I love all the gadgets, widgets and services that social software can provide us. Google Fusi9on table sis wonderful for sharing and displaying data. Dropbox shares my files with others (and across my devices). Google docs is great for co-authoring and crowd sourcing ideas. And then there are Flickr, Diigo, Slideshare, Youtube,  Vimeo and all the rest. I have lost track of how many accounts I have created.

But – are there thunderstorms building in the clouds. Google managed to wipe out my account earlier this year when it wrongly linked two accounts together. And today I have had no email due to the stuttering Apple iCloud (Apple claim this is only effecting less than 1 % of users – it just seems that everyone i know with an Apple cloud account is part of that 1%).

And even the wonderful WordPress.com proved an nonviable solution for a recent web site due to the restrictions on embed codes.

I don’t buy into the argument that because these services are (sometimes) free we cannot complain. In one way or another we are paying for these services – be it through a fee or advertising or whatever. Google and Apple don’t just give things away. The free accounts are tied into their business strategy and at the end of the day their balance sheets.

I read a blog by Doug Belshaw the other day who was trying only to use paid for services. I don’t think that is the answer – paid for data and services can be just as insecure or unreliable than free ones. Come to think of it – Apple’s .mac and .me (paid for) services were always flaky. For web sites, we already host install on our own servers. But saying our own we are merely renting those servers (and one of them is in the cloud). I really don’t want the hassle of running an email server – and certainly don’t want to operate a streaming server.

So I really don’t know the answer to this issue. I think you just have to make judgements on a case by case – app by app – basis of what best does the job and what seems to be a decent service and who is providing reasonable Terms and Conditions of servce.

I was at a meeting earlier this week discussing our ideas for a project using mobile devices for work based learning in the construction industry (see previous blog entry). We have emphasised the importance of interaction with physical objects in the workplace, which I think has generally been underestimated or even ignored in most elearning research and applications, at least outside the e-science domain.

We were asked whether the ideas we were putting forward were applicable to knowledge workers.

According to Wikipedia:

Knowledge workers in today’s workforceare individuals who are valued for their ability to act and communicate with knowledge within a specific subject area. They will often advance the overall understanding of that subject through focused analysis, design and/or development. They use research skills to define problems and to identify alternatives. Fueled by their expertise and insight, they work to solve those problems, in an effort to influence company decisions, priorities and strategies. What differentiates knowledge work from other forms of work is its primary task of “non-routine” problem solving that requires a combination of convergent, divergent, and creative thinking (Reinhardt et al., 2011).^[1] Also, despite the amount of research and literature on knowledge work there is yet to be a succinct definition of the term (Pyöriä, 2005)

I am not sure that the concept of knowledge workers is very helpful. In reality many jobs today are requiring research skills and non routine problem solving as well as creative thinking. And that goes well beyond people who spend most of their days working in front of a computer or what used to be called ‘white collar’ jobs.

Indeed one of the big issues in the building and construction industry appears to be rapidly increasing needs for higher levels of skills and knowledge, driven largely by new (and especially green) technologies and work processes. Traditional course based further training does not scale well – and may not be particularly effective when not linked to workplace practice.

Proving this ‘hypothesis’ is not so easy and of course leads us back to the issue of what constitutes knowledge in a work based context. But in November last year I attended a fascinating (at least to me 🙂 ) seminar hosted by the LLAKES project at the Institute of Education in London where Any Dickerson  discussed work undertaken for the UKCES on:

the development of a new and comprehensive set of detailed, multi-dimensional occupational skills profiles for the UK by combining the US-based Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system with the UK Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2010). This enables the multi-dimensional O*NET system to be used to generate comprehensive occupational skills profiles for the UK, providing a much more detailed depiction of skills utilisation, and changes in utilisation, than is currently available for the UK.

The project report “Developing occupational skills profiles for the UK : a feasibility study” provides detailed information about the methodology and findings. And I suspect, with a little more detailed analysis, it should be possible to draw some conclusions about changing skills and knowledge components in different occupations.

Why is this important? Obviously it has implications for economies and employment. But from the point of view of teaching and learning – and especially developing learning opportunities – we should be training for the future not the past or even the present. To do this we need a detailed understanding of what is happening in different occupations. And we need to get beyond policy rhetoric about the knowledge economy and knowledge workers.

Here at the Pontydysgu HQ we are still pretty excited about the potential of the Raspberry Pi computer (although we haven’t managed to lay our hands on one yet). If you want to find out more Eben, according to the Raspberry Pi blog, is hosting “a webinar with Element 14 on April 4 at 2pm GMT. The subject matter will suit beginners, and should be pretty interesting for those of you who are hardened hackers too. He’ll be showing you how to:

– download and install the Operating System on the SD card
– run the boot up script
– use the script editor and begin to create applications using the presupplied Python scripts

If you want to attend, you’ll need to sign up for the event at Element 14′s website.”

Last Saturday, I visited the British Education Technology Exhibition at Olympia in London. I have never been to BETT before and was curious as to what it would be like.

I can’t say I was impressed and three hours left me with a headache and a marked aversion to interactive whiteboards.

I can’t really complain – BETT delivers what it promises on the label – an exhibition of educational technology. Perhaps naively, what I was looking for was something about the use of technology for learning and that I struggled to find.

There were lots and lots of stands showing the latest in shiny gadgets. Most were interactive whiteboards – a throwback I guess to the previous English government’s programme of funding a whiteboard for every classroom.

Being a bit of a nerd myself I like gadgets. But the few that impressed me were those NOT specifically designed for education. I liked HPs 3D printer (although it is not cheap).  And I loved the kit from animationsuupplies.net for stop motion photography and for developing plasticine modeling (shame the software they are using is PC only).

The Hepeel.net stand had the virtue of actually having some kids on it using computers for learning (a radical idea for BETT). And it seemed a little edupunky with print outs of how to use Google docs in education.

Despite all the hype form the ed-tech community about ‘mobile’, there was surprisingly little mobile on display. OK, there were stands showing off different handsets and a few tablets. But there has little on show that you would not find on any city high street.

Although most of the big companies had large glossy stands – including Google, Microsoft and Dell – Apple didn’t have an official stand. But there was a smallish stand sponsored by UK Apple reseller, AT Computers. And they lined up a rolling programme of demos / short workshops by teachers on how they were using the iPad for teaching and learning. These were pretty awesome. I especially liked the demo of how to use the GarageBand (one of my favourite programs) for teaching music. These presentations were full – every seat was taken.

And three seems to be a lesson in that. If you want to attract teachers and trainers to look at your product show how it can be used for teaching and training. But perhaps I am just being naïve again. Are trade shows like BETT aimed at teachers and trainers or are they really for the people with the money who buy the glossy toys for schools and colleges? And how much say do teachers and trainers have in what tech they end up with?

Postnote: Just when I was thinking I have done my duty and been to one of these trade shows I remembered that I had agreed to staff the Mature-Ip project stand at Learntec in Karlsruhe in ten days time. Have to start working on a survival strategy – any ideas welcome.

The fundamental model of school education is still a teacher talking to a group of pupils. It has barely changed over the centuries, even since Plato established the earliest “akademia” in a shady olive grove in ancient Athens.

A Victorian schoolteacher could enter a 21st century classroom and feel completely at home. Whiteboards may have eliminated chalk dust, chairs may have migrated from rows to groups, but a teacher still stands in front of the class, talking, testing and questioning.

But that model won’t be the same in twenty years’ time. It may well be extinct in ten.

Technology is already bringing about a profound transformation in education, in ways that we can see before our very eyes and in others that we haven’t even dreamt of yet.

Nothing too remarkable here, and any regular reader of this blog will recognise similar ideas spouted on these pages. What is remarkable is the person who said it – the unpopular Minster of Education for England, Michael Gove, in a speech at the opening of BETT, the UK education technology exhibition.

This was a long awaited speech, given that Give has said little about educational technology since the Con-Dem coalition government came to power. In a speech which seemed to go down well with the ed-tech community on twitter but was criticised by teachers union leaders, Gove went on to say:

• The present IT national curriculum for schools would be abolished leaving schools freedom to design their own curriculum. From September this year schools will be free to use the “amazing resources” that already exist and will exist on the web.
• Games and interactive software can help pupils acquire complicated skills
• He wants to see the introduction new courses of study in computer science
• We should “look at the school curriculum in a new way, and consider how new technological platforms can help to create new curriculum materials in a much creative and collaborative way than in the past
• Rather than concentrate on hardware procurement we should focus on improving initial teacher training and continual professional development for teachers in educational technology

Gove said three main things that technology can do for learning:

• Disseminate knowledge incredibly widely.
• Change the way teachers teach, with adaptive software personalising learning.
• Allow teachers to assess pupils in more complex and sophisticated ways.

Gove went on to talk about an open-source curriculum saying:

Advances in technology should also make us think about the broader school curriculum in a new way.

In an open-source world, why should we accept that a curriculum is a single, static document? A statement of priorities frozen in time; a blunt instrument landing with a thunk on teachers’ desks and updated only centrally and only infrequently?

It all seems a bit too good to be true. And of course a lot depends on how these chnages mucght be implemented and vitally what support and funding is avaiable to schools.

A website – schooltech..org.uk – has been launched to discuss the new proposals. Bernadette Brooks
General Manager of Naace and Seb Schmoller Chief Executive, Association for Learning Technology (ALT) explained the reasons for the consultation:

The effective use of technology has great potential to support better teaching and learning, but there are important questions arising from the opportunities presented by new technologies. For example: how teachers can best develop the right skills; how learning is organised and delivered; and how education can be agile in adapting to new technology developments. This is an important opportunity to discuss and understand the implications.

The site contains, initially, some “stimulus questions” suggested by DFE, which can be discussed by the posting of comments. During March Naace and ALT will work together to produce a report which we will share with DFE that draws on the discussion that we hope will now ensue.

We hope that parents, teachers, technology developers and practitioners, policy people, researchers, students, people from industry and any others with an interest in and experience of this field will join the conversation.

You can add your ideas on the conusltation web site. Or of course you can just add a comment here 🙂  I will be coming back to some of the issues raised by Give’s announcement in further blog posts over the next week.

No real surprises in this report from the UK schools inspectorate, OFSTED, as reported by the Guardian newspaper.

The Guardian says: “Schools are jeopardising the career prospects of thousands of teenagers by failing to offer compulsory classes in computing, a damning report by inspectors shows.

A three-year study by Ofsted found that in almost a fifth of secondary schools, up to half of 14- to 16-year-olds are not taught computing – known as Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

The subject is compulsory for children aged five to 16 and is seen as crucial to rebuilding of the economy.

Inspectors denounced the quality of teaching in the subject as inadequate in more than a quarter of secondary schools.

Too many ICT teachers have limited knowledge of key skills, such as computer programming, they said.

High-flying students are often not stretched and their interests in the subject are ignored, while many pupils spend computing lessons repeating tasks asked of them a year ago.”

I think the problem goes back years to the days of the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL). The ECDL focused on the ability to use a standard PC, and despite valiant attemts to produce an open source version, the ability to use standard Microsoft applications. This has little to do with ICT or technology and nothing to do with programming. The ECDL was highly sucessful and permeated school practice, where students were taught how to make powerpoint presentations, use a spreadsheet etc.

However the criticisms of this approach and the weaknesses of teaching ICT are not new. What is interesting is that the issue has now come to the fore. I am not quite sure why, but it is very encouraging to see such a debate.

FSCONS: YaCy Demo from Michael Christen on Vimeo.

OK….this is a techy video. But it is important. In an age when large software companies are increasingly controlling the internet, YaCy has been developed as a free search engine that anyone can use to build a search portal for their intranet or to help search the public internet. YaCy developers say:  “When contributing to the world-wide peer network, the scale of YaCy is limited only by the number of users in the world and can index billions of web pages. It is fully decentralized, all users of the search engine network are equal, the network does not store user search requests and it is not possible for anyone to censor the content of the shared index. We want to achieve freedom of information through a free, distributed web search which is powered by the world’s users.”

Here is a fun article from the WalesOnline, reporting on the publication of a new book looking at mistranslations between English and Welsh.

Examples include “the badly translated shop sign which reads “wines and ghosts” in Welsh and “the baffling bilingual road sign that warns Welsh- speaking motorists to beware of “exploding workers”.

But there is a serious side to this. Firstly, despite recent advances in machine translation there is still a considerable way to go. And even when machines can translate language literally, it is much more difficult to translate meanings. We are confronted with this constantly in international projects where whilst the lingua franca might be English and we all think we know what we are talking about, the meanings we make of different ideas and concepts may be very different. In most European languages there is a word sounding something like competence. But our understandings of the meanings of that word vary greatly depending on culture. Secondly, in developing Technology Enhanced Learning we continue to struggle to develop common understandings between different disciplines, with educationalist and developers often seemingly talking completely different languages.

Maybe we need bi-lingual roadmaps!

The BBC broadcast ‘The dream machine’ on the history of computers in 1991. This scene is about Alan Turing, the “father” of the modern computer. During the Second World War he devised a number of techniques for breaking German telegraph codes. After the war Alan Turing worked at the National Physical Laboratory, where he created one of the first designs for a stored-program computer, the ACE. This series was first broadcast in 1991.

I am ever more interested in how we can use technology for supporting young people (and not just young people) in making future careers choices. Talking to a focus group of young people last year, they  make use of the internet, particuarly using Google to search for details about possible future education choices, jobs and careers. I also asked them how far they explored the results of a Google search and not surpisingly they told me that they usually looked at the first three or four results. Try doing this yourself – type in your job of choice and see what comes up. All too often the results can be highly misleading.

Anyway we are working on new tools to asisst young people in choosing their future careers (more details to follow quite soon, I hope). And here is a conference paper, prepared by my colleague Sally Anne Barnes from the University of Warwick and describing the emprirical research we undertook on the use of technology in careers education in the UK (requires html5 compliant browser to view). Comments welcome – I would especially like to know what is happening in other countries than the UK.

The Potential Role of Technology in Careers Education in the UK