Above: a digital future for the classroom?
Today marks the start of "get online week"—seven days during which over 3,000 events around the UK will be aiming to help "get 80,000 people taking their first steps online." It's as auspicious a time as any to look back over a debate I was lucky enough to chair at each of the party conferences entitled "The DIY Generation: Education 2.0" and devoted to exploring the consequences of the new digital order for education and learning. In addition to Prospect, the debate was sponsored jointly by Channel 4 Education—purveyors of some of the finest new-media educational experiences around—and the Nominet Trust, an independent charity set up by domain name registry Nominet that's devoted to funding projects supporting web access, online safety and education.
As the over-used phrase "digital natives" captures, today's teens are the first generation to have grown up with the web as part of the texture of daily life, and with it the expectation that knowledge is something to be shared, explored and created entirely independently of traditional learning networks. And if there was one theme throughout, it was the impossibility of treating the issues at stake as monolithic—and the equal impossibility of future-proofing the education system through central, monolithic action, a point most educators will be wearily over-familiar with.
Online education expert Stephen Heppell was frank about the "broken" experience of modern schooling for many pupils—and the importance of looking forward rather than backward for solutions, especially at a time of shrinking public budgets. But his optimism was founded on individual actions, and the capacity of digital media for enabling these, rather than institutional undertakings. Similarly, former Oftsed chair Zenna Atkins was clear in her insistence that education must go where pupils' attention and interest lies: that is, schools must follow where many of their pupils are already leading, the stark choice being that either new media's force is harnessed within classrooms, or its notable absence makes much of what takes place within them look and feel irrelevant.
What, then, can and should be done? Jacob Kestner, head of new business development for schools operator GEMS (of which Zenna is now CEO for the UK, Europe and Africa), made the point that the future needs to be thought of in terms of "disaggregation"—taking apart the different components that currently constitute school models, and analysing individually whether they are fit for 21st century purpose. Why, he asked, do massed classes still rush from room to room at the sound of bells, given all we can now do with customized spaces, timetables, and interfaces; why is assessment still largely about gathering people in halls one or two times a year, and giving them a couple of hours to see how much they can remember about a topic?
Digital researcher and writer Aleks Krotoski added further nuance to this notion, noting the fundamental continuities between past and present generations: technology is an extension of the self, she argued, but not something that alters it—a point that seemed to resonate with our audience, which included educators and teachers deeply frustrated by the idea that gadgets should be introduced into classrooms just because, rather than with a clear sense of the needs they would serve. Meanwhile, Jo Twist, commissioning editor for education at Channel 4, highlighted projects like Super Me run by Channel 4 Education, and the staggering power shift going on between those in positions of traditional authority and the more informal networks of information exchange around them.
At the Lib Dem event, the Media Trust's corporate engagement manager Tom Beedham further fleshed out this idea, talking about some of the community projects he has been involved in, including using media to engage disadvantaged and isolated young people who have fallen entirely outside of traditional education (some case studies of this and other Media Trust work are listed here).
Professor of physiology and former Director of the Royal Institution Susan Greenfield raised the most sceptical questions of the sessions, speaking at the Tory conference about the need for rigorous scientific investigation of the effects of screen time on developing minds—and pointing out that while much time has been expended pinning down teen media habits, there's been little investigation as yet of parental attitudes and concerns. What, she asked, should the aims of education in the 21st century be in the first place—and how can we ensure that a distinction is maintained between analytical understanding and mere knowing?
Among other materials, Susan cited this paper in Neuron—"Children, Wired: For Better and for Worse" by Daphne Bavelier, C Shawn Green and Matthew WG Dye—as evidence of the mounting need to investigate precisely how the use of digital technology is affecting growing brains. These points were echoed at the Lib Dem event by CEO of Codeworks Herb Kim who, for all his admiration of digital media, spoke of his concern at its sheer ability to compel, and at the difficulties faced in achieving a healthy balance of media activities by the current generation now in school.
Tom Watson, Jo Swinson and Charlie Elphicke represented the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative parties respectively, and between them combined personal technophilia with a sober take on what it's possible for governments to achieve—with Tom and Jo in particular optimistic, but emphatic about the need to engage the informal sector and public passions.
Many ideas, much to hope for and few quick fixes, then, was the message of these three debates. And this seems entirely fitting. As always with the best kind of educations, it's the quality of the questions you come away with that matters far more than any of the answers.
Today marks the start of "get online week"—seven days during which over 3,000 events around the UK will be aiming to help "get 80,000 people taking their first steps online." It's as auspicious a time as any to look back over a debate I was lucky enough to chair at each of the party conferences entitled "The DIY Generation: Education 2.0" and devoted to exploring the consequences of the new digital order for education and learning. In addition to Prospect, the debate was sponsored jointly by Channel 4 Education—purveyors of some of the finest new-media educational experiences around—and the Nominet Trust, an independent charity set up by domain name registry Nominet that's devoted to funding projects supporting web access, online safety and education.
As the over-used phrase "digital natives" captures, today's teens are the first generation to have grown up with the web as part of the texture of daily life, and with it the expectation that knowledge is something to be shared, explored and created entirely independently of traditional learning networks. And if there was one theme throughout, it was the impossibility of treating the issues at stake as monolithic—and the equal impossibility of future-proofing the education system through central, monolithic action, a point most educators will be wearily over-familiar with.
Online education expert Stephen Heppell was frank about the "broken" experience of modern schooling for many pupils—and the importance of looking forward rather than backward for solutions, especially at a time of shrinking public budgets. But his optimism was founded on individual actions, and the capacity of digital media for enabling these, rather than institutional undertakings. Similarly, former Oftsed chair Zenna Atkins was clear in her insistence that education must go where pupils' attention and interest lies: that is, schools must follow where many of their pupils are already leading, the stark choice being that either new media's force is harnessed within classrooms, or its notable absence makes much of what takes place within them look and feel irrelevant.
What, then, can and should be done? Jacob Kestner, head of new business development for schools operator GEMS (of which Zenna is now CEO for the UK, Europe and Africa), made the point that the future needs to be thought of in terms of "disaggregation"—taking apart the different components that currently constitute school models, and analysing individually whether they are fit for 21st century purpose. Why, he asked, do massed classes still rush from room to room at the sound of bells, given all we can now do with customized spaces, timetables, and interfaces; why is assessment still largely about gathering people in halls one or two times a year, and giving them a couple of hours to see how much they can remember about a topic?
Digital researcher and writer Aleks Krotoski added further nuance to this notion, noting the fundamental continuities between past and present generations: technology is an extension of the self, she argued, but not something that alters it—a point that seemed to resonate with our audience, which included educators and teachers deeply frustrated by the idea that gadgets should be introduced into classrooms just because, rather than with a clear sense of the needs they would serve. Meanwhile, Jo Twist, commissioning editor for education at Channel 4, highlighted projects like Super Me run by Channel 4 Education, and the staggering power shift going on between those in positions of traditional authority and the more informal networks of information exchange around them.
At the Lib Dem event, the Media Trust's corporate engagement manager Tom Beedham further fleshed out this idea, talking about some of the community projects he has been involved in, including using media to engage disadvantaged and isolated young people who have fallen entirely outside of traditional education (some case studies of this and other Media Trust work are listed here).
Professor of physiology and former Director of the Royal Institution Susan Greenfield raised the most sceptical questions of the sessions, speaking at the Tory conference about the need for rigorous scientific investigation of the effects of screen time on developing minds—and pointing out that while much time has been expended pinning down teen media habits, there's been little investigation as yet of parental attitudes and concerns. What, she asked, should the aims of education in the 21st century be in the first place—and how can we ensure that a distinction is maintained between analytical understanding and mere knowing?
Among other materials, Susan cited this paper in Neuron—"Children, Wired: For Better and for Worse" by Daphne Bavelier, C Shawn Green and Matthew WG Dye—as evidence of the mounting need to investigate precisely how the use of digital technology is affecting growing brains. These points were echoed at the Lib Dem event by CEO of Codeworks Herb Kim who, for all his admiration of digital media, spoke of his concern at its sheer ability to compel, and at the difficulties faced in achieving a healthy balance of media activities by the current generation now in school.
Tom Watson, Jo Swinson and Charlie Elphicke represented the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative parties respectively, and between them combined personal technophilia with a sober take on what it's possible for governments to achieve—with Tom and Jo in particular optimistic, but emphatic about the need to engage the informal sector and public passions.
Many ideas, much to hope for and few quick fixes, then, was the message of these three debates. And this seems entirely fitting. As always with the best kind of educations, it's the quality of the questions you come away with that matters far more than any of the answers.
