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.
"Openness without career suicide" a plain English overview of Open Access
Slideshare of the presentation, which is also embedded below
[Updated 25/11/2012]
I enjoyed this candid witty almost samizdat* 15 November talk by Stephen Curry at the 2012 Research Libraries UK conference. I think plenty of readers would do likewise, as much as anything else because Curry's perspectives are those of a highly visible life scientist who "came to Open Access late", mainly as a reaction to the (subsequently failed) US Research Works Act [slide 3]. Curry is mercifully unzealous, and also clear about how complicated OA issues actually are.
To my mind he gets the balance right between Gold and Green; and he understands the reasons for the differences between disciplines in their views about OA. He also talks persuasively but realistically about impact factor and the need for alternative ways of judging the quality of an article than by the prestige of the journal in which it appears. Curry's "Why we are not there yet?" points [on slide 11], and list of "Residual challenges" (slide 14) are spot-on, not least his calls for a unification of "the broad church of OA", and for openness on the profits and taxes of the publishers.
[25/11/2012 update - Janet Finch's Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence - How to expand access to published research findings and Mark Thorley's Going for Gold? The RCUK Policy on Access to Research Outputs are available here.]
* it's the camera angle
Posted on 22/11/2012 in News and comment, Open Access | Permalink | Comments (0)
|