Blog

Teachers are not so much concerned by the appearance of their classrooms or how fancy they look. Their main concern is to mobilize all the resources at hand to achieve their goal.  In words of  Claude Lévi-Strauss they are “bricoleurs”, and the rules of their game “are always to make do with ‘whatever is at hand”.

Huberman developed his vision [Huberman: the model of the independent artisan in teachers’ professional relations in: J.W. Little & M W. McLaughlin (Eds) Teachers’ Work : individuals, colleagues, and contexts (New York, Teachers College Press) 1993] of a teacher “who is always busy, creating or repairing learning activities of different kinds with a distinctive style or signature”.

Joan Talbert and Milbrey McLaughlin developed his analogy between teaching, artisanship and jazz improvisation in their analysis of the artisan model of teaching. Bricolage in this context is no longer a “second best solution” but is central to creative thinking. In the words of Seymour Papert, “bricolage is a way to learn and solve problems by trying, testing, playing around”.

Teachers are used to “working at a height above the ground” and look like high wire artists walking a tightrope in their attempt to catch their students’ attention. They set up their scaffolds in the classrooms for an academic year, just the time they are given to fix or improve education.

Scaffolding is not only another word for teaching. It is also a way of teaching, Psychologist and social constructivist, Lev Vygotsky, refers to  scaffolding as  designing activities that support the students as they are led through the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD).  A learner can finalize the acquisition of a given skill through interaction with a teacher or a skilled peer.

What is the role of technology for the teacher-bricoleur?

We will argue that the bricoleur-teacher stimulates creativity in the classroom in a much more powerful and sustainable way than through the use of technology alone. Our teacher-bricoleur knows  the importance of teacher-student relationships, confirmed by John Hattie  to explain student achievement. Classroom discussion, reciprocal teaching, jigsaw method, feedback intervention are some of the techniques and tools with the highest probability of success while online and digital tools have among the lowest.

Jim Groom, in his evocation of The Glass Bees, reminds us that “teaching and learning are not done by technology, but rather people thinking and working together”.

“Thinking and working together” with the help of technology in the classroom remains a true question of balance for our teachers-bricoleurs working on their scaffolds. We will continue exploring this high-flying issue.

The success and sustainability of innovative online learning solutions rely on the capacity to engage learners in a continuous way, over a course period or over a school year. More committed learners means more interactions, more knowledge.

How do you measure commitment? Commitment can be both quantitative (number of hours spent, number of videos watched, number of interactions…) and qualitative (intensity of interaction, quality of contribution to dialogue…).

Is it easy to commit online? You first need to be at ease with a digital environment. In the words of Prensky, author of ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’; these digital natives, i.e. those who are entirely at ease within a digital environment, are the most likely to engage.

However, as made clear in an article by White and le Cornu, the main issue is not so much in being a digital native or not but in being an online resident or a mere visitor.

“Visitors are anonymous, their activity invisible and see the Web as primarily a set of tools. (…) Residents on the contrary see the Web as a place, perhaps like a park or a building in which there are clusters of friends and colleagues whom they can approach and with whom they can share information about their life and work.”

The metaphor of place will be crucial for the future of online learning. Danah Boyd, in her book ‘It’s Complicated’, insists on how social media has become an important public space where teens can gather and socialise broadly with peers. She explains how social media has enabled youth to participate in and help create what she calls networked publics.

David Weinberger, author of ‘Too Big to Know’, argues that a network of people connected in discussion and argument know more than the sum of what the individual knows. This means that the value of a network will grow in an exponential way.

How do we apply these concepts to the classroom? For a teacher using online learning tools, success will depend on his/her capacity to commit students as ‘residents’ and not ‘visitors’, which means creating a network of connected people: a networked public.

“Without falling too far into nostalgia, I still believe that the mysterious power of teacher-student interactions can’t truly be replaced by technology…” This article raises the fundamental issue of teacher-student interactions as a core determinant of learning. Research has shown that student interaction, whether it is classroom discussion or other participatory activities, is one of the foundations of knowledge assimilation and academic success.

Teacher-student interaction reveals the human side of education and we will all agree with the author that technology won’t replace it. But are we so sure that these interactions still exist in a traditional classroom.

The problem is not one of conviction or dogma: for a learner, to learn is not simply to acquire a definite amount of knowledge but to engage in personal interaction with the teacher and the learners. Interaction between students, whether in class discussions or other participatory activities, is central to knowledge assimilation and academic achievement.experiences, develop appropriate levels of autonomy and independence.

However, overcrowded classrooms, too heavy curriculum, competition for grades, violence and bullying at school are all symptoms or causes of a lack of interaction. Who talks to who and when during school hours?

This is where digital technology should make a difference in the classroom and contribute to:

• Increase the enjoyment and emotional connection that teachers have with students
• Enhance peer interactions;
• Decrease the level of aggressive relationships
• Prevent misbehaviour in daily routine
• Ensure maximum time is spent in learning activities
• Facilitate group activities so that learning opportunities are maximized.
• Expand participation and learning through feedback to students
• Improve teachers’ responsiveness to students’ needs;

Fully participatory classrooms are the one that are built in interaction and embed participation whatever the topic, the moment, the setting. The pedagogical concept behind interaction has therefore to be very refined and it has nothing to do with technology.

Far from establishing a distance, digital solutions can help bridge a gap between less and more participatory students, enabling the teacher to dedicate more time to those who need it most.

Far from dissimulating the human side of education, technology helps respond to basic needs, making the teacher a mentor and the student an actor of his own learning.

You remember Mary Poppins? How many teachers dream to have her magical powers when they face a sleepy classroom on a gloomy Monday morning!

One of teacher’s main challenge is to propose learning experiences that allow genuine student engagement.

In a classroom, the learning process is usually driven by the teacher. The teacher designs the lesson, defines the learning objectives, is in charge of student assessment. Often the result is a top down process that leaves a number of students “off the road”.

There is no magical solution to raise student engagement. Alternative school models haven’t proved significantly more efficient than “traditional” ones. A democratic school for instance where students have an equal say than teachers is no guarantee of student engagement.

The success depends on the degree of ownership that can be gained at the student level, i.e. if they are fully part of the learning process. Participation is a critical point in the classroom daily routine.

It doesn’t necessarily imply adopting new learning models such as project-based learning, cooperative or collaborative learning.  These models are often presented as a solution to student lack of engagement and participation. But we underestimate the complexity of implementing these new models. Neither the teachers, nor the schools are prepared while simple tools can help teachers achieve their engagement goals.

Technology in the classroom must be a facilitator of participation that teachers should use more (and not be afraid of) in their day to day teaching in the classroom.

If every student is using a digital device in the classroom, this is how it should work:

– the teacher creates a well structured lesson that enable every student to move forward at his/her own pace; the lesson has to be simply designed. Often a single picture with an insightful question makes the job!

– students must only require teacher’s attention if they really need it to move forward;

– teacher must know who needs attention at all time simply by having a look at their screen;

– teacher must be able to share a student’s contribution with the whole class anytime;

This super simple technology should have two key features:

– a powerful and easy to use editorial tool to create lessons in minutes and enable teacher and students to annotate them live;

– a shared screen functionality that give the teacher the possibility to interact live with all students’ screens.

No need to call Mary Poppins!

Unio by Harness does it!

Why do you think your solution works?

This question was asked by Rose Luckin to some of the world brightest edtech entrepreneurs gathered in London for the GESA – Global Edtech Startups Awards – final event last January, 23.

Sometimes seemingly innocent questions happen to be very tricky. This is the case with edtech innovators. This is THE question they don’t like to hear!

Why does it work? No clear answers emerged:

– because we know it

– because our sales are growing

– because our users tell us so

– because all our learners found a job

– because you can read it in the press…

Rose – and many of us – wanted strong evidences that demonstrate the impact of an edtech solution on learning.

Her latest book – Enhancing Learning and Teaching with Technology – raises three main questions:

– how and why learning happens and how different technologies can enhance it
– how engage a variety of learners through technology and helping them benefit from it
– how technology can support teaching.

Edtech entrepreneurs should depart from complacency, take their impact analysis one step further and investigate their real impact on learning.

There are many ways to do it:

–       Embed impact analysis in the whole learning process

–       Run randomized controlled trial directly with their users

–       Partner with independent evaluators to coordinate the process

But more importantly, edtech entrepreneurs should take into account the results of the impact analysis to adapt their solutions to users’ needs.

Edtech magic requires evidence to succeed. Olli Vallo from Kokoa in Finland will agree. His agency just does this: test and validate edtech solutions to help schools and teachers make the right choices.

One advice then for all edtech lovers: look at the evidence!

The anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) helps us question the role of innovation in education to make reality CRC article 28: “Every child has the right to an education.”

Susan Hopgood of Education International reminds us how important education is for all of us. According to the My World UN survey we are 63% to believe that education is what most matters on top of any other social issues. The UN makes clear that a good education requires that governments and the private sector should work together to provide opportunities for lifelong learning. Public-private partnership is also central to the SDGs achievements(SDG #17) and obviously to SDG #4 to ensure “inclusive and quality education for all”.

How could innovators in education contribute to this goal? Gabrielle Thomas has no doubt that edtech startups can make a significant contribution. She mentions “user experience improvements, design thinking tools and Lean methodologies”. Can we be more specific? Which are the key challenges that edtech entrepreneurs can help address?

Let’s list some of them: lack of local educative resources, textbook scarcity (and cost), learning hubs with online resources to substitute jammed classrooms, Artificial Intelligence to offer new mentoring/tutoring facilities, new type of learning spaces adapted to local participatory cultures. We see the importance of innovation to ensure that education responds to local culture and isn’t diluted into a “one size fits all” approach based on universal LMS or adaptive learning solutions.

Solutions should first come from emerging countries themselves. They know best local cultures specificities. Kytabu, a Kenyan startup and winner of the 2nd Global EdTech Startup Awards, a competition co-organized by Israeli startup accelerator, MindCET and PAU Education and its Open Education Challenge, offers an app capable of delivering digital textbooks, and assessments to students. Asafeer, a Dubai based startup and winner of the Transforming Education Prize at the Seedstars Summit provides an Arabic-language app for children.

But on top of all edtech magic, teachers remain the key to resolve the education challenge.  They are the “graphite inside the pencil” that most matters to education improvements. Have a look at how Rania Ezzat initiative use technology to teach SDG to her students in Egypt. This is at the end what education is about: a global approach to solve all problems – including in her case desertification – and not only specific education issues.

This is why innovators in education must endorse a global commitment for social change to make a real difference for children’s future.

The painter Barnett Newmann wrote that “only time can be felt in private. Space is common property. Only time is personal, a private experience”. I believe the same can be said for learning space – a common property where learners meet and experience together – and learning time – where each learner lives a private and intimate experience.

Visionary edtech solutions must be looking for this thin line between the intimate experience adapted to each learner and the communal one targeting the class as a group. Innovative learning experiences play around the concept of time delivering a mix of online – fully flexible – and offline experiences.

Students engagement should be the end objective. It is all about renewed connections between students on the one hand and peers on the other hand. And this requires time and motivation.

A lot has been written about teachers’ motivation. Susan Headden and Sarak McKay in their insightful study: Motivation Matters: How New Research Can Help Teachers Boost Student Engagement talk about the goal of education to develop innate curiosity and an intrinsic love of learning. How can we envisage teachers’ role in and outside the classroom to “develop love of learning”?

Helping teachers to better manage their time is one issue, giving them more time to attend most needed students and unleashing students capacity by letting others move forwards without their help. This is for instance the main focus of Unió by Harness, an innovative learning solution we help to develop. A key innovative feature is having adopted a development process based on the perspective of the teachers. This is what my friend Yishay Mor helped to develop with his learning design studio and the concept of “collaborative design inquiry as teachers”.

But learning time is also about having more time for learning. Expanded time has been identified as a key ingredient in successful schools, especially to overcome the negative effects of poverty on learning.

Going back to Barnett Newman, the need for more learning time may help redesign the frontiers between an intimate learning experience and a communal one.

French president Macron proposed in his speech at La Sorbonne the creation of a European Agency for Breakthrough Innovation. Disruptive innovation was back on the public agenda.

Disruptive comes from the latin “disrumpere”, shatter, burst, split, break apart. Uber is the best example of a disruption. French philosopher Eric Sadin writes in his book “la siliconisation du monde” (éditions L’échappée) that disruption is a passive form of innovation, applying the same technology to any sector. For instance, deciding that the weather forecast will now be given by Artificial Intelligence is not an innovation. It is just a decision to use a technological process – AI – and substitute the traditional weather presenter. Insurers, referees, cashiers, bus drivers, archivists… will suffer the same process at a 95% or more probability.

What happens in education?

Most edtech innovators present their solutions as disruptive, “breaking apart” from traditional classroom environment, enabling learners to learn anywhere, anytime, at their own pace. Educative apps or learning management systems are presented as revolutionary tools. AI will substitute teachers, adaptive learning will help reinvent the school’s physical spaces…

But how disruptive is innovation in education?

In their famous article “disruptive technologies: catching the wave” (HBR January-February 1995), Boyer and Christensen remind us of a crucial question  for innovators who decide to launch a technology or develop a product: do their customers want it? They also tell us of “companies that listened to their customers, gave them the product performance they were looking for but were hurt by the very technologies their customers led them to ignore”. To explain the differences in the impact of certain kinds of technological innovations on a given industry, the authors introduce the concept of performance trajectories – the rate at which the performance of a product has improved, and is expected to improve, over time. “Almost every industry has a critical performance trajectory. In photocopiers, an important performance trajectory is improvement in number of copies per minute. In disk drives, one crucial measure of performance is storage capacity”.

When it comes to innovation in education, two questions arise:

–       How important are the “customers”’ views for innovation in education?

–       What is the critical performance trajectory of the education sector?

The first question requires an understanding of who the customers are in education. Many will even turn down the question as speaking of customer will presuppose giving up education to obscure market forces.

As innovation in education is often described as student-centric, our first “customers” are the students themselves. It is time to remember that disruptive before being a synonym of “innovative” meant “troublesome” and a disruptive student was the one causing disorder. We will assume that new millennial learners will claim for digital innovation in the classroom and proactively make use of it. As school is compulsory, our innovative  – and from time to time troublesome – “customers” have no other choice than “buying” what education has to offer but there is a key advantage in making education as attractive as possible to learners as the ultimate goal remains student’s engagement. Giving a voice to students in the design of the curriculum may after all be the most disruptive innovation!

But there are other “customers” starting with the teachers. We usually see them as a “provider” of education – and they are often described as an “obstacle” to innovation in education. In fact many education innovators want to bypass the teacher and directly engage with students through technology. Remember that for many edtech entrepreneurs, school and teachers are boring! (my  blog) But they are wrong. Teachers are our first customers! Teachers have to be involved in the innovation process changing therefore the whole paradigm: it is not so much customers’ views that matter but customers’ experience. It is not enough to listen to teachers’ views. It is mandatory to cocreate innovation with them.

What is then the critical performance trajectory of the education sector? What is clear for photocopiers (number of pages copied per minute) or for disk drives (storage capacity) is much less clear for education? Should we look at employability level, i.e. number of students hired when they exit school? This will mean conditioning the performance trajectory to the very end of the schooling process and not taking in consideration social inequalities. Should we look at test results at different age? This will mean conditioning the performance trajectory to standard test when innovators know that learning should be adapted to individual capacities and desire and not the reverse.

Should we look at students’ and teachers’ happiness and well being? Why not as we will all agree that education is fundamental to personal and collective fulfillment.

The difficulty with innovation in education and happiness is that there is no universal performance indicator. What could be disruptive for one is not disruptive for the other. The question is therefore who can decide if an innovation is disruptive or not: students? teachers?

An anecdote could well illustrate the dilemma: a group of teachers in a french high school “stole” (or saved) old blackboards that were condemned to destruction as they were soon to be replaced by electronic whiteboards. As “customers” they valued the blackboard still as an innovative instrument and see it as central to their students’ happiness and to their own. Electronic whiteboard were not for them a disruptive innovation.

However they may have forgotten that decisions regarding innovation in education have to be shared. Apparently they didn’t consult with their students – their users – to decide whether they felt happier watching them write on a blackboard or having them interact through a whiteboard.

Teachers must know if they try to stop the wave that they can be rolled over by it. But they still have the choice to catch it with their students!