectively, is required to reduce the risk that technology becomes a tool that widens the gap between successful learners and their peers (Lewin et al  2019). 

It is noteworthy that students attending schools with more computers per student scored lower in the PISA assessment than their peers in schools with fewer computers per student. Across OECD countries, one additional computer per student in a school was associated with a 6-point decline after accounting for socio-economic profiles (OECD 2020), suggesting that it takes more than providing technology to improve learning.

Greenfield warns against multitasking which is promoted by tech devices eg hyper-text within reading or using several apps simultaneously as a distraction from linear thought and deep thinking. Greenfield also notes that students seem to prefer the medium of print rather than screen for 鈥榚ffortful learning鈥� (p230 Greenfield 2015; Carr 2006). 

In short, in seeking to introduce digital technology, it is vital to plan for and monitor the use of technology carefully during implementation to support effective pedagogy and discover unintended consequences. 

How we have Introduced Digital Technology to Power Up Learning

Across 蜜桃传媒, we launched iPads for Learning in winter 2020. This project introduced iPads as one to one devices for all Year 7 and Year 4 students. Taking learning from the research discussed here, we ensured that our initial staff training focused on employing iPads to support our existing pedagogical focus. 

This has been streamlined with student training through the computing curriculum to enable students to confidently use the most valuable learning applications and develop their independence as learners. A number of our teachers act as digital subject leads to ensure that digital learning opportunities are embedded within our work schemes to power up the curriculum. 

Early indications highlight some exciting areas of strength in digital learning. Teachers have noted improved collaboration between students, deeper thinking and powerful whole class learning checks. You can view examples of how iPads for Learning has powered up learning below. We look forward to continuing our digital journey and learning more about the impact of 1:2:1 devices on our students鈥� learning.

References

• Berger R (2003) Leaders of their own learning. Routledge. 
• Bloom, B (1984) The 2 sigma problem. The Search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-one instruction. 
• Carr, N (2006)  The Shallows: What the internet is doing to our brain.
• Cheung, A & Slavin, R  (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes. 
• Christodulu, C 2019. Teachers versus Tech - A case for an ed tech revolution. Oxford Publishing 
• Fullan, M, Quinn, J,  Drummy, M, Gardner, M g.  
• Future Learn/Chartered College of Teaching (2020) Using Technology in Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning
• Geer, R, White, B, Zeegers, Y, Wing A, Barnes, A (2017)
• Google for Education (2019) 
• Greenfield, S. (2015) Mind Change - How Digital Technologies are leaving their mark on our brains
• Hattie, J (2020)
• Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., and Katsipataki, M. (2012)
• Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R (2006) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
• Kleeman, J., Shepherd, E., and Phaup, J. (2011) 'Embedded assessment: building knowledge checks, surveys and other assessments into learning material'. International Journal of e-Assessment,1 
• Lewin, C.  Smith, A. Morris, S.  Craig, E. (2019) Using Digital Technology to Improve Learning: Evidence Review. Educational Endowment Foundation. 
• Luckin R (2016) Mainstreaming Innovation in Educational Technology.
• Moane, F (2019) Interweaving traditional and digital approaches: The development of blended learning at Sandringham School 
• OECD Education and Skills Today (2020)
• Oldfield, A,  Broadfoot, P, Sutherland, R, &  Timmis, S.  (2012). . Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol 
• Pane, J et al (2017)  Informing Progress: insights on Personalised Learning Implementation and Effects. Santa Monica RAND Co.
• Peacock, A (2008)  Learning without limits
• Pellegrino, J. W. & Quellmalz, E.S. (2010) 'Perspectives on the Integration of Technology and Assessment'. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43 (2), pp. 119-134.
• Picardo, J (2017)
• Shute, V. J., Dennen, V., Kim, Y., Donmez, O., & Wang, C. (2010)
• Stringer, E, Lewin, C & Coleman, R. EEF (2019)
• Whitelock, D. and Warburton, B. (2011) 'Preface: CAA 2010: Computer assisted assessment: supporting student learning'. International Journal of e-Assessment, 1(1)
• Willingham, D (2010)