Hi, can you explain what you mean by this: “The technology sets the floor and ceiling you operate within. The more powerful the tool, the narrower the range you can operate within.” ?
Thinking about teenagers: with laptops, they can respond in writing, in a very wide range of styles (presentation, document etc); with audio, video, image generation, music generation…etc.
With a pencil, eraser and paper they can respond by writing or drawing.
I’m just wondering how making every child respond in one narrow format (be that handwriting or typing) is still relevant in a 21st century landscape, in which we all consume a far wider range of output media that we used to in the 1940s, which is the world the exams still seem to be pandering to.
Perhaps the reason there are so many exam concessions granted to pupils is that the system is no longer fit for purpose, requiring as it does so many patches for it to function.
I think laptops are a general purpose technology that make lots of things possible - lots more than is possible with paper. The risk for students is distraction - when you know you can do everything you end up doing nothing very well. There is plenty of data showing that everyone - kids and adults - skims and scans more when reading on screen. So if your aim is to immerse students in text and get them to think hard about it, a screen is probably not your friend.
Fully agree. We’ve just switched over to using Class Tools in Google Workspace for Ed. Teachers now choose precisely which tabs or even single docs pupils have access to and how long for. It’s like putting a piece of paper (or a few sheets) in front of them. They can only look at what the teacher wants them to look at. Flicking between tabs and hyperlinks is now no longer a thing, and lessons feel way calmer. https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/16059946?hl=en
For reading & literary analysis we of course still use print books & photocopied paper to facilitate hand annotation.
Not unlike some teachers do with their planning. If all planning had to be done with pen and paper there'd be far less of it. And that would be a good thing!
I'd say it's the nature of most exams that are out of date not the technology used to complete them. I think this is particularly true of GCSEs where most papers require students to regurgitate stuff. Very little scope for demonstrating how skills and knowledge might be applied in different scenarios. I know why the status quo remains because there are too many companies who have a financial stake in maintaining exams as they are and have been for decades. If, for example, GCSE students were set tasks in mathematics which were designed to demonstrate how well they could apply particular skills it would be very tricky to mark and assess. And it would be way more expensive that the current model whether that uses a pen and paper or IT.
💯 💯Helpfully, in my experience of close contact with OCR, exam boards are as keen to change the model as teachers eg: https://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/car/ The blockage is higher up: political fear of change and consequent vote loss. 😕
As always, lots to think about here. McLuhan and Postman have certainly become even more relevant of late. Also reminded me of Neil Selwyn - years ago - on how educational technologies are shaped as much by commercial priorities. “Problems” in education are often defined to fit tech solutions. A meta problem of the medium is the message. But positives also. For me speed at which detailed, feedback can be given (at distance) when needed (almost automatically) in the run up to exams has been revolutionary.
Yes, I think the speed and scalability of technology make certain trade-offs worth it. But it's good to try and think how we can use technology to preserve paper based education & assessments too.
Agreed. The exam based feedback I have been giving - IBDP history - is all handwritten for the moment. The IB moves to digital assessment in the next few years. The accuracy of the inbuilt OCR is remarkable and eliminates handwriting biases. Our students do history in three languages. I can cope with the French but I have no German. I can trust the AI to do the job as it provides an accurate transcript first. During the Easter holiday exam prep time, students send me PDFs of essays and plans and I can provide detailed feedback (cumulative - it remembers the student's previous essays) in minutes. I am still in the loop, but I am not sure I need to be or should be.
Thoroughly agree with the form dictating the message. Would like to add an appeal for someone to attack the idea of the PowerPoint being a suitable medium for teachers to use. It's dreadful in so many ways. So limiting, so boring, so ugly. It is destroying classroom teaching in an insidious way in ways I could bore anyone willing to listen with. But many young teachers (and students) think the PowerPoint is the lesson.
Great piece Daisy. I hope you receive some good feedback!
Hi, can you explain what you mean by this: “The technology sets the floor and ceiling you operate within. The more powerful the tool, the narrower the range you can operate within.” ?
Thinking about teenagers: with laptops, they can respond in writing, in a very wide range of styles (presentation, document etc); with audio, video, image generation, music generation…etc.
With a pencil, eraser and paper they can respond by writing or drawing.
I’m just wondering how making every child respond in one narrow format (be that handwriting or typing) is still relevant in a 21st century landscape, in which we all consume a far wider range of output media that we used to in the 1940s, which is the world the exams still seem to be pandering to.
Perhaps the reason there are so many exam concessions granted to pupils is that the system is no longer fit for purpose, requiring as it does so many patches for it to function.
Very interesting piece, though, thank you!
I think laptops are a general purpose technology that make lots of things possible - lots more than is possible with paper. The risk for students is distraction - when you know you can do everything you end up doing nothing very well. There is plenty of data showing that everyone - kids and adults - skims and scans more when reading on screen. So if your aim is to immerse students in text and get them to think hard about it, a screen is probably not your friend.
Fully agree. We’ve just switched over to using Class Tools in Google Workspace for Ed. Teachers now choose precisely which tabs or even single docs pupils have access to and how long for. It’s like putting a piece of paper (or a few sheets) in front of them. They can only look at what the teacher wants them to look at. Flicking between tabs and hyperlinks is now no longer a thing, and lessons feel way calmer. https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/16059946?hl=en
For reading & literary analysis we of course still use print books & photocopied paper to facilitate hand annotation.
Best of both forms.
Not unlike some teachers do with their planning. If all planning had to be done with pen and paper there'd be far less of it. And that would be a good thing!
I'd say it's the nature of most exams that are out of date not the technology used to complete them. I think this is particularly true of GCSEs where most papers require students to regurgitate stuff. Very little scope for demonstrating how skills and knowledge might be applied in different scenarios. I know why the status quo remains because there are too many companies who have a financial stake in maintaining exams as they are and have been for decades. If, for example, GCSE students were set tasks in mathematics which were designed to demonstrate how well they could apply particular skills it would be very tricky to mark and assess. And it would be way more expensive that the current model whether that uses a pen and paper or IT.
💯 💯Helpfully, in my experience of close contact with OCR, exam boards are as keen to change the model as teachers eg: https://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/car/ The blockage is higher up: political fear of change and consequent vote loss. 😕
As always, lots to think about here. McLuhan and Postman have certainly become even more relevant of late. Also reminded me of Neil Selwyn - years ago - on how educational technologies are shaped as much by commercial priorities. “Problems” in education are often defined to fit tech solutions. A meta problem of the medium is the message. But positives also. For me speed at which detailed, feedback can be given (at distance) when needed (almost automatically) in the run up to exams has been revolutionary.
Yes, I think the speed and scalability of technology make certain trade-offs worth it. But it's good to try and think how we can use technology to preserve paper based education & assessments too.
Agreed. The exam based feedback I have been giving - IBDP history - is all handwritten for the moment. The IB moves to digital assessment in the next few years. The accuracy of the inbuilt OCR is remarkable and eliminates handwriting biases. Our students do history in three languages. I can cope with the French but I have no German. I can trust the AI to do the job as it provides an accurate transcript first. During the Easter holiday exam prep time, students send me PDFs of essays and plans and I can provide detailed feedback (cumulative - it remembers the student's previous essays) in minutes. I am still in the loop, but I am not sure I need to be or should be.
Thoroughly agree with the form dictating the message. Would like to add an appeal for someone to attack the idea of the PowerPoint being a suitable medium for teachers to use. It's dreadful in so many ways. So limiting, so boring, so ugly. It is destroying classroom teaching in an insidious way in ways I could bore anyone willing to listen with. But many young teachers (and students) think the PowerPoint is the lesson.