In this article, we provide you with a foretaste of the discoveries we have been making from the data we have collected for our forthcoming book, Digitally Connected Families and the Digital Education of the World’s Young, 1993 – 2016 (in press).

We venture into staff development in the digital school with some trepidation in that we have not experienced in our research as clear a global picture as was found in the other areas of school evolution. It might well be that the order has yet to appear out of the chaos but not withstanding there are a number of developments and trends that have transpired globally that bear noting.

With staff development, we are particularly mindful that the practices of astutely led digital schools could in some regards be different in the later adopter schools. It is an issue to bear in mind in shaping a school’s digital evolution and staff development. That said there are a number of significant developments that we can comment upon with certainty.

Focus on the ecosystem, not the parts: The first and foremost with the mature digital schools is that staff development is addressed in the main as an integral part of the everyday workings and growth of the school’s ecosystem. As with the other facets of digital evolution it is critical with the staff development to see it as one of the many vital parts needed to create the desired totality, not as done traditionally to address it by providing a suite of disparate, often seemingly ‘bolt on’ programmes.

Traditionally much school staff development was coordinated by a member of the executive encouraging interested staff to undertake training programmes, externally or in house and/or pursue post-graduate study - hoping those loosely connected programs would improve the teaching and the effectiveness of the school.

The contrast of the traditional with the digitally mature schools is pronounced.

The focus in the latter schools is on seamlessly integrating most of the staff development into the everyday workings of the school, in a culture of change where all staff are daily striving to strengthen the totality and to better realise the school’s shaping vision. The staff development – the personal growth, the enhancement of the particular expertise and the heightened understanding of the school’s macro workings – all are addressed in the daily operations, in the teaching, discussions, everyday interactions, collaboration and reflection. Be it lesson design with colleagues, conversations with the principal, student’s suggesting new apps, the technology coach demonstrating a new approach or simply working within a transformative culture the staff learning is naturally integrated into everyday operations. The approach not only saves time but also is also significantly more targeted, effective and efficient, with the staff learning when pertinent.

It is often near impossible to decouple the staff development from the daily efforts to grow the organisation’s ecosystem.

See the full article on the ITTE website in the newsletter section ...

EDUCATE- The golden triangle
Professor Rose Luckin, Director of EDUCATE, London Knowledge Lab, UCL Institute of Education

Education is in a constant state of flux. I refer not to the reforms of successive governments or the whims of individual Secretaries of State, but to the quiet technological revolution going on behind the scenes that is changing the way that students learn.

It is a world where hundreds of researchers and entrepreneurs are working hard to develop meaningful EdTech products and services that can be used in pre-school settings, schools and colleges to enhance teaching and learning

These initiatives often begin with great ideas and concepts based around personal experience or the identification of an emerging need. Sometimes they are discovered completely by accident in a ‘light bulb’ moment. However humble the beginnings, the EdTech sector has been growing for years with little or no acknowledgement or input from policy-makers and often even the teaching profession. But it is there, and it is thriving.

And that’s where EDUCATE comes in.

EDUCATE is a unique collaboration, based at UCL’s Knowledge Lab, that helps and supports entrepreneurs, start-ups and SMEs working in EdTech. It forges links between the developers and educators, mentors and researchers who will guide them in their work. This collaboration between six leading institutions – UCL Institute of Education, UCL Engineering, F6S, BESA and Nesta - aims to create a ‘golden triangle’ between teachers and learners, EdTech start-ups and researchers in EdTech to design and develop technology that will have a real and positive impact on learning.

The £4.5 million project, partly funded through the EU’s European Regional Development Fund and matched by the partners, enrols cohorts of entrepreneurs from business, research and education.

The aspect that particularly underpins the work we do, and makes our programme so unique, is the access to research evidence. Not only do we offer evidence of what works to our cohorts, but we require them to produce to research of their own by asking questions of their product and its ability to perform. There is little point in designing and developing EdTech intended for use in schools if it’s not fit for purpose.

As part of the offer, we provide business and product development clinics and training, and mentoring by experts in their field. Cohorts usually join us for a period of up to six months, but even after their time with us has ended, we continue to engage through an EDUCATE alumni network. We are currently developing an EDUCATE Award, which will act as a quality kitemark for participants.

Since it was set up last year, EDUCATE has helped more than 71 start-ups, companies and researchers to realise their ambitions and aspirations.

Our first three cohorts concentrated on working with SMEs and entrepreneurs. We are now moving to working more closely with teachers, both from primary and secondary schools, and early years’ settings. They opportunities for EdTech in all sectors of compulsory education are endless and we believe it is important for professionals to drive this development. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the progress being made in AI use in education will be the driver behind some of those cohorts.

EDUCATE celebrated its official launch at the Bett Show in January. It was the first opportunity we had since the start of the programme to publicly promote our work and demonstrate how our project is different from others.

This time-scale was timely.

With teacher workload and retention continuing to dominate the education agenda, and government announcements that flexible working might provide some of the solutions to these challenges, there is an added impetus for bigger and better EdTech to support the work teachers do in schools.

There is, finally, a growing realisation among politicians that technologies such as AI are here to stay, and we must have a debate how it can best be implemented to the benefit of education. This was acknowledged in a policy paper published by the Liberal Democrats in March, which referred to the impact of AI and robotics on the education and future working lives of children being born today. This probably the first time one of the major political parties has referred to technology in education in this context.

There are signs that Damian Hinds, the recently-appointed Secretary of State for Education, understands the opportunities that effective EdTech can offer, and we hope to work with him on this further. When representatives from EDUCATE met with him in February we had a constructive discussion about our work, and the importance of EdTech products being underpinned by robust and effective research.

The Secretary of State was interested to learn that it was in this area of research accessibility that EDUCATE offered a unique programme and was surprised to discover that even highly qualified EdTech entrepreneurs and their teams may not know how to go about carrying out robust research about their own products. We clearly still have work to do to persuade people of the importance of this link between evidence and product development.

During our meeting we had the opportunity to impress upon him the importance of financial support for the EdTech sector to market their products. Mr Hinds wanted to find out more about the sector works with schools and keeps them informed about their products and services. EDUCATE is in the process of enhancing its work directly with schools with the appointment of a schools’ liaison officer and the development of a database of schools who are willing to work with our cohort companies and entrepreneurs to test their products.

There is more the government could do to support and help the industry. The changing EdTech landscape must be a consideration when the next review of the national curriculum and its assessment comes up. It is not enough to be mindful of how this will affect Computing and ICT - but how it will impact on the content delivery and assessment of all subjects.

As an industry we have a vital role in preparing students of all ages and abilities for their futures in an increasingly digital world. There is emerging evidence that the UK is being left behind in this respect. We cannot allow that to happen.

For more information about the EDUCATE project, please go to: educate.london or e-mail us on educate@ucl.ac.uk

Introducing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

If ITTE members are working with schools you may well want to know more about the way schools are responding to GDPR.

Much has been said about the new GDPR, some of it true, some exaggerated and some used simply as a scare-mongering tool. It would appear that the whole IT industry is jumping on the bandwagon and treating it as the next Y2K opportunity.

I’ve heard of schools being told they must buy expensive software that’ll do all the necessary data mapping (I won’t), or that they must pay consultants with high daily rates to carry out the process manually. There is loads written about GDPR for Education and it seems that everyone is an expert. However GDPR need not be scary or expensive.

Almost everywhere that GDPR is mentioned, the first things talked about are the massive fines that are going to be imposed on us all for the slightest infringement of the new rules. I don’t believe schools are likely to the key target for the ICO (Information Commissioners Office), and that as long as they understand their obligations and create the right policies & processes, they’re unlikely to be fined.

The key thing schools need to know are that both the data controller and the data processor can now be held responsible for data breaches. Typically, the school is the Controller, whilst their 3rd> parties act as processors.

One area that is causing confusion is the key is to understanding what you need consent for, and under what legal basis you don’t. The recommendation is not to ask for consent unless you have to. 'Legal basis for processing personal data' without specific consent can be any of the following:

1. Consent has been given for the processing
2. Necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject
3. Necessary for compliance with a legal obligation
4. Necessary to protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
5. Necessary to carry out tasks in the public interest
6. Necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or a third party

State funded schools might argue that it could be No’s: 4, 5 or 6, whilst those in the independent sector might use 2 - Contract with parent or guardian to educate the learner. Schools must understand what data they hold, on whom and in what format, typically this will be MIS, paper, electronic (email, homework systems, biometric, behaviour, library, payment, cashless catering, etc, etc (this could also include voice, recordings & video files).

I suggest starting to map your data, by listing all those you share data with. Don’t forget staff data, including Payroll, Pensions, HR, Insurance. You might also share personal data with other Schools, Authorities, Health & Social Services. Once you have a complete list, I suggest you write to them all asking to confirm they’ll be compliant and how. Ask them: how long they keep your data, do they delete, destroy if you stop using them and what happens when a student or staff member leaves school? Start to think about the data items you give them, and is it completely necessary for them to receive it, is it relevant, and used in the correct context?

Think IT is a DfE compliant procurement framework specialising in helping schools, colleges, LA’s & MATs to work out what you need & want from your IT investment.

We provide intelligent procurement and work with 50+ of the best education suppliers to offer a pre-procured one-stop-shop for all IT needs.

Together through Unity . . . or Visual Studio . . . or both?
Lynne Dagg, University of Sunderland

PGCE Computer Science Trainees need to enhance many of their existing skills on their course including Programming.  This could take the form of learning a new language or developing skills they already hold so that they can transfer knowledge to pupils – it is not enough to know how to program in a particular way but why we do so and how to make it interesting for children.  In recent years students have talked about gamification within their classroom activities (such as the use of games to check pupil knowledge within plenaries) but they have also used games as the context to develop student interest in Programming.One of the problems for those working in ITE within Computer Science is the decision about which programming language should be at the forefront of our subject sessions with Trainees since the curriculum allows schools to deploy almost any Programming Language.

Traditionally my approach has been to utilise Python because it has been relatively widely used within schools and because it is something that generally Trainees had not learned prior to the PGCE.  The pattern seems to changing as Python is deployed within University courses and many of Trainees now come with existing knowledge of Python.

Some Trainees go into School where Scratch is used in Key Stage 3 while others go into Schools where Pupils learn the basics of Python. Some Pupils seem to experience only very basic level programming – a few lessons and that a lot of time may still be devoted to ICT.   At Key Stage 4 Python is sometimes learned by Pupils as a brand new language while others continue what they learned at Key Stage 3.  At Key Stage 5 a plethora of languages are deployed by different schools.

This year my Trainees asked for sessions on C#.  Firstly they looked at this in Lego Robots where we used Visual Studio and then looked at it again in Unity (which is used in some KS5 environments) – although I was mindful that were opportunities to provide experience of using C# rather than an opportunity to learn the language in any detail.

Unity is worth a good look (https://unity3d.com/get-unity/download) particularly at Key Stage 5 for some aspects of game production but it is very time consuming to learn.  In addition the range of C# knowledge that may be acquired in a short period of time seems limited – there is a tendency to focus on the visual rather than the programming itself.  In a flipped classroom, Unity has much to recommend it – Pupils can find a range of tutorials to help them learn and may be engaged by the opportunity to learn Games Programming both inside the classroom and at home.

But is it really feasible to teach Unity within sessions.  The interface required explanation to some trainees but it did prove manageable after some initial guidance.  My preparation led me to sample the video tutorials but following the scripts of the tutorials allowed me to acquire knowledge of the Program at a faster pace.  As we know, pupils who are engaged will follow tutorials outside class, and using them to allow a flipped classroom where skills are applied enhances pupil understanding of why things are being done in a particular way and how to do things outside the tutorial.

A more traditional way of learning C# is to use Visual Studio – I tend to use the Community version because of the price (https://www.visualstudio.com/vs/community/)! Both Unity and Visual Studio can be downloaded by students without cost.  The advantage of Visual Studio is that it can be used for a range of languages including Python and C++.  It can also be used to create games and other projects but it is less visual and is less intuitive.  Hence it has a wide scope but it isn’t as visually engaging as Unity.  My perspective has been that using Visual Studio quite restrictive compared to Python’s IDLE and many other IDEs.  But we all have preferences between IDEs and the big advantages of Visual Studio is that it works.

A few years ago downloading these programs would have led me to buy a new processor and graphics card due to the huge download burden and the graphics requirements.  Visual Studio takes up over 3Gb of space (plus additional programs added) while Unity takes up a ‘mere’ 2.8Gb.  So these are not programs to use in machines where you are short of space on your disk drives.
 

How long do they take to work?  Unity loaded much more quickly than Visual Studio but once up and running they are fine.  Both seem to work pretty easily on my fairly old spec home computer which has 8Gb RAM and a 2Gb Graphics Card – it has an i5 processor (2012 version).  I always worry about using material like Unity due to the potential graphics issues but this worked.
 
I think of the two I would prefer learning C# using Visual Studio (my brain works that way) but I think I would prefer teaching C# within Unity (because many children would get into the programming aspects through gaming, do additional learning at home and this providing the opportunity for a flipped classroom). 

So if you have the time – something we all find limiting – try both out and see for yourself. 

CAS Assessment working group - 2017-2018
John Woollard (Chair of CAS AWG, Southampton Education School, University of Southampton

During Spring and Summer 2017 there was an emphasis on Key Stage 4 qualifications; we continue this work when developments at the DfE, Ofqual and the awarding organisations occur.

We planned 3 meetings during Autumn and Spring terms to focus on assessment of computing in the primary phase.

The first ‘primary’ meeting was in Swindon. See http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/events/5611 14/11/17

Second ‘primary’ meeting was in Exmouth. See http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/official_events/5765 10/01/18

The third meeting was Plymouth on 22nd March 2018

http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/events/5954

Overview of progress so far

Focal point discussions: raising the issues (Beverly Clarke); objectives-based assessments (James Summerson), assessing application of knowledge, skills and understanding (Julia Briggs) and RAG (Jane Waite)

“The aim of the sessions is to establish a shared understanding of both the challenges and opportunities in establishing accurate, valid, and efficient assessment. Assessment systems in the past that have failed to gain traction because they did not engage teachers from day one.”

Resulting from the first (Swindon) meeting are: (note: all links are to the same online document)

• A set of key statements made about the nature of assessment of computing in the primary phase

• A number of emerging themes derived from those statements

• A table of self-assessment statements

Resulting from the second (Exmouth):

• A description of key characteristics of a primary assessment system

• Four models of the means of implementation

• A list of the principles of assessment

Following Plymouth, the next step will be to expose our findings to a wider audience of primary colleagues for evaluation. That will be an online activity before finalising our conclusions.

The CAS Assessment wg Terms of Reference are at https://goo.gl/WtyYzN

The CAS Assessment working group web page is https://goo.gl/vc6PCc

Book Reviews
Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School;

Inevitably, an edited book of collected chapters will vary in style and approach and readers will find different chapters more engaging than others. For some there may be chapters that do not say enough about computer science education and instead dwell on what the intended audience might already be expected to know. For example, a chapter about teaching the language of computing is interesting but on the whole the pedagogy is quite familiar to most teachers, as are chapters on key professional topics such assessment, curriculum design, or objectives versus competences. In many of these examples, the way that they might shape computer science education is often hard to find beneath more well-known detail.

Conversely, there are occasions where there is not enough detail or explanation, leaving the typical reader (e.g. this reviewer?) a little unsure of some details. For example, some of the more technical aspects of computer science such as how to teach computing concepts or programming constructs seem to assume quite specific knowledge on the part of the reader. Where the reader needs the explanatory details it seems to be missing. Similarly, the ambitious attempt to define Computer Science as a discipline seems cursory, perhaps trying to cover too much ground, and the range of details in the chapter on taxonomies might bemuse both qualitative and quantitative researchers alike!

Read the full review here ...

Enhancing Learning and Teaching with Technology: What the research says

... Does the book succeed in its aim to communicate research? Unfortunately, I cannot say that it does even while it has value. As is clear from the Preface it aims to address important and perennial concerns about the accessibility of research and research data. But as the reader turns the page and begins in earnest with Part One we are back in familiar territory. While the collection aims to provide useful, transferable, explanations of some important ways of thinking about educational technology, most chapters have followed their own lights in relation to the style, presentation and use of sources and therefore vary somewhat in style and approach.

Thus this is more like a regular book of academic essays with the addition of summaries for each part of the book and a list of ‘key findings’ condensed from each chapter. For this reader at least, parts of these extended lists of findings are sometimes too conditional. There are many things that “may” enhance learning with educational technology but is that a ‘finding’? It could be, but not yet. A discussion about methods of inquiry might help to know what kind of science is required to take such uncertainties forward. Nevertheless, there are some good essays in this book covering many issues of interest and relevance.

Read the full review here ...

RiskITWeek, IT in the Classroom, A Risk Worth Taking…

Review by Alison Allen

RiskITWeek is a philosophy, a calculated risk and a tool that virtually guarantees a ‘win’ for schools, their pupils and teachers! Is it easy? – It just requires commitment to effective CPD from school leaders.

This book “RiskITWeek – IT in the Classroom A Risk Worth Taking” provides the necessary knowledge, advice and strategy to make a success of risk-taking, discovery and innovation without fear.

Abderrahmane (Ben) Benjeddi offers this book as a guide to the strategy. It is written with a joyfully light touch and can be read cover to cover or by dipping in and out of the sections of most interest. Seasoned with helpful, robust, education research, the book is full sage advice born out of experience and real-school practical suggestions. Not to be missed are Chapters 5 and 6 about implementing and embedding ICT in the classroom – these chapters are full of really good examples of ICT across all kinds of curriculum areas!

• 7-8 June 2018: ITTE Conference: Raising aspirations for digital education, Winchester
• 25-28 June 208. IFIP TC3 Conference: 'Empowering Learners for Life in the Digital Age'., Linz, Austria. Submission deadline 21st January 2018
• 19-21 Sept 2018: IFIP TC9 Conference: This Changes Everything. Poznan, Poland. Submission deadline 15th January 2018
• 11-13 Sep 2018: Bera Annual Conference 2018: Northumbria University, Newcastle. Submission deadline 31st January 2018