Steve Wheeler has continued the discussion of iPads in education in his recent blog post and I really appreciate that he has shared his research on one laptop for every child. He stated that, "The results were later published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, and the 1:1 ratio certainly made a difference to learning engagement, but not necessarily to learning gain."

Steve goes on to relate this to the iPad quoting Headteacher Sarah Davey, "Davey argues that the iPads will improve student engagement and make learning more interesting. Again, this project is at an early stage and time will tell whether there is a direct impact on the quality of learning."

As a device for learning I cannot argue with its impact on engagement of learning and providing one iPad to each pupil would seem to be the most effective way of rolling out the hardware. Class sets will not work. I am currenlty having to update the operating systems of two iPads as they no longer download Apps and this would be a logisitcal nightmare on a larger scale.

I am also concerned about what happens after the second year of their use and the hardware needs upgrading to due the continued rapid development of Apple products? Or another, more intutive, device comes along? Schools and colleges need to have a rebust replacement plan in place before investing in the technology up front, otherwise the iPad will become an iFad.

http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ipad-or-ifad.html

On more than one occasion this week I have been dawn into a discussion on the most suitable hardware to buy for learners. In particular the elephant in the room that is the iPad has been highlighted as the future of classroom interactivity. No it is not! Well not on its own. To save pressure on lecturers and infrastructure education establishments need to be investing in robust Bring Your Own Device strategies.

Grier Carson, Director of Library and Information Services at Lake Forest Academy, stated, "...the device [iPad] is so intuitive (on both an individual and a classroom level) that we find ourselves focused more on the organic (student AND teacher led) development of program integration and innovation than we do PD or teacher-centered training."

Grier is right in saying, "Mobile devices are quickly replacing traditional computers in almost all areas of society." However, there are a wide range of mobile devices in use and learners have their own preferences. There is also a major logistical challenge for educational establishments if they make themselves responsible for the mobile device. The following questions would need addressing; how many can we buy? Where will they be stored? Will the charge depreciate over time if left on? How will 'classroom sets' be moved about? Who is responsible for updates? Is there a replacement plan in place?

A survey from the Professional Learning and Development Forum has found that changes in the use of technology meant lecturers not only have to be ICT-literate, but also have to be digital practitioners (Belgutay, 2012). Chopping and changing between devices used in the organisation is not going to help with their confidence. We should allow teachers to concentrate on delivering the content, not how every device works. Educational organisations should be investing in developing teachers skills in creating content that can be used across a multitude of mobile devices. (e.g. HTML5, take a look at my HTML5 module handbook at http://www.learninghost.co.uk, built using the open source eML code from Nixon Publishing).

Tim Springer, founder and CEO of the Human Environmental Research Organisation (HERO inc.), stated, "It also helps if the teachers allow the students to show them how they are using devices as more than a 'glorified text screen.'" Encouraging staff to take a constructionist (Papert, 1991) approach to learning will help teachers use the learner's knowledge of their own devices to create a dynamic and interactive learning environment.

Belgutay, J. (2012). New Standards aim to bring lecturers into the digital age. TES. 20th April 2012.

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism pp. 1–11. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Image by umpcportal.com

I have been reading Learning Theory and Online Technologies by Linda Harasim and found it really useful for the project we are involved in (to develop an online module for Teacher Training). The book starts with an excellent background on learning theories and links these to learning technologies.

There are chapters on Behaviourist, Cognitivist and Constructivist learning theories. The author goes onto introduce their own Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) theory, which explores online social learning and collaborations.

This is a great book for anyone wanting background information on how learnning technologies link to learning theory and wanting to develop a model for creating an online course.

Just come across a great little maze creator from PurpleMash ( http://www.purplemash.com/labs/members/programs/2diy3d/ ). The website allows you to create a 2D map, rewards and bad guys, then click play and it becomes a 3D environment.

A great idea for simple games theory/design or a fun activity for learners to play at the beginning or end of session.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/cYWZ/~3/-Mhl4cOGfMY/making-your-mark....

Well apparently it is not true. This article discusses how using the Internet and tools like twitter can actually be good for you. Check it out for yourself.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BpsResearchDigest/~3/7Y3TcefkfZ8/feast.html

I always think being honest with the learner is the most productive way of dealing with feedback.

What do you think?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BpsResearchDigest/~3/ot0VJYM4uYg/who-are-you-p...

What do you think?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Edudemic/~3/bfGPcuh9mEQ/

Liking this infographic of what is happening in 60 seconds...

Mair's article on the use of technology for reflection was very interesting and thought provoking (Mair, 2012). The research started with a discussion on what reflection actually is and how the students taking part in the study currently carry out reflection. Mair studied a number of reflective models and identified that most were concerned with 'what was learnt' and not 'how it was learnt'. This was confirmed in the student's reflections; there was little on the development of the learning process itself.

For the research it was decided to create 'scaffolding' for the reflections to create a framework to support the students in developing their reflective practice. This scaffolding was created in a spreadsheet which was shared amongst the students.

The research showed that using the spreadsheet the students were more likely to complete timely reflections and that they found the scaffolding a great help. I can see how this would be helpful to our trainees as they often struggle to get started when left with a blank page.

Some educators maybe unhappy about too much structure around reflections, however, the research does state that you could start with the scaffolding and then reduce it as the students become more experienced.

The research was carried out on a small sample and over a short period of time, but I can see similarities in my own work place. This research used a spreadsheet for this particular study, however, I can see how a template for a blog could be created. This would support the trainees and allow the Lecturer to offer developmental comments on the posts. I will certainly be taking the scaffolding idea forward and seeing how this improves our own trainees' reflections on what they have learnt and how they have learnt.

Mair, C. (2012) Using technology for enhancing reflective writing, metacognition and learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education. Vol. 36(2) pp147-167