1 a)

Description

As ICT Development Manager and now as Head of eLearning, I am in the position of recommending and advising on appropriate technologies for a wide range of tasks and needs. Sometimes this is to guide the school as it moves forward in using technology to support learning (or for communications or with administrative tasks). For example, we are currently discussing the relative merits of one-to-one and Bring Your Own X and how they might help us achieve our vision for technology enhanced learning. Often this is in response to a specific demand or perceived need and the advice required takes the form of providing a range of options from which a choice can be made. So a Head of Department might have identified a pedagogical need for a visualiser to support their curriculum and they need guidance on which model to choose. Or an individual teacher needs to discuss the best way of capturing and saving information whilst on a field trip so her students can subsequently report on their findings and research.

Recently one particular issue with which I have been dealing has been of major significance for school, our staff and students; our learning platform. This arose as a result of various pieces of anecdotal evidence suggesting dissatisfaction with, and inadequate performance of, the then current provision, a model which served our initial needs when the school first adopted a platform seven years ago. The timeline which I then devised from that initial seed, following discussion at an ICT Development Group meeting and subsequent meeting with Senior Leaders, included the following phases:

• Information gathering - consultation of staff (Heads of Department interviews together with staff feedback contained within a survey undertaken for a different, but related purpose); data gathering (usage figures and resource logging); what the (academic) research says.
• Needs analysis (both past and future) - accounting for strategy and development plans both of school and our parent organisation.
• Reporting back findings and follow-up discussion.
• Potential contenders - filtering, shortlisting and decision-making following supplier demonstrations.
• Preparation, deployment and implementation, to include communication with and training of user base.

Our main touchstone was provided by our eLearning vision; so whatever choice we made it had to enable students to personalise their learning experience, collaborate with their teachers and peers and become more autonomous in their learning. Some of the factors which helped inform the decision making processes in seeking a suitable platform , filtering potential candidates and making a final decision can be seen in the diagram in the 'Evidence' section.

We settled on Realsmart as our provider since it addressed most of our needs, ensuring our current learning demands are fulfilled, yet encouraging us to explore new avenues through an improved feature set, lower demands on familiarisation and increased ease with which different users can have different levels of access and functionality. Realsmart is built by combining three elements:

1. a Wordpress front-end which provides authentication functionality, but also acts as our ‘shop-window’ allowing us access to a wider audience for the first time. Previously, all our learning and the outcomes thereof were hidden behind the log in screen; we now have the choice to showcase examples of our learning to parents and the wider community.
2. a Google Apps for Education account, providing a consistent, creative toolset for our whole community and ensuring all have equal access to the the same features and functions, rather than the current model where the applications available in school may not be at home.
3. the Realsmart platform which provides the backbone linking the different elements together and enabling learning pathways, sequences and curricula to be assembled. It offers the capability to provide learning activities, in a structured, meaningful way, and an environment within which students can show their learning and teachers can provide feedback, further guidance and monitor progress.

The first two elements are of course notionally ‘free’ and in principle, we could have adopted without the financial outlay required to procure and maintain Realsmart. The additionality the platform provides however, justifies the expense, in our opinion. We are essentially buying some aspects of virtual learning environment functionality, some technical infrastructure and out-sourcing some technical support. Indeed one of the advantages for us was that some of the technical overhead has been moved off-site, shifting the demand from local resources, both in terms of physical devices and local expertise … which we lacked. In addition, we now have much greater integration with our MIS, allowing resources to be distributed in a much more targeted way to those who specifically need them, rather than the scattergun approach previously - broadcasting replaced by narrowcasting. This also happens dynamically, thereby ensuring that as our user database changes, (a student or member of staff arrives/leaves) the resources deployed respond accordingly.

From a teacher or learner perspective, the barriers to access have been reduced, enabling a much greater degree of autonomy in the way the features and affordances can be used. Collaboration, either synchronously or asynchronously , on shared resources and within joint activities is now possible where it was far from easy previously.

As I write, we have been using the platform in parallel with our old system for two terms, with the intention of Realsmart becoming the dominant system as the new academic year commences, and the old system being phased out within an agreed timescale. A group of self-selecting ‘pathfinder’ staff have been trained and have piloted the system with their classes, although all staff have been offered induction sessions and introductory training. Feedback has been positive, many staff impressed with the new features and ease of access. A professional development programme is in place for all staff for the new academic year, together with a student development programme.

Reflection

We have moved from a combination of a locally-hosted, open-source platform, coupled with a centrally-supported and administered infrastructure to a proprietary application bundle over which we have little control, as far as its future development is concerned. In one sense then we have been liberated to some degree from organisational control, yet in another we are still reliant on an external body. Without specialist expertise in-house, this was to some degree inevitable, but at least we feel more in control of our sense of direction.I would be much more comfortable working within an open-source environment, but if the capability to develop, administer and maintain and that doesn’t exist and you’re not in a position to bring it in, then you have to find alternative ways forward.

What our new platform has done then is open new possibilities which were not previously possible and has addressed many of the shortcomings of our previous platform … at least as far as staff are concerned. What we didn’t take the time to do, other than in a cursory way by using secondary data, was to solicit student feedback to inform our planning. How did they feel about the previous system and what affordances would they like from a new one? Student involvement as the rollout proceeds is much better planned however, with the role of digital leader being developed to provide support for staff and peers and to push the boundaries of the system and what it can do.

The differential rate at which technology develops, compared with that at which our pedagogies transform, inevitably makes decisions and initiatives of this nature somewhat transient. Whilst our learning needs may change relatively slowly, the technology to support that moves on, causing the constraints and benefits to be in a state of perpetual flux and therefore an area we need to regularly reexamine. If this is part and parcel of your job, perhaps even written into your job specification, then transition and change become almost the norm. It behoves all of us in similar positions to remember that this isn’t necessary the case for all staff and some cope better with it than others. Introducing a different learning platform might appear to appeal more on the face of it to the early adopters, yet in fact it could indeed be those who have most to lose, having invested heavily in the previous system. The later adopters, who perhaps never really got to grips with the previous system, for very valid reasons, may now find the impetus to come on board with the new platform.

Having recognised that our learning platform might have become no longer be fit for purpose, I assessed the situation in more detail and presented the following report to the ICT Development Group, Senior Leadership team and the staff. The sections include:

• The rationale behind the review
• The services our (then) current platform provided.
• Usage statistics.
• Summaries of feedback from HoDs and from part of a poll of staff we undertook for a separate, but related reason.
• How our ICT Development Plan might be better served by considering alternative provision.
• The field from which potential solutions might be found and ways in which we might shortlist possible candidates.

The intention was to provide a report containing sufficient detail to help readers form an opinion, yet without so much detail that it became off-putting. Staff have commented that this can become a problem in terms of the time they are able to spare to particular issues. I include here a screenshot of that report, rather than a link to the full document, as there are comments within the feedback that might not be appropriate for a wider audience.

The following diagram summarises the factors which were important in helping us establish what our priorities were and which informed the decision making process: