It’s been a very full-on time at the Digital Summit 2.0 over the past two days – here are some random thoughts from my notes taken during the addresses from just some of the speakers who captured my attention…

Sean McDougall, founder of Stakeholder Design in the UK, spoke to us via high definition video conference, his theme: “Life-long learning, the danger of the classroom”
Quotes:

• the systems of the classroom haven’t changed a lot since the time they were first established
• successful products create t heir own value death (from Intel senior exec.)
• shared from his experiences with Project Faraday, simple robots made of paper cups, felt pens and a small electric motor!
• The three qualities required by designers: (a)Insight, (b) Irreverence, and (c) Tenacity
• We have three options about how we choose to deal with participation in the online/web2.0 world; (a) as a visitor, (b) as a migrant, or (c) as an explorer
• “ICT should be boringly effective”

Bernard Hickey, head of digital at Fairfax Media pointed out that being difital is changing everything we do – including our interactions with the media. He provided some wonderful examples of the way that Web2.0 technologies are transforming the way in which media is created and consumed, citing the example of OhMyNews, a Korean online newspaper with the motto “Every Citizen is a Reporter”. He quoted this paper as now having in excess of 36,000 citizen journalists who not only contribute the stories, but also decide on what will go on the front page each day!

Barry Vercoe, one of the six founding professors of the MIT MediaLab spoke about “How Innovation Occurs”.
Quotes:

• The future is not to predict but to design”
• Innovation comes from:

a clash of cultures

clash of disciplines

clash of ways of doing things

high tolerance of failure

• Deterrants of innovation include”

walls and buildings

funding streams

measures of success

middle level management (because they tend to be risk averse and suppress innovation)

A great bunch of GenY young people in their early 20s…
Quotes:

• websites are so ‘yesterday’
• sitting in your bedroom alone use to be considered anti-social, now, not being available online at any time of day is considered anti-social
• word of mouse is far more effective than word of mouth for getting your message out there!

We all know that having a basic fibre infrastructure available throughout the country is essential to enabling everyone to have access to a high speed digital network. One of the issues facing the various groups around the country that are working to install fibre networks in towns and cities is knowing exactly where the potential users of this service are located. Knowing this is important as it helps with the planning of routes for where the fibre will be laid etc. – known as aggregating demand.

At the Digital Summit 2.0 we saw the launch of an on-line map as a first step towards providing a more comprehensive view of broadband demand, by geographically mapping state sector locations. In web 2.0, this map is looking to start an open interaction with users. The initial launch of the on-line map, based on local technology from ProjextX, is a Beta version delivering an initial level of information and functionality which can then be enhanced based on user feedback.

It’s great to play with – if you’re used to using Google Maps you’ll immediately know how it works. Simply navigate to the area of NZ you want to see by typing in the address (name of city/town/street etc) in the bar at the top, then zoom in to the level you want to view. Use the checkboxes on the right hand side to see location of schools, businesses, health services and government departments etc.

Seems I may have passed judgement on our government departments a little hastily in my previous blog entry where I referred to a general risk aversion for using Web2.0 technologies. At the Digital Summit we heard from the Deputy State Services Commissioner ICT, Laurence Millar, who outlined a range of policy guidelines and recommendations that the SSC are developing for government departments that actually promote the use of blogs, wikis and other Web2.0 technologies.

He gave as an example the New Zealand Police who used a wiki recently to engage with the public in consultation about the review of the Police Act. The wiki, begun in September this year received over 8000 contributions in just eight days. It is now closed for entries, but resulting wiki Act, as at 1 October 2007, is accessible online as a document of record.

Mr Millar commented that the experience of the NZ Police has highlighted the value of such initiatives, and reinforced the need for government agencies to become more active in their use of Web2.0 technologies in this way. Further to this, Mr Millar announced that the next version of the Digital Strategy will be launched as a wiki in March 2008!

I’ve been enjoying myself at the Digital Summit in Auckland today (and again tomorrow). The programme is very dense with speakers – but a great opportunity to mix with around 500 others from across all spheres of business, government and education who are exploring what it means for NZ to participate in a digital future. The programme today included talks by several politicians and representatives of the various telecommunications companies. This was followed by a video conference with Chris Anderson, editor in chief for “Wired” magazine, and author of “The Long Tail”. We also heard from a group of “gen-Y” entrepreneurs, and from Sam Morgan, founder and CEO of TradeMe. There were several others – some of whom I think I’ll blog about separately.

What is really interesting to see was the extent to which the conference organisers have pushed to have the technology integrated into how the conference operates. At every table in the venue there is a laptop connected wirelessly to a messaging system that provides a digital ‘back-channel’ for the audience to provide feedback and ask questions. These are collated as the presenter speaks, then summarised and used by the chairperson in his interactions with the speaker at the end of the session.

Also running in parallel to the physical conference itself are opportunities for those who couldn’t make it to Auckland to participate. These include the Digital Strategy Blog, a DS WebCast, forums and a simultaneous conference running is Second Life – all of which is being projected on screens in the large hall where the conference is taking place.

So much to take in, so much to think about…

The buzz about the release of Amazon’s new wireless reading device called Kindle has been keeping the blogosphere busy recently. As with most emerging technologies there are both the supporters and detractors of this new gadget (see, for example, The Future of Reading (A Play in Six Acts) by Google employee Mark Pilgrim, and make sure you browse the comments!).

I found George Siemen’s reference to it in a recent blog post titled reading and books informative in this regard. George linked the news about Kindle with reference to the recently released NEA report from the US which paints a rather gloomy picture of the state of reading among young people in the US, concluding that they are reading less, and are reading less well.

Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach makes a similar link in her recent post titled the future of reading on the TechLearn blog. Sheryl appears optimistic about the adoption of this technology, arguing that it’s a changing world, and that if we want to remain relevant in the lives of our learners then we will need to use strategies and materials that fit their learning styles, not our own. Her post is well worth a read, as she shares her personal story of being one who does not enjoy reading books!

The NEA report goes on to say that…

The declines in reading have civic, social, and economic implications – Advanced readers accrue personal, professional, and social advantages. Deficient readers run higher risks of failure in all three areas.

Such statistics provide ready made ammunition for the technology sceptics and doom-sayers. So where should the real debates focus? Certainly not on the merits or otherwise of the aesthetics of the device, nor even on whether it provides colour or not (the current B/W device is bound to be a decision based on storage capacity etc). To me the development of these wireless reading devices and e-paper etc are further signs of a move towards the ubiquity of access to information, and the promise of the Universal Library, available to all, as described in the New Yorker article on Future Reading in which the author explores the evolution of digitalization of print, and the efforts of companies like Google and Microsoft (and now Amazon?) to dominate the field. :

The supposed universal library, then, will be not a seamless mass of books, easily linked and studied together, but a patchwork of interfaces and databases, some open to anyone with a computer and WiFi, others closed to those without access or money. The real challenge now is how to chart the tectonic plates of information that are crashing into one another and then to learn to navigate the new landscapes they are creating. Over time, as more of this material emerges from copyright protection, we’ll be able to learn things about our culture that we could never have known previously.

The New Yorker article explores some of the challenges to accessing information in print form versus the transition of many to the audio and film worlds of expression. We’re certainly in for some interesting times over the next few years as this scenario plays out, and the real future of reading is revealed!

Congratulations to Allanah King, teacher at Appleby School near Nelson, whose Appleby Showcase Podcast (on Pod-o-matic) has been nominated and is a finalist for the 2007 Edublog Awards- best educational use of audio.

Allanah’s Appleby Showcase podcast is an excellent example of the use of this technology to showcase or celebrate the everyday learning and events of the classroom, allowing parents, grandparents, friends etc to keep up with what is happening, providing an authentic audience for students as they share their efforts.

Please vote for the Appleby Showcase at http://edublogawards.com/2007/best-educational-use-of-audio-2007/
I’m sure Allanah would appreciate the support – as would her pupils (including my nieces who attend Appleby School!)

In preparation for my attendance at the upcoming Digital Summit in Auckland this week I’ve been re-reading Don Tapscott and Anthony William’s book Wikinomics which I reviewed earlier in the year.

I’d like to quote some parts from the introduction that have caused me to think again about a digital divide that is appearing in our education system.

Throughout our history corporations have organised themselves according to strict hierarchical lines of authority… While hierarchies are not vanishing, profound changes in the nature of technology, demographics, and the global economy are giving rise to powerful new models of production based on community, collaboration, and self-organisation, rather than on hierarchy and control.

Small companies are encouraging, rather than fighting, the heaving growth of massive online communities – many of which emerged from the fringes of the Web to attract tens of millions of participants overnight…. Indeed, as a growing number of firms see the benefits of mass collaboration, this new way of organisaing will eventually displace the traditional corporate structures as the economy’s primary engine of wealth creation.

Companies that engage with these exploding Web-enabled communities are already discovering the true dividends of collective capability and genius.”

These comments are not simply the suppositions of a couple of digital optimists. They are based on the evidence of several large scale research projects costing several millions of dollars and involving a number of the world’s most successful commercial companies.

But what has all this got to do with education? In a sense our education system is simply a large-scale corporate body, focused on outcomes, growth and wealth creation. It is also an example of bureacracy that is extremely hierarchical – like all government departments. So what is happening in our education system to embrace or adopt these new forms of online technology, and to participate in and engage with others in these Web-enabled communities?

Well, on the plus side is the example of the massive amount of collaborative effort that went into the co-construction of the new NZ Curriculum – reportedly around 15,000 teachers contributed their time, knowledge and collective wisdom to the development of this document – all within an online environment. It will be interesting now to see if the same level of collaborative effort and sharing will be facilitated to assist with the implementation of the document and the professional development of teachers to do this as the teacher unions quite rightly point out will be necessary.

Of course, this is arguably an example of an online community that has been constructed and managed within the bounds of the hierarchy itself , and while I see a real benefit in this sort of participation, it only goes so far in enabling the development of a deep understanding of the power and transformational potential of these online social networking tools and environments. Within the MoE, as with most government departments here and overseas, staff are discouraged from (according to some, not allowed to) having their own blog or wiki where they can express thoughts and ideas as a part of the broader social network. In some cases this even applies to leaving comments on other people’s blogs etc. The concern is that the opinions shared may not reflect the view of the government department, and may place the department at risk if it is read widely and interpreted as policy for instance.

At a recent Educational Leader’s Summit I was asked to speak about the impact of these technologies on our education system for just a few minutes. It became evident that among the group of around 100 educational leaders present, only a handful professed knowledge of the sorts of things I was referring to, and even less actually had a blog, flickr or del.icio.us account of their own. An online community was established where participants in the event could go to review presentations and to actively participate in the discussions following the event. To date less than 10% of those who attended have activated their account.

This is in stark contrast with the hundreds of teachers attending the ULearn conference held recently who have returned to visit the conference website, and the many dozens who have expressed their ideas and ‘new learnings’ from the conference on their personal websites or wikis.

Reflecting again on the Wikinomics quotes, I have a concern about the impact of these web-based technologies within our education system. Sure, there are dozens of new examples appearing weekly of these technologies being employed by classroom teachers to achieve some wonderful learning experiences for and with students – but all too often I also hear stories about firewalls preventing access, and students not allowed to participate in activities using these tools.

My concern really is that it appears to me that the very people in our education system who should be experiencing these technologies in an ongoing and profound way aren’t. These are the various leaders, decision makers and policy developers who work at the school and national level. Their experience of what is happening in these communities must be based on more than reading about it in the media, or briefly visiting a site – they should be immersed in the experience and involved in reflecting critically (as a part of a community) on that experience and the value they see arising from it.

Sadly I don’t see this happening. As a result, we have policy decisions made in ignorance. Safety decisions made through fear. And decisions affecting learning dominated by concerns about risk mitigation.

I fear we have a way to go yet before we see education systems as systems realise the benefits outlined in Wikinomics. Oh well, we can live in hope….

I’ve just spent the day in Wellington at various MoE meetings – a couple of long term projects kept surfacing, the Ministry’s Personalising Learning initiative and the work of the Virtual Learning Network – both are things I’m pretty passionate about, and in an interesting way, both are inextricably linked.

writing for the national College of School Leadership in the UK, Charles Leadbetter explores the link between personalised learning and collaboration in a publication titled “The Shape of Things to Come“. I’ve found this publication very helpful in the development of my own thinking. As I’ve participated in the development of the Virtual Learning Network over the past five years the two major drivers behind its design and operation have (a) collaboration between and among schools, and (b) meeting the needs of individual students – personalisation.

Leadbetter argues that these two things go hand-in-hand, more particularly, that you cannot achieve personalisation without collaboration. The publication is free to download and well worth a read. Here are some gems:

• The frontline learning is not the classroom, but the bedroom and the living room. Our education system’s biggest untapped resource is the children themselves.
• Innovating a personalised learning offer will only be possible with matching organisational innovations in how schools operate. Collaboration is key to that.
• Personalised learning schools equip children to become more active, engaged learners, able to reflect on how they learn, what they find hard or difficult, how to best express themselves.
• Collaboration will only deliver if it becomes more radical and ambitious, It is not an attractive add-on, but a different way to do the school’s core job.
• Collaboration can be held back by regulation, inspection and funding regimes that encourage schools to think of themselves as autonomous, stand alone units.
• Collaboratives of schools and children’s service providers should become basic building blocks of the system: employing staff, deploying them, planning provision, making admissions, offering choice, sharing platforms and services.

Now there’s some food for thought!

Today I browsed a fascinating report from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the US, which reports on the results of a survey of more than 1,458,000 students at nearly 1,200 different four-year
colleges and universities on the issue of student engagement which aims to improve undergraduate education, inform state accountability and accreditation efforts, and facilitate national and sector benchmarking efforts, among others. Titled Experiences That Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success, the survey focuses on engagement of learners in the post-secondary (tertiary) sector in the US.

The report focuses on three themes; Enriching High-Impact Experiences, Factors That Support Student Success and Another Look at Gender. I found it interesting to read about what the report calls “Deep Approaches to Learning”, described below:

In contrast to surface-level learning, deep-level processing emphasizes both acquiring information and understanding the underlying meaning of the information. Deep approaches to learning are important because students who use these approaches tend to earn higher grades, and retain, integrate and transfer information at higher rates.

One of the strategies for achieving this that is discussed in the introduction by NSSE director George D. Kuh is the idea of “High Impact activities“, which he describes as…

High impact activities put students in circumstances that essentially demand they interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters.

Basically, what I took from my scan of the report is if you want engaged learners then provide them with meaningful learning activities that require them to be a participant in the learning activity, and in relating to and with other learners (as opposed to simply being a passive recipient of transmitted information). Nothing new here for those who have been following the developments in pedagogical practice over the past couple of decades – although seems there’s still a large gap between espoused theory and theory in practice in this regard from what the report suggests.

This is not to make light of the issue of engagement however. The findings of NZ’s own Council of Educational Research recently published the results of their longitudinal research project started in 1993 of a group of 500 students which provides some very useful insights into the sorts of factors that may act as indicators of student engagement through their learning life. Titled Growing Independence - A Summary of Key Findings from the Competent Learners at 14 Project, the report highlights in the section about student engagement in school and learning that engagement is as much to do with factors in school as it does with factors outside of school as revealed in the following findings:

• Students at 14 who are engaged in school and learning are likely to be in positive learning environments where there is good feedback from teachers, relevant teaching, challenging work and a focus on learning at the students’ pace.
• There are connections over time between what is happening at school and what is happening at home. For example, those who show signs of disengagement with school are also likely to experience family pressure, engage in risky behaviour, and not have interests that engage them outside of school.

Still on the topic of engagement, I was amused to read an article titled “Digital Distraction” by Terence Day which begins with the question Are laptop bans the answer to the misuse of computers in the classroom? Day discusses the issue reported in many US universites and colleges of tutors and professors banning laptops from classes because they distract students and prevent them from paying attention to what the teacher is saying. Thankfully he doesn’t end there – but goes on to look at the alternative, arguing that students need to be actively engaged in their learning. He quotes Teresa Dawson, director of the Learning and Teaching Centre at the University of Victoria, who suggests faculty employ such active-learning approaches as shared exercises, problem-based learning and the new clicker technologies that allow simultaneous class response to questions.

Where have these people been? Come on now – we’re in the 21st century, it isn’t the technology’s fault that students are becoming disengaged (well, not entirely). Long before computers, engagement has always been about participation, collaboration, rich tasks, inquiry, authentic experiences etc – ask John Dewey! However, it isn’t simply a case of assuming that the use of technology will automatically lead to higher levels of engagement as Samuel Freedman’s article in the New York Times titled New Class(room) War: Teacher vs. Technology (November 7, 2007) points out. Freedman reports on the concerns of a growing number of US college educators who see technology as a distraction in class, with students engaging in all sorts of off-task behaviours (sending personal messages etc) during class time. He does, in my view, pose a perspective worth pondering in terms of how this might be countered. It’s all too easy, as Freedman points out, to simply argue that this is a consequence of lessons being too boring. He writes…

“I’m so tired of that excuse,” said Professor Bugeja [director of the journalism school at Iowa State University], may he live a long and fruitful life. “The idea that subject matter is boring is truly relative. Boring as opposed to what? Buying shoes on eBay? The fact is, we’re not here to entertain. We’re here to stimulate the life of the mind.”

“Education requires contemplation,” he continued. “It requires critical thinking. What we may be doing now is training a generation of air-traffic controllers rather than scholars.”

Now there’s a perspective worth reflecting on!

In an email this morning Mark Treadwell alerted me to the release of this document from the US (PDF download here). The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills are leadership organizations that have come together on this national imperative with a unified vision, agenda and action principles for stakeholders. Together, they represent dozens of leading U.S. companies and organizations, six leadership states, education technology directors in all 50 states, 85,000 education technology professionals and 3.2 million educators throughout the country.

They assert that It’s time to focus on what students need to learn–and on how to create a 21st century education system that delivers results. In a digital world, no organization can achieve results without incorporating technology into every aspect of its everyday practices. It’s time for schools to maximize the impact of technology as well.

The document is a relatively short, easily digestible read, with plenty of summarised points and useful diagrams. It provides another timely piece of contextual reading to accompany the new curriculum document released yesterday. Its content reflects a lot of what has been emerging from many quarters of the debate in NZ (the Knowledge Wave, Digital Summit etc), and provides some compelling arguments for the pivotal role of technology in our future education system.

This will be a useful backgrounder also for the NZ Secondary Futures project when they come to examine their fifth and final theme on the Role of Technology.