The Long Road to 1 to 1 (step 4)

So you go 1 to 1. You give the teachers a laptop; you tell the students they have to bring one too. And that's it. Well, you bring in a LMS but you don't mandate it's use. You make Google Drive available, but again, you send contradictory messages about it (maybe OneDrive would be a better fit). You bring in a couple of tech-focused gurus for workshops. Light the blue touchpaper and stand well back! And...

Picture credit: pixabay

Well, no, nothing like that.

And that's probably for the best. Most people are not revolutionaries, they do not want to live through interesting times. But, on the other hand, if you ask your teachers to make a change (and potentially a big one), you don't want everything to be as it was, or what was the point?

Beforehand, I had encouraged people to think of it as a soft launch, or maybe not even a launch at all, but more like a milestone on the long road to 1 to 1: neither at the beginning nor the end of the journey. There was a couple of reasons for this. Many staff were fearful of the change, so it might settle their nerves to know that there would not be an expectation immediately to be functioning at a high level of technical expertise. Secondly, we were badly prepared: LMS, online storage, PD, the infrastructure are all sort-of present, but practically, each is insufficient in one way or another. Let's not point fingers (I'm sure I am implicated too), rather I am interested in how a school can up its game and become a good learning environment once the physical fact of 1 to 1 is established.

Our teaching staff are experienced educators and many have been at this place for a long time. They knew what they were doing before 1 to 1 came along. They have not been asked to do anything very different. Furthermore, there is an existing content-rich curriculum many elements of which have been in place for a long time and are not showing any moves towards retirement. So putting a layer of mobile devices on top will not, in itself, change anything. Not many of the teachers has worked elsewhere in a 1 to 1 environment, so there is not a lot of pressure from that direction, and those who have worked in 1 to 1 tend to operate in their own little isolated pockets (generally, when they try to inject some new ideas into the system this is not well-received; hence the pockets).

It's the job of the Facilitator to make a difference - and that's me and my colleague.

No-one will change the way they do things unless they see a reason to do it. So what could motivate our teachers to make the effort and go through a process of change? The problem, in my view, is that they do not know what the goal looks like. The world of educational technology is full of high-flown notions:

"Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. 

a. Promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness."

 (ISTE Standards for Teachers, 2008)

Hard to disagree, but what does that mean in practice? So I started looking for something which described more concretely than the ISTE Standards what it is we think we are doing? And I can't find it! At the other end of the spectrum are accounts of what people are doing in their individual classrooms. Great, but also not what I'm looking for. Nor do we need any more lists of '10 tools you can't possibly live without'. No, what I am working towards is a way to give some teachers who have never seen one a big and detailed picture of what a 1 to 1 classroom can be.

And if you can't even do that, then you really have done nothing more than just put some computers into some rooms.

The Long Road to 1 to 1 (step 2)

In the previous post, I described how we have changed tack in the process of moving our established European international school towards a 1 to 1 computer arrangement. Prior to the recent arrival of the new director of technology and ICT facilitator (the second one is me), the school management had committed itself to a byod (bring your own device) project from September 2013. We have introduced an undefined delay and are carefully referring to '1 to 1' rather than byod, since we don't see any advantages to the institution of byod. The first proposal caused a significant amount of concern among staff, especially the proposal to dispense with their beloved desktops. We looked into how many teachers have experience of 1 to 1 programmes and there are only 8 teachers out of 80, of whom 5 have arrived within the last 4 months. It is maybe not surprising that they are alarmed by the idea of a move to mobile machines, citing worries about posture, power and projectors amongst others.

We have written a list of questions, which has been reduced to eight, the answers to which will allow us to write a 'manifesto' for the development of a programme. This may seem overblown, but we realised that the school had not discussed a justification for putting mobile technology in the hands of the students to use in their learning. We put together some articles and videos which covered various aspects of the issue on a learnist board and asked the leadership team to read a few each as well as considering our questions. Here are those questions:

1. How do the school’s philosophy/mission/vision/values justify 1:1?
2. How do we expect teaching and learning to change?
3. What are the expected benefits?
4. What difficulties could there be with the implementation of 1:1?
5. What if we didn't do it?
6. What process should we use to decide which model to adopt?
7. Do we know if parents, teachers and students are in favour?
8. Why should the school introduce a 1:1 programme?

We met the leadership of the school and had a thoughtful discussion around the issues. Since a meeting of the academic leaders was coming up (heads of departments such as Science and Modern Languages), we put the questions to them too for their reactions. We are expecting all of those responses by the end of the week, though the majority I have seen so far are along the lines of: you guys are the experts, tell us what we want. At least they can't say we didn't consult them. The idea behind developing the manifesto is to have the support of the institution as we go forward.

The next stage, which will run concurrently with the ongoing consultation, is to consist of research, visits and pilots. As much of the data as possible is meant to be contextual, ie How would 1 to 1 work in our school? The visits are intended to be varied and also to include people from across the spectrum in the school from techies to Luddites and admin to students; similarly we hope to set up a few 1 to 1 zones around the school eg iPad room, Chromebook room, laptops and tablets to gather different sorts of information. These spaces will also function as training areas for teachers in the 1 to 1 environment whichever it is to become.

Will this work? Will the result be a better introduction of a 1 to 1 programme? We won't know how it would been otherwise, but having observed the school during the last few months, there is a number of pitfalls I am hoping to avoid. Firstly, the experience of both students and teachers in the uses of technology in the classroom are very limited. Secondly, this is a quite conservative institution in which fear of change expresses itself in the form of banal doubts which double as passive resistance. I see no way to achieve a proper change in which education takes the central position unless the community comes with its hearts and minds. This includes the opportunity for the 'antis' to express publicly their misgivings. I have learned that whatever the outcome of a consultation, you have to keep up the momentum. When the deadline for feedback has passed, report quickly, adjust accordingly and move on. And realistically interpret both positive or negative reaction (there are dangers in giving disproportionate attention to either).

So far, the outcomes of the consultation have not really pushed us forward on a wave of new ideas, but they have allowed the expressions of doubt as well as obliging the community to envisage a future with a school where everyone has a computer in hand all day. 

The Long Road to 1 to 1

At our international school somewhere in Europe, the school has committed itself to a BYOD programme. The trouble is no one can remember how or why the decision came about. The implementation has been entrusted to two of us who are new to the school. We have both come from schools in the Far East where every student and teacher had a Mac, so we both feel that we've seen a model that works.

Our predecessors have not left any documentation about why the decision was made to start with a programme where the Upper School students (the final 4 grades) would all bring a 'device' to class from the next school year, beginning in September 2013. As we have looked at the feasibility of continuing with this thinking, one element at a time has fallen by the wayside. First it became quickly clear that to introduce the programme in less than a year, when no planning or details existed, was unwise. So the new tech team put the brakes on.

We developed a proposal in which the introduction was delayed until 2014, nearly two years hence; the staff would get laptops a year earlier than the students (there had been no planning for staff machines in the old model: not even when the students had mobile devices would teachers be in the same boat); the school would adopt Google Drive to enable teachers and students to work in the cloud; another change to the original proposal was that the devices would be in the hands of all students from Grade 6, and if it were decided to introduce to only one section, it would be to the younger students in the Middle School. We put this proposal in a Google slides show and presented it to the Academic Leaders meeting (these are the heads of each teaching department such as Science or Foreign Languages). The meeting was cordial and receptive, and the next stage was agreed to be feedback once the ALs had put the ideas to their departments. The feedback was copious and overwhelmingly critical of the proposed model. My colleague was particularly discouraged. The few positive points were very general such as 'flexibility' and 'innovation'. The negative remarks were much more prosaic including reservations about charging cables, time to connect to the projector and eye and back problems for laptop users.

These comments also focused exclusively on the teacher's experience. There was no mention of problems students might experience such as the distractions of the Internet, cyber bullying or the potential for cheating (which in my view are things you have to consider). I felt that the nature of the response said a lot about the dynamic in this established conservative institution. In particular, the consultation process seemed to afford an opportunity for moaning rather than a balanced response. It was also clear that there was very little understanding of what 1 to 1 means since very few of the staff, apart from the newest, have any experience of computers in the classroom apart from our dreadful laptop carts and the IT labs which were scrapped a few years ago.

At least this process had enabled the staff to begin to envisage the ways in which the classroom might change. But it was obvious to us that a couple of crucial steps had been skipped when the project was originally discussed. We constructed a list of questions which we felt had to be answered before any decisions could be made about the direction in which the project should go. In addition, we realised that we, new to the school, would have to take account of the nature of the staff whom we are working with.

BYOD is the answer. But what is the question?

As part of the school's Professional Growth process, I have been asked to construct some SMART targets. I don't think the ones I submitted, and had accepted, are very specific etc, but they divide my area of work into three useful questions.

• GOAL 1 - Develop the ICT in Action course for Grades 6 to 8 for the coming years including appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for students, identifying the time necessary for the achievement of the goals of the course, the resources and the staff required to deliver the programme.

• GOAL 2 - Assemble resources and construct an environment to enable teachers to develop professionally in using ICT in the classroom and to acquire knowledge of the innovative ways of teaching made possible by new technology.

• GOAL 3 - Contribute to the school's discussion of the implementation of the BYOD policy.

So, the three areas are developing the computer skills of the students; assisting the professional growth of the teachers in their use of computers; and working on the development of ICT for the upper school. The more I think about each of these, the more I realise that they are connected and that other issues are relevant as well. Thus, the direction the school will take with respect to Bring Your Own Device is related to the professional development of the teachers. It looks like the only planning for BYOD which has been done is a declaration that it will happen in September 2013. This year, then, is the preparation year, but without any detail worked out at all. Not only do the parents and teachers not know what is coming, but the school itself does not. Furthermore, not only have no decisions been made for the nature of BYOD, but there is also no declaration as to the direction the school wants to go in. In short, we have said we want BYOD, but we don't know why! From this it follows, that if you don't why you want something, you can't know if your decision is a good one. That's an educational question to which we have already decided that the answer is BYOD, but what's the question? (Shades of Douglas Adams). The shape of our BYOD should be dictated by this discussion and then once it is, other things fall into place, such as what hardware and software do we need to have; how should the hardware be deployed; what should the teachers be able to do, what does PD look like; what does it all mean for the students? Furthermore, once we know where we're going (and given that we do know where we are), we can start to work out how to get there.

The present ICT layout of the school has particular features such as: laptop carts (which are not effective to use, I know from daily experience); every classroom has a high-end smartboard and one desktop on the teacher's desk; the teachers have been inveigled into a scheme of buying their own subsidised tablets. Lots of kit, but what is the plan? Not 'what are the tools?', but 'what is the job which will be done with them?' That is how I am interpreting my Goal 3 right now; to help reverse-engineer a plan for BYOD on the basis of previous decisions which seem to have been made without reference to a big picture.

There is a growing feeling amongst decision-makers, I think, that BYOD needs another year to be full-blown. But the preparations need to be initiated now. 2013 would be year zero, the one before the Big Bang, but even that needs to be anticipated with actions taken in 2012. For a start, I want to get the teachers working on experiencing teaching with a laptop before the students bring them in. With the original plan of BYOD in 2013, there was no provision for teacher devices other than those PCs glued to the front desk.

One idea could be to dismantle some laptop carts (these monstrosities could only be popular with someone who has not tried to use them), and hand out some of the machines to the teachers; the large number of desktops around the place reside largely in corridors and 'workrooms'. In my opinion they would be more effectively deployed in classroom arrangements to which the users would travel rather than the other way around. The problem is that the opposite process has been underway for a couple of years, but the prevailing ideology of out of labs and onto carts hasn't been explained to me. We're going to have to start addressing that right away and deal with the loss of face this may entail. Classrooms with one computer per student is a closer approximation to a 1 to 1 laptop environment than carts which must be fetched and frequently malfunction.

It's an exciting time, and I don't know whether there is the latitude to throw around the pre-conceived arrangements. It can happen, because the plans so far only involve equipment. That can be re-deployed just like that, but the challenge is to persuade everyone that the new plan is not just another random act of technology implementation, but part of a considered plan. From that bigger picture, which relates to my goal 3, we can start to see the form of goal 2 and finally, we can work backwards to goal 1 - what the students should be doing. Wish us luck!