A Principled view

A NotebookLLM conversation on this article can be found here: https://schl.cc:443/gp

Throughout the ages, philosophers have highlighted that man imprisons himself within his own petty conventions and behaviours. Plato’s original Allegory of the Cave has us picture slaves tethered to a wall and, in watching events pass by through the shadows cast on the cave walls, theorise a way of life that bore no resemblance to that which was visible to those outside the cave. Neither the cave dweller nor the watcher from outside would be able to see each other’s point of view; the shadows, dancing in both natural and artificial light, creating that whole world vision to those inside which was simply invisible and incomprehensible to those not benefiting from that perspective.

Rosa Luxemburg comes from that Marxist tradition that held such strong sway in central Europe during the latter part of the 19th and start of the 20th century, giving rise to the various revolutions of the time.  Battle-hardened through umpteen struggles in Germany, wherein she tried (amongst other things) to highlight the oncoming world conflict. Her major contributions were as a political activist , feminist  and writer, and in advancing an internationalist view of nationhood, promoted the birth of democratic ideals in Germany. She was murdered shortly after the end of the first world war, and for many years neglected as an inconvenient truth, the Nazis’ first assassination. Shortly after her death, the poet Berthold Brecht wrote

“Red Rosa now has vanished too. (…),

She told the poor what life is about, 

And so the rich have rubbed her out.

May she rest in peace.”

I have always liked Luxemburg’s other famous quotation too; “Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently.” Put together, they provide a framework for human development that sits comfortably with me, as I work within the framework of British Education in which so many ‘beacons of light’ are set to ensnare the unwary traveler. If educationalists, politicians, economists were right, then we’d have a perfect world by now. The conventions that make a just and fair society seem to run at variance to that which rule a free market and successful economy, and almost always at such a tangent that collision causes mayhem on the frequent occasions when they collide.

In short, it is Humanity’s struggle that ensures progress, that constant testing of the light, shadow, natural and artificial that reveals what we can learn about all the dimensions of our surroundings. For those content with the status quo, they simply won’t feel the fetters that prevent them from flight.  George Bernard Shaw, a contemporary of Luxembourg, had this to say “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
This set of thoughts links directly to “The vanity (or narcisism) of small differences”

…playing with Fire.

This stunning picture recorded a few hours after the Holy Father’s resignation from the Holy See gives a ‘Dan Brown Novel’s take on proceedings.  For those of you not familiar with Mr Brown’s Oeuvres, he writes mystery who-dunnits involving the Catholic Church on occasion –  Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code spring to mind. As a teacher of physics, I am reminded that this is precisely what lightening rods are for – to permit a discharge through the metal spike of a strap of copper that runs from the ground to the highest point on the roof of a building.  Electrons forming the static ‘venom’ build up in the heavens, and safely transmit them in one huge discharge to earth.  For geeks amongst you, I am reliably informed that actually there is initially a discharge up to the clouds through the spike, ionising the air a little, which then promotes the fantastic firework spectacle seen in this picture.  I am also advised we still have more work to do in this area of science.  As both the Frenchman Denis Barbaret and the American Benjamin Franklin have previous in the area of flying kites close to the danger zone ’round about 1750, and we still don’t know what is going on, it’s my advice to stay away – because Fulminology is clearly quite hard. Not quite so difficult it must be said as managing the spiritual lives of the largest religion by far on the planet.

Pope Benedict XVI may very well have done absolutely nothing to incur this strike from the heavens, but it is a great juxtaposition between human action and an event of nature.  Perhaps it has given a budding ‘Dan Brown’ a great idea for a best selling novel!  For a period of time, the Church in Rome will be without a leader, as the 120 Cardinals (one rank lower, and those under 80 who are eligible to vote) gather in Conclave to vote.  Now the older cardinals can still politic around, canvassing their own ideas, and twice a day, the vote will be held in the Sistine Chapel until there is a clear winner. Majority voting did come in, but in 2007, Pope Benedict passed a decree reverting back to the two-thirds plus one vote majority, thus encouraging cardinals to reach consensus, rather than one bloc backing a candidate with more than half the votes and then holding out for 12 days to ensure his election.

The ballot papers are burnt each time, producing black smoke; with a little help from its friends, the smoke turns white once the new Pope has been elected.  And I can confirm that there is no link between the Lightening and the Smoke – unless you write it so!

Here is the presentation I was invited to give at BETT 2013 from the Google stand in the Excel centre. The stars of my presentation were Chris Rowan, Joe Reeve and Barnaby Morton-Woodruffe, who as teacher and pupils showed where engagement and education can meet at the juxtoposition of Google Apps for Edu and Claires Court.  Our organisation is now at the very forefront of all institutions as an exemplar model of how this stuff works – technology meets 3millenium skillls (the Claires Court Essentials) and it shows from the growing interest across the globe on what happens when 1000 users, plus BYOD and 620 Chromebooks/netbooks/desktops meet in the ‘Cloud’.

Here’s the presentation and if you want to come and see us, just let me know – jtw@clairescourt.com – we book Monday pm for 90 minutes every week to show people around.

One of the funniest stories from the world of film is told in David Niven’s autobiographical book, after which this post is entitled. Michael Curtiz, legendary American Hungarian Hollywood director, was having to cope with the antics of Niven and fellow star Errol Flynn, whilst directing them in the film “The charge of the light brigade”.  Clearly the filming of the carnage of injured men and general mayhem was not going well; shouting to his assistants, Curtiz shouted “Bring on the empty horses!” Niven and Flynn fell about laughing, and Curtiz rounded on them exclaiming in his thick accent “You think I know fxxx nothing, but I tell you I know fxxx all!”

When I first came across this joke, I fell about laughing, and felt emboldened to tell my Benedictine housemaster, Father Bernard.  I knew it was funny because he creased up too. Throughout my adolescence, much of it spent at boarding school where time hung heavy upon on my hands, the book was the ultimate retreat into a fantasy world of better times. Spike Milligan, John Lennon and Isaac Asimov led the way, but I can recall a heady mix of Robert Louis Stevenson, John Cleland and Anthony Burgess as well – probably none ever read these days. Trash fiction abounded, Ellery Queen the highlight of my sojourn across the pond in American crime.

During her academic research based work on the Child’s acquisition of language, my mother became a profound convert to the idea that all reading is good reading, but that if it was to be of any sustained value, reading needed to happen for a real length of time, perhaps 30 minutes.  Some 24 years after her death, and the reading landscape in some ways has been transformed.  There are of course so many other diversions other than reading for entertainment these days, but eReaders have helped recapture readers, and proper books are not going away anytime soon.

International studies show countries such as Singapore ahead of the UK in reading, but these studies largely highlight performance in tests, and it is interesting to note that whilst the schools minister, Elizabeth Truss and her boss Michael Gove are pushing hard for more rigorous testing, Singapore is moving in the opposite direction, giving more freedom in its curriculum to encourage its students to be more creative in their writing. Read more about that here – http://goo.gl/rwQ3V

There is much written about the gender difference between girls and boys, the latter being far too willing to substitute anything rather than read – the concept of a Good Book being a contradiction in terms.  In search of some encouragement for the males of the species I supervise, I was reminded of the playwright Alan Bennett’s teacher in  ‘The History Boys’. Here is what Hector had to say:

“The best moments in reading are when you come across something – a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things – which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and taken yours”.

So whether it be fact, fiction, prose, play or verse, all reading improves not just the mind, but pretty much everything else as well. And in 2013, as text can come at you from so many directions, there really is no (expletive deleted) excuse!

These days, I am brave enough to say that we know something about Digital Technologies and their impact upon Education. Our first computer lab was designed by my brother Hugh in 1983, and the machine of choice was the ZX Spectrum.  In 1989, we opened our next generation facility, using network technologies and we showcased the best of Research Machines provision.  We went the web, pioneered all sorts of stuff, use of databases, pupil-centred research and so forth, all back in the day.  We certainly went a little too Office focussed in the Noughties, but we are very much back on track now.  It’s also true that we are great fans of Durham University and its work, and use their researchers lots.

So when Durham publish a report on the existing evidence on the impact of digital technology on learning, it is certainly time to sit up and listen. Now there is too much in the report for my Blog, but very kindly, the lead author of the report, Durham University’s Professor Steven Higgins, has also compiled a less formal list of six contemporary myths about digital technology in education.
You’ll find that list below, and it makes for a great read. For me the most important statement in the main report is this: “Technology is best used as a supplement to normal teaching rather than as a replacement for it.”  
It was this time last year, after just going Google, I saw an amazing collaborative whole Year 6 exercise out on the yard, with three armies from Greek city states rehearsing the various battle moves of yore – capturing the pictures onto our digital ‘Hub’ sent the infantry home that night faster than ever, to open up the pictures and write about their experiences. None of this was about ‘using a computer’ but all about History, and writing and reflection and research. By collaborating together, most children worked as well as we could have ever expected.  But you would not do that every day; the skills the children need to develop are diverse, including a serious ability to write and add-up, but coupled with an imagination and a real talent to work with others.
Anyway, onto the sacking of the 6 Urban myths… Prof Higgins continues:

Myth 1: New technologies are being developed all the time, the past history of the impact of technology is irrelevant to what we have now or will be available tomorrow.
After more than fifty years of digital technology use in education this argument is now wearing a bit thin. We need a clear rationale for why we think the introduction of (yet another) new technology will be more effective than the last one. The introduction of technology has consistently been shown to improve learning, the trouble is most things improve learning in schools when they are introduced, and technology is consistently just a little bit less effective than the average intervention.

Myth 2: Today’s children are digital natives and the ‘net’ generation – they learn differently from older people.
There are two issues with this myth. First, there is no evidence the human brain has evolved in the last 50 years, so our learning capacity remains as it was before digital technologies became so prevalent. It may be that young people have learned to focus their attention differently, but their cognitive capabilities are fundamentally the same as 30 years ago. Second, just because young people have grown up with technology it does not mean they are experts in its use for their own learning. Being an expert at playing Halo 5 requires different skills and knowledge from having an active Facebook account. Most young people are fluent in their use of some technologies, but none are expert at all of them.

Myth 3: Learning has changed now we have access to knowledge through the internet, today’s children don’t need to know stuff, they just need to know where to find it.
The web has certainly changed access to information, but it this only becomes knowledge when it is used for a purpose. When this requires understanding and judgement, information alone is insufficient. Googling is great for answers to a pub quiz, but would you trust your doctor if she was only using Wikipedia? To be an expert in a field you also need experience of using the information and knowledge, so that you understand where to focus your attention and where new information will help you in making decisions and judgements. It is important to recognise the relevance or importance of different pieces of information. Easy access to information can help, but it is no substitute for experience, understanding and expertise.

Myth 4: Students are motivated by technology so they must learn better when they use it.
It is certainly true that most young people do enjoy using technology in schools to support their learning. However, the assumption that any increased motivation and engagement will automatically lead to better learning is false. It is possible that increased engagement or motivation may help increase the time learners spend on learning activities, or the intensity with which they concentrate or their commitment and determination to complete a task. However, it is only when this engagement can be harnessed for learning that there will be any academic benefit. There is another caveat here as the motivation in school may be partly because using technology is either novel in school, or simply a change from what they usually experience. It may not be the case that this motivation will be sustained over time.

Myth 5: The Everest Fallacy: we must use technology because it is there!
We should use some of the wide range of digital technologies that are available to us to support learning and teaching in schools, but this should be where they improve aspects of teaching and learning and help to prepare children and young people for their lives after school. The curriculum and the way in which pupils work and are assessed should reflect the society and culture they are preparing pupils to be a part of when they leave formal education. However the challenge is knowing which technology is the best to choose for use in schools and for what purposes and learning outcomes they should be employed.

Myth 6: The “More is Better” Fallacy
Enthusiasts assume that if a little technology is a good thing then a lot will be much better. The evidence does not support this assumption, for two reasons. First, large-scale international studies indicated very high use of technology – e.g. pupils using the internet more than four hours per day – is not linked with better learning. Second, the effect of technology and length of interventions indicate that more is clearly not always better. This suggests that there is an optimum level of technology which can support learning, too little and you don’t see the benefit, too much and the gains decline. A better notion might be the Goldilocks effect: it is about getting the amount of technology, and learners’ access to it “just right”.