The Age of Unreason.
Apr 24
Terry Freedman writes a thought-provoking and challenging article which bemoans the lack of educational evaluation of the latest innovations.
...if you call yourself an educationalist, you have to go a step or two further than just mentioning some great new “tool”: you have a responsibility, in my opinion, to evaluate it from the point of view of how it will actually work in practice
For me the problem lies not in the evaluation of the latest software innovations but in the lack of real implementation at the chalkface. Most consultants, researchers, lecturers and other educational folks that make up the ‘educationalists’ category tend to be great on the cutting-edge ideas but weak on their concrete application at the chalkface. This is something that I struggle with all the time as an independent consultant and is what ultimately drives me back into the classroom on a regular basis.
The real antidote to falling into the ‘trap’ that Terry outlines is to ensure that teachers are at the heart of grassroots innovation rather than always being the recipients of top-down advice in a sort of web 2.0 deficiency model. The complementary consultancy to this approach involves educationalists with their cutting-edge ideas resolving to put their ‘money where their mouth is’, trying out their offerings within the realities of the classroom. That would give most something to evaluate. Forget Web 2.0 – this is Consultancy 2.0 
Couldn’t agree more, Peter.
I do worry that some of the educationalists and consultants have done much to remove a culture of innovation and risk-taking from schools IT, and the move to a managed-service infrastructure may accelerate this, by introducing further barriers between technologists and educationalists.
Here’s a great quote from the original consultation document for the DfES e-strategy, back in 2003:
“It is essential that the new pedagogies for e-learning are developed with the education workforce in the lead. Teachers and lecturers need the creative digital environments that will engage them in using, designing and experimenting with learning and teaching ideas. Commercial suppliers usually employ teachers at some stage in the design process, but unless the partnership is close, and educational requirements lead the development, there is little chance of achieving either good pedagogy or profitable products. “
Thanks for commenting on my post, Peter. Like Miles, I absolutely agree with you. The reason I first mooted the idea of the booklet that both you and Miles have contriubuted to (and which really is almost ready now!) was that I felt (and feel) that there was not enough nitty-gritty case study work or practical advice that teachers could draw on.
I’m a technologist not a teacher. My new tools aren’t for teaching, they’re for promoting schools and flowing news throughout the school.
I feel, I have to keep throwing new tools out to teachers and giving them ideas on how they could be used. Otherwise, there would be little new addoption.
Sure some fall on stoney ground. Useless ideas. Others are used as I intended or in new ways I’d not thought of.
But I feel duty bound to keep creating and demo’ing. I don’t think ideas come up from the chalkface-noses are too close to the grindstone IMHO.
Couldn’t agree more – you need to take the practicalities of the classroom into account. Even then (as I know from experience) some will still question the value of new technologies, even when you can proof to them that it works!
Steve, my beef is not with developers. I think there should be a closer relationship between teachers and developers. I concur with the DFES quote from Miles Berry above.
My problem comes from ‘educationalist’ middlemen who take developers’ ideas and then prescribe how they should be used without having tested them in the classroom. I don’t think the onus is on developers to test the stuff but it sure as heck should be on educationalists.
“I don’t think ideas come up from the chalkface-noses are too close to the grindstone” – I think most teachers have
plenty ofoccasional ideas but there is no mechanism to develop them. It is also often the case thatmostsome developers don’t want to listen to teachers unless there is a buck to be made.Hopefully blogging is one way in which grass-roots innovation and ideas can be shared. I’m convinced that promoting schools and flowing news should be a part of 21st century teaching. You keep throwing the new tools out there and I’ll keep telling teachers to bring their creativity to bear in evaluating them
I dig it Peter. My bad. Too many ologists
Just to be different, there’s something to be said for some researchers/developers NOT in tune with what’s happening at the chalk face (and vice versa) because we need people to come up with ideas that are not just solutions to present problems. Would teachers at the chalkface have come up with blogs and blogging? Humans tend to come up with ways to do what they’re already doing, just more efficiently. It takes a whacky way-out genius to create something that isn’t being done yet.
I agree – but the innovative teacher is best best placed to implement or explore the wacky new genius idea. The educationalist who delights in the ‘middleman’ role, being neither a teacher or a wacky genius developer, needs to realise this