tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/digital-education-revolution-19798/articlesdigital education revolution – The Conversation2021-07-20T20:07:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1627662021-07-20T20:07:55Z2021-07-20T20:07:55ZWhat to look for when choosing a university as the digital competition grows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411797/original/file-20210719-17-1qfmyhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Online teaching became the norm almost overnight when the pandemic hit. For students, the situation’s complexity was brutal, the shift frustrating but unavoidable. </p>
<p>Prospective students weighing up study options might have been confused too. However, they are now better placed to understand what universities offer in an increasingly competitive digital learning market. They also have more choices.</p>
<p>Incoming University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott has warned competition for enrolments is intensifying as students’ options grow. “The [news] media experience demonstrated clearly that your competitors in the digital space went well beyond your traditional competitors in the analog space,” <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/university-of-sydneys-mark-scott-says-universities-cant-be-complacent/news-story/9c4da7e509bca1e1d99bbd75f83d1915">said</a> Scott, a former managing editor of the ABC and senior executive at Fairfax Media.</p>
<p>“Digital” education will redefine how students view and select universities. It may allow for more personalised learning paths, lifelong and more accessible learning, upskilling for employment and a more remote and diverse body of students. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-learning-economy-challenges-unis-to-be-part-of-reshaping-lifelong-education-144800">New learning economy challenges unis to be part of reshaping lifelong education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>There’s no going back to the old model</h2>
<p>As learning became removed from the campus experience last year, learner-teacher engagement and peer networking altered dramatically. The digital transition was a monumental and urgent task. </p>
<p>But time has passed. Fully or partly digitalised university programs have proliferated. And many have become more sophisticated as academics and students receive support to take the leap. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.pwc.com.au/government/government-matters/higher-education-digitisation.html">PwC report</a> on higher education digitisation affirms: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The changes forced by the rapid digitisation of the sector will not be undone.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Digital” in education can now mean anything from simple videoed lectures, online documents and tutorials to high-end digital animation and simulation tools. </p>
<p>Just before the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-17/nsw-records-111-covid-19-cases/100300492">current</a> <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-16/victoria-awakes-to-its-fifth-coronavirus-lockdown/100296390">lockdowns</a>, Macquarie University, among others, <a href="https://www.mq.edu.au/about/coronavirus-faqs/information-for-students/teaching-pause-covid-19">announced</a> most lectures would continue online while “small group” in-person learning would require students to wear masks. Melbourne University <a href="https://www.unimelb.edu.au/coronavirus/attending-campus">said</a> it was “planning to deliver around 90% of semester 2 subjects on campus”. It is also rolling out “<a href="https://lms.unimelb.edu.au/staff/guides/dual-delivery-support-resources/blended-synchronous-learning-quick-start-guide">blended synchronous learning</a>” using in-venue microphones and cameras so remote and campus-based students come together in a single class, its DVC (Academic) Gregor Kennedy said. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/digital-learning-is-real-world-learning-thats-why-blended-on-campus-and-online-study-is-best-163002">Digital learning is real-world learning. That's why blended on-campus and online study is best</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>RMIT University <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/return-to-campus">posted</a>: “Classes that require specialist spaces or equipment will be prioritised for on-campus learning.” At <a href="https://www.sydney.edu.au/covid-19/">Sydney University</a>, the campus was to remain open during lockdown for critical teaching and research activity only. The <a href="https://my.uq.edu.au/information-and-services/manage-my-program/exams-and-assessment/online-supervised-invigilated-exams">University of Queensland</a> and <a href="https://www.monash.edu/exams/electronic-exams/supervision">Monash University</a>, among many others, have introduced online invigilated examinations. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1394207197995884546"}"></div></p>
<p>The gap between the best and worst of what institutions offer digitally is vast. </p>
<p>In the worst cases, digital learning means students are asked to read scanned textbook chapters and have academics or tutors talk at them through a recording without any interaction. It’s a terribly disengaging experience for the student and hence less effective for learning. But it requires very little investment by universities. </p>
<p>In the best cases, universities offer active learning through digitally driven simulations and well-designed activities. These include peer group activity, networking and technology-enhanced alternatives to on-campus experience. The result is a varied and engaging experience, but it requires substantial investment by the university.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-unis-eye-more-instagram-worthy-campus-experiences-they-shouldnt-treat-online-teaching-as-a-cheap-and-easy-option-156585">As unis eye more ‘Instagram-worthy’ campus experiences, they shouldn't treat online teaching as a cheap and easy option</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What should students look for?</h2>
<p>So, how can prospective students tell which universities provide worthwhile digital education? They should consider the following criteria:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Focus on online/blended student experience</strong> </p>
<p>What is the value given to students feeling connected, being part of a learning community, having a social dimension in addition to agency over their learning, and being on campus when possible?
Do study options suit life and lifestyle needs that the pandemic brought to light as important?</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Transparency about digital quality</strong> </p>
<p>Does the university adequately communicate its definition of “digital” quality? Pay special attention to assessment mechanisms, to avoid having to deal with postponed exams, for example. </p>
<p>The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) has provided <a href="https://www.teqsa.gov.au/online-learning-good-practice">guidelines</a> for online learning quality. Federal Education Minister Alan Tudge has <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tudge/new-higher-education-standards-panel-appointed">announced</a> a renewed Higher Education Standards Panel with online and hybrid course quality as part of its new tasks. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Evidence of agility, convenience and accessibility</strong></p>
<p>What solutions can be adapted to post-COVID educational expectations, both locally and internationally?
Are there options for polysynchronous learning: some on one’s own time, some with others?
What does inclusive digital education – accessibility for vision-impaired students, for example – look like? </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Clarity about pricing</strong></p>
<p>Is the program or unit priced to be a low-cost standardised product, or is it priced for high value? Does the university offer financial support options?</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Ambition of digital design</strong> </p>
<p>Does the program and learning design have a focus on long-term COVID-resilient learning and career outcomes? Is there solid evidence of industry relations?</p>
<p>And (for the most ambitious) does the university explore and/or use artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics to customise learning paths for individuals?</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-of-digital-bystanders-the-challenge-is-for-all-of-us-to-design-engaging-online-education-147195">In a world of digital bystanders the challenge is for all of us to design engaging online education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An emerging digital divide among unis</h2>
<p>Some universities are using digital education to tap into new markets. These universities include Melbourne, RMIT (boasting RMIT Online), Adelaide and Griffith. At different price points, their offerings increasingly include demonstrated digital expertise, blended synchronous learning options and well-defined online engagement and connection. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Student looks at university website promising 'the best learning environment in the world'." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411796/original/file-20210719-17-1w40p3u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The education market is bigger and more competitive than ever before.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/school-website-on-tablet-screen-young-796587181">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Universities are also responding to industry demand for accessible upskilling and enhanced learning (often “micro” qualifications). Again, their offerings vary, especially across disciplines. </p>
<p>The PwC report predicts most universities will compete with mid-range offerings. This group will offer customised learning in parallel to mass offers, keeping revenue streams open, maintaining a brand in a technology-enhanced world and counterbalancing border restrictions on international students. </p>
<p>Some universities will opt for a serious quantum leap into online or blended education programs. These universities are likely to outcompete other providers and diversify their student bodies in ways that enhance the student experience. </p>
<p>Others continue with minimal investment or low-cost solutions. These providers are looking to return to the “old normal” of a strictly face-to-face experience. They aim to manage learners’ frustrations as they arise, rather than invest in long-term quality digital services. </p>
<p>This approach may be understandable for universities with serious cashflow issues. In the long run it’s probably shortsighted and may lead to student and industry dissatisfaction. </p>
<p>We can see the divide between these approaches in <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/australian-strategy-international-education-2021-2030/consultations/australian-strategy-international-education-20212030">submissions</a> from each higher education provider to the federal government in consultations on a new <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/australian-strategy-international-education-2021-2030">strategy for international education</a>. Interestingly, providers’ views show little correlation with type of institution, whether highly ranked or not, rural or urban. Our discussion above is based on our deep dive into those submissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriele has worked in or with various higher education organisations and digital service providers mentioned in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angelito Calma does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Digital technology and COVID-19 have transformed the ways universities are delivering courses. But some are taking a minimalist low-cost approach, while others are aiming higher.Gabriele Suder, Professor, RMIT UniversityAngelito Calma, Senior Lecturer in Higher Education, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1471952020-10-12T18:45:39Z2020-10-12T18:45:39ZIn a world of digital bystanders the challenge is for all of us to design engaging online education<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362288/original/file-20201007-24-17s1jl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C9%2C6500%2C4320&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/oneonone-meeting-two-young-business-women-582070531">Shutterstock </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are increasingly becoming digital bystanders, continually monitoring our different palm-and-TV-sized screens. From dawn to dusk and even in moments of insomnia we turn to digitally communicated news and social media. In the world of education, from primary school to university and beyond, we have realised digital learning is not only an option for learning, but is fast becoming the main option.</p>
<p>Consider this vignette: during the COVID-19 pandemic a family are living in a big city where access to stable digital streams and affordable data bundles is not a problem. Confined to long periods of school learning now moved online, one of the parents asked their daughter about her experience. She says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is boring and I learn almost nothing. Teachers give a lot of instructions with little explanation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>She had <a href="https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm">became a digital bystander</a>. The teacher struggled to engage with all students, and few experienced rich interactions with the teacher. </p>
<p>In the digital world it is not simply about learning the skills (digital self-help manuals and videos are plentiful). Many <a href="http://seminar.net/images/stories/vol2-issue2/review_remediation_dobson.pdf">teachers and professors</a> still argue that a face-to-face experience is more authentic than digitally mediated learning. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.diggitmagazine.com/papers/rise-moocs-can-online-distance-learning-replace-traditional-education">growth of MOOCs</a> (massive online open courses) in recent years has challenged this view. These have gained traction as both free educational offerings and significant business opportunities based on short courses. </p>
<h2>Time for a change of mindset</h2>
<p>So how do we accommodate this changing digital world? Historically, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqbk7">when railway travel arrived</a>, looking at the world through a window as it sped by was an unnerving experience. So, too, was the fear of being part of or witnessing a railway accident. It took people time to catch up and change their mindsets. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man looking out of train window as scenery speeding by" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/361815/original/file-20201006-24-2vrlgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Train travel brought about a change of mindset in how we see the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-looking-out-train-window-795970933">Liam Morrell/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same is true of digitally driven change in education. We cannot take time out from change. What is required is “reflection in action”, as <a href="https://infed.org/mobi/donald-schon-learning-reflection-change/">Donald Schon put it</a>, to work out how to adjust to changes.</p>
<p>When we consider our vignette, how can we win the hearts and minds of students and teachers to ensure they both perceive and experience learning online as meaningful and transformative? Is this a question of challenging the traditional mindset described above? </p>
<p>By exploring the ways in which face-to-face learning is translated into online learning, we can start to identify a series of approaches on a spectrum from simple technological substitution to more radical redefinitions of teaching. In this model of <a href="https://www.schoology.com/blog/samr-model-practical-guide-edtech-integration">substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition</a>, we tend to find many educators remain firmly rooted in using technology to replace what they already do in the classroom. As a result, the human essence of the teaching experience is lost when <a href="http://seminar.net/images/stories/vol2-issue2/review_remediation_dobson.pdf">mediated</a> via a digital interface.</p>
<p>An example here might be the distribution of electronic classnotes to replace the course textbook. The result is a learning setting that’s clunky compared to the day-to-day user experience of the internet. The mismatch exemplified here in the transition from the physical classroom to online is often not well managed. </p>
<p>A learner’s experiences of the digital education space can be dramatically different to the seamless and frictionless user experiences of a social internet. Within a paradigm of replacement versus reinvention, we have a natural gap between the experiences of teachers and students.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three young people looking at a mobile phone screen" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362286/original/file-20201007-24-1h2j027.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Students are used to a seamless, easy-to-use and engaging online experience, which online education often fails to match.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/three-young-friends-sitting-outdoors-looking-491412196">Jacob Lund/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A need for inclusive design for online</h2>
<p>Neither better access to technology nor more training to use digital systems will bridge this gap. This is a design gap. In recognising this, the solution becomes more straightforward – there is an absolute need to “design for online”, as <a href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1235966.pdf">Cathy Stone persuasively argues</a>.</p>
<p>But this design cannot be the sole responsibility of the teacher. We need to bring together multiple perspectives and skills, including those of teachers, students and technologists, to co-design learning experiences. </p>
<p>No longer is the teacher the sole voice of authority. All contribute: the teacher skilled in curriculum, the student understanding what it means to be supported and motivated to learn, and the technologist sharing modes of digital delivery. </p>
<p>There are then no digital bystanders – all have agency as designers. As <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1511391.pdf">Herbert A. Simon</a> once said, anyone who is engaged in “changing existing situations into preferred ones” is a designer. </p>
<p>There is no global template for designing for online learning. Each time we come together – the teacher, student, technologist – we form a new community with a shared discourse. This is a reflective and democratic space that allows us to act with consideration and respect for the skills and knowledge of others.</p>
<p>With historical hindsight, we will do well to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1525/j.ctt6wqbk7.5.pdf">reconsider what the railway journey offered</a>: the ability to visually reflect upon and design a personal world without leaving the carriage. With the digital production of teaching and learning, we too are now called upon to reflect upon and design a world of learning without leaving our seat in front of a digital screen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147195/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A learner’s digital education experience can be very different from the seamless user-friendly world of the social internet. Replicating the old classes online isn’t good enough. A rethink is needed.Steven Warburton, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic Innovation (Acting), University of New EnglandMuhammad Zuhdi, Adjunct Research Fellow Victoria University of Wellington; Head of the Quality Assurance Institute and Senior Lecturer, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah JakartaStephen Dobson, Professor and Dean of Education, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1299052020-01-23T19:01:16Z2020-01-23T19:01:16ZOK computer: to prevent students cheating with AI text-generators, we should bring them into the classroom<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311507/original/file-20200123-162228-ldmqif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C8269%2C3367&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">AI systems may soon be able to generate texts that can pass for human work. Such technology has many positives, but could also result in widespread generation of false texts (including fake news). </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SHUTTERSTOCK</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Artificial intelligence-based (AI) programs are quickly improving at writing convincingly on many topics, for virtually no cost. It’s likely in a few years they’ll be churning out C-grade worthy essays for students.</p>
<p>We could try to ban them, but this software is highly accessible. It would be a losing battle.</p>
<p>Long-form writing, especially essay writing, remains one of the best ways to teach critical analysis. Teachers rely on this mode of assessment to gauge students’ understanding of a topic.</p>
<p>Thus, we need to find ways to help students of all disciplines thrive alongside advanced automation and smart systems, rather than resist them. This involves training students to work with AI tools, rather than banning them.</p>
<h2>What are AI-powered text generators?</h2>
<p>In February 2019, GPT-2, an AI-powered text generating system was released by <a href="https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/">OpenAI</a>. Those interested can try the system themselves by following <a href="https://minimaxir.com/2019/09/howto-gpt2/">these instructions</a>, or experiment with <a href="https://talktotransformer.com/">Talk to Transformer</a>, an online tool made using GPT-2. </p>
<p>The idea behind GPT-2 is similar to the predictive text function on a smartphone. A machine learning system was given 8 million web pages, and told to look at blocks of text to predict what word would come next. </p>
<p>The system compared its guess with the actual text to “learn”. This was repeated billions of times, resulting in the GPT-2 software.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-twitterbots-to-vr-10-of-the-best-examples-of-digital-literature-110099">From Twitterbots to VR: 10 of the best examples of digital literature</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Often within minutes, GPT-2 can generate texts that look like they <a href="https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/">were written by a human</a>. They’re grammatically correct, thematically coherent, engaging and even informative.</p>
<p>I gave GPT-2 this prompt: “The global system of
university ranking has recently…”. Here are some sentences it generated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The global system of university ranking has recently been the subject of heated debate, with many arguing that it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. In a report published in May, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the system has become increasingly irrelevant, with the gap between the best and the worst universities in the world narrowing in recent years. The OECD found that in the past decade, the average quality of a university’s research output has fallen to its lowest level since the late 1970s. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are several signs of a non-human hand at work, notably the repetition of “increasingly irrelevant”. There’s also the matter that no such OECD report exists. It was dreamt up by the machine. </p>
<p>That said, with a few revisions, the text could probably pass as being authored by a human.</p>
<p>There are a number of systems similar to GPT-2, including <a href="https://www.searchenginejournal.com/bert-explained-what-you-need-to-know-about-googles-new-algorithm/337247/">Google’s BERT</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/syncedreview/baidus-ernie-2-0-beats-bert-and-xlnet-on-nlp-benchmarks-51a8c21aa433">ERNIE2.0</a>, <a href="https://mlexplained.com/2019/06/30/paper-dissected-xlnet-generalized-autoregressive-pretraining-for-language-understanding-explained/">XLNet</a> and <a href="https://pytorch.org/hub/pytorch_fairseq_roberta/">Facebook’s RoBERTa</a>. But GPT-2 has caught on with tinkerers across the web – lauded for its <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953040/openai-text-generation-ai-gpt-2-full-model-release-1-5b-parameters">power</a> and ease of use in generating new texts.</p>
<h2>Available now near you</h2>
<p>GPT-2 comes in forms that let anyone use it easily, even without a powerful computer. Such tools are a looming problem for schools and universities.</p>
<p>In an experiment, I fed the system 188 student papers on Keith Basso’s book <a href="https://www.audible.com.au/pd/Wisdom-Sits-in-Places-Audiobook/1977379095?source_code=M2MOR131091619005N&gclsrc=aw.ds&ds_rl=1252391&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjarRvuyY5wIVCpOPCh3WogYQEAAYASAAEgKVy_D_BwE">Wisdom Sits in Places</a>, written for an anthropology course I teach. GPT-2 “learned” for about thirty minutes, after which it generated some paragraphs. </p>
<p>One begins: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In this essay, I will show how conceptions of wisdom connect with place-names in Wisdom Sits in Places, by explaining how place-names serve as moral compass. I will also cover the cultural sphere of “notions of morality”, which is explained by the stories behind the place-names.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The text reads like an essay. It’s divided into four paragraphs and describes what appears to be examples from the book. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/technology-and-regulation-must-work-in-concert-to-combat-hate-speech-online-93072">Technology and regulation must work in concert to combat hate speech online</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I would have failed the text as is. The writing isn’t perfect, and in places the writer seems to lose their train of thought. However, with slight human revision, an essay worthy of a C would be within reach. </p>
<h2>Adapt, don’t resist</h2>
<p>People are already experimenting with GPT-2 for <a href="https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/14/gwerns-ai-generated-poetry/">poetry</a>, text-based role-playing games, and plays written in a Shakespearean style. Worryingly, it can also produce endless streams of fake news. </p>
<p>What can institutions do about such “plagiarised” work flooding their classrooms? </p>
<p>One response would be to ban AI tools. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/sep/27/university-chiefs-urge-education-secretary-to-ban-essay-mills">Leaders of 40 universities in the UK have taken this approach</a> against <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/essay-mills-prey-on-vulnerable-students-lets-stamp-them-out">essay mills</a>, pushing to make them illegal. Essay mills are run by people who charge students a fee in exchange for completing their work.</p>
<p>But it’s unclear how such a ban could be enforced once AI software is as easy to access as Candy Crush. Institutions could look to existing rules against academic misconduct, but accurate detection becomes a problem. As AI-generated texts get better, how will we prove (without watching them) that a student did or didn’t write a text themselves? </p>
<p>We can’t, so we should take a page from <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-the-cyborg-chess-players-that-cant-be-beaten">cyborg chess play</a>, where players embrace chess-playing computers to become better themselves.</p>
<p>Rather than pretending AI doesn’t exist, it might be time to train people to write <em>with</em> AI.</p>
<p>Most good writers don’t write in isolation; they talk and revise their work with others. Also, 90% of writing is revision, which means the ideas and arguments in a text change and develop as a writer reads and edits their own work.</p>
<p>Thus, systems such as GPT-2 could be used as a first-draft machine, taking a student’s raw research notes and turning them into a text they can expand on and revise. </p>
<p>In this model, teachers would evaluate a work, not just on the basis of the final product, but on a student’s ability to use text-generating tools. </p>
<p>Powerful AI tools could help us analyse and communicate complex ideas.</p>
<h2>What should we judge our students on?</h2>
<p>All of the above prompts a question we need to consider if we’re to live in an AI-friendly world: why do we teach students to write at all? </p>
<p>One major reason is many jobs rely on being able to write. So, when teaching writing, we need to think about the social and economic implications of a type of text. </p>
<p>Much of today’s media landscape, for instance, runs on the continuous production and circulation of blog posts, tweets, listicles, marketing reports, slide presentations, and e-mails. </p>
<p>While computer writing might never be as original, provocative, or insightful as the work of a skilled human, it will quickly become good enough for such writing jobs, and AIs won’t need health insurance or holidays. </p>
<p>If we teach students to write things a computer can, then we’re training them for jobs a computer can do, for cheaper. </p>
<p>Educators need to think creatively about the skills we give our students. In this context, we can treat AI as an enemy, or we can embrace it as a partner that helps us learn more, work smarter, and faster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129905/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Jun Otsuki receives funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>AI-powered text generators are becoming increasingly easy to access. Rather than banning their use by students, educators should think about incorporating such tools into their curriculums.Grant Jun Otsuki, Lecturer in Cultural Anthropology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133532019-03-25T18:34:32Z2019-03-25T18:34:32ZSchools are asking students to bring digital devices to class, but are they actually being used?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265009/original/file-20190321-93048-1aea8jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not everyone has a digital device to bring to school.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been over ten years since Kevin Rudd’s <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/category/deewr-program-group/digital-education-revolution">Digital Education Revolution</a> placed small laptops (also called Rudd-tops) into the hands of every Year 9 and up Australian student. Once the scheme was deemed unsustainable, for obvious reasons, many schools brought in a “<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/education/byod-brings-its-own-challenges-for-schools-and-students-20150204-135p08.html">bring your own device</a>” (BYOD) scheme. </p>
<p>While the Rudd-tops had the same capacity and specifications, so teachers knew what they were working with, this wasn’t the case with devices students brought in themselves. My colleagues and I <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2042753019831385">observed how and when</a> devices brought to class by students were used in a public secondary school. After speaking with teachers and students, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047">we identified</a> the limitations and enabling <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1160824">roles devices</a> played in their learning when at school.</p>
<p>While devices can be used successfully and effectively, we found that more often than not they were sitting around unused. This was for several reasons, including inconsistent software, different expectations and teaching approaches, and technical obstacles. Many students who were using the devices were also doing so to disengage, rather than engage, with learning.</p>
<h2>Bring your own device</h2>
<p>Many public secondary schools employ a BYOD program, where parents are expected to buy their child an iPad or laptop. Some private schools provide an individual device as part of school fees. In the early days of many BYOD schemes, public schools typically stated “any device will do”. But that meant not all students’ devices had the same capacity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-access-to-computers-wont-automatically-boost-childrens-grades-47521">Why access to computers won't automatically boost children's grades</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Given the rise in technology use in society, it makes sense schools should also be using technology. Today, school book lists state the minimum requirements for a device. Some schools in lower socioeconomic areas will provide devices for those who cannot afford them. </p>
<p>But, in the 21st century, <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137385444">effective digital practices</a> are not <a href="https://www.routledge.com/product/isbn/9780415708005?source=igodigital">always straightforward</a> and using devices is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047">not always predictable</a>. It is usually decided at a school-wide level that devices will be placed on a book list. But when the student comes to a class with their device, it is up to the teacher to figure out if, when and how they will use the student’s device.</p>
<p>Integrating technology into the classroom doesn’t come naturally. Teachers need professional development, support and an understanding of how to use digital devices in their teaching. And they need to see the benefits of doing so. Some students like using their devices and are motivated to do so, but some students would rather use an exercise book and pen.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263295/original/file-20190312-86678-thqz8y.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Integrating technology into the classroom doesn’t come naturally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In our research, many teachers commented on the frustrations they had during the first few years of their BYOD scheme. Not all devices had the same software, some weren’t charged and some were unusable because they were broken. Some parents could not afford to get broken devices fixed. </p>
<p>Certain students spent a lot of time going back and forth to the library to issue and return a school-owned digital device for their use during a period. Some students had expensive laptops while others had poor-quality digital notepads. </p>
<p>When students logged in to the network, they sometimes had to wait ten minutes at heavy use times. Some teachers did not think it was worth the hassle of trying to use these devices during their teaching times because of the potential time waste, so they resorted to textbooks or worksheets.</p>
<h2>Making better use of digital devices</h2>
<p>Many policymakers are influenced by the mantra that digital technologies will bring about revolutionary change and more technologies mean better teaching and learning. But as proclaimed by Stanford education professor Larry Cuban in his 2003 book, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1121598.Oversold_and_Underused">Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom</a>, technologies have failed to bring about evidence of increased performance.</p>
<p>It might be easier for an English teacher or a humanities and social sciences teacher to use a device in their subject area. Devices can be used to take notes (and can help achieve a paperless environment), complete and submit assignments, inquire and search online, and present work professionally. Teachers can also mark assignments online and provide digital feedback. </p>
<p>Other subject areas find it more challenging – for instance, many of the mathematical symbols used in senior maths require a mathematics calculator. Students can’t complete the exercises on their devices. For other subjects such as visual arts, physical education and musical performance, using a device all the time isn’t appropriate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-reasons-teachers-can-struggle-to-use-technology-in-the-classroom-101114">Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If devices are to be used efficiently and successfully, schools need better technical support. Schools must also ensure software is compatible and that apps are loaded onto students’ devices and available. Additionally, the internal policies that govern the use of information and communications technology and devices need to support the teachers’ ability, goodwill and desire to implement an initiative. </p>
<p>Devices can be used successfully and effectively but, given recent arguments about <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-happy-medium-why-screens-are-not-all-bad-20190301-p51197.html?fbclid=IwAR2acCAc7mpou5IjHMiXkKgl80zRiNLGqneMM4MnVdHHbscStM6jvASvn3A">too much screen time</a>, parents should also acknowledge the benefits of students interacting with each other and with their teachers – not via screens.</p>
<p>Just because devices are being used, it does not mean good teaching and learning are occurring. In <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Everyday-Schooling-in-the-Digital-Age-High-School-High-Tech/Selwyn-Nemorin-Bulfin-Johnson/p/book/9781138069374">our research</a>, we observed many occasions when students were being quiet and focused on their device’s screen, but were obviously not doing anything along the lines of learning. But their devices were being used.</p>
<p>So, just because devices are not being used, that doesn’t mean poor learning and teaching are occurring.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113353/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola F. Johnson has received funding from the Australian Research Council DP140101258.</span></em></p>We observed how and when students were using their digital devices in schools. They often weren’t used, and when they were, students were sometimes just distracting themselves from learning.Nicola F. Johnson, Associate Professor of Digital Technologies in Education, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/508902015-11-18T19:10:50Z2015-11-18T19:10:50ZICT is failing in schools – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102280/original/image-20151118-23172-5hybvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are we creating a generation of digitally illiterate students?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The information and communications technology (ICT) curriculum in schools is clearly not working.</p>
<p>National data <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/news_media/acara_news/acara_news_2015_11.html#20151117">released this week</a> confirms an ongoing trend that now sees nearly half of Australian secondary school students failing to meet minimum digital literacy standards.</p>
<p>In 2014, more than 10,500 students were assessed on their ICT knowledge, understanding and skills.</p>
<p>Of those, just 55% of students in year 6 achieved expected standards, while 52% of students in year 10 were deemed competent in completing “challenging but reasonable” tasks, such as the creation of tables and charts, sorting data in a spreadsheet or editing graphics and text. </p>
<p>This equates to a 6% and 13% decrease for years 6 and 10 respectively over the last three years.</p>
<h2>Basic digital skills decreasing</h2>
<p>The 2009 A$2.4 billion <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/category/deewr-program-group/digital-education-revolution">Digital Education Revolution</a> promised to put computers in the hands of all secondary school students and prepare them to work in a digital world.</p>
<p>Although 96% of students are now able to access the internet at home or at school on a regular basis, basic digital skills appear to be decreasing.</p>
<p>So why is this?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/texting-isnt-enough-australian-students-computer-skills-drop-new-report-shows-20151116-gl058m.html">Recent commentary</a> has suggested that smartphones and tablet devices might be to blame for a decline in learning outcomes. <a href="http://newmediaresearch.educ.monash.edu.au/lnm/dr-michael-phillips/">My research</a> indicates that the challenges may be much more complex than this and be focused on the ways in which teachers, school principals and policymakers negotiate learning outcomes in terms of both knowledge and skills. </p>
<iframe src="https://charts.datawrapper.de/cxmwg/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="420"></iframe>
<p>Current data underpinning decision-making and the new digital technologies curriculum isn’t working for ICT in schools for these four reasons:</p>
<h2>1. Curriculum taking too long to introduce</h2>
<p>The new digital technologies curriculum will take several years to become fully embedded in schools. This doesn’t help the current generation of students and will only contribute to the increasing number of students struggling to meet the basic minimum standards as teachers grapple with changes to the curriculum and expectations of learning outcomes.</p>
<h2>2. Teachers not equipped with the skills they need</h2>
<p>Teachers in schools are not given enough professional support to understand how digital technologies can be used effectively in the ICT classroom. Another challenge teachers face is that the resources provided often become rapidly outdated as the focus of curriculums changes.</p>
<h2>3. Too much choice of digital tools to use</h2>
<p>It is already very challenging for teachers to be able to make effective and informed choices about what technologies to focus on and when. This will only become more challenging in coming years given the rapid developments in educational technology.</p>
<h2>4. Outdated skills</h2>
<p>The way teachers consider digital technology use in schools has changed over the past decade. While it may be considered important to have an understanding of basic computer skills, application of those skills in new and different scenarios may contribute more to students’ future capacities. </p>
<p>For example, the current ACARA testing examines year 10 students’ abilities to edit font, colour and animations. </p>
<p>In contrast, new cloud-based technologies allow students to collaborate in real time on word-processing, database and presentation software. </p>
<p>While the ability to manipulate elements such as font and colour may add to the finished product, the real skill development occurs in the collaborative researching, delegation of team roles and negotiation of content that underpins such an activity. </p>
<p>These are the kinds of 21st-century skills that employers will be looking for in contrast to an applicant’s ability to add a web page to a list of favourites or bookmarks in a web browser - one of the test items for year 6 students.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>It’s clear from <a href="http://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports.html">ACARA</a> data and the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm">OECD</a> figures that schools are not well equipped to deal with issues related to digital literacy in the curriculum. </p>
<p>The most significant challenge facing us now is to reconsider the ways in which digital technology is being used, or not used, in schools. </p>
<p>Without swift action we run the real risk of creating a generation of digitally illiterate students.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Phillips does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Just 55% of year 6 students and 52% of year 10 students are meeting the expected grades for ICT. What’s going wrong?Michael Phillips, Lecturer: Digital Technologies in Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/475212015-09-15T10:13:16Z2015-09-15T10:13:16ZWhy access to computers won’t automatically boost children’s grades<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94728/original/image-20150914-8747-49l1ij.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Best use of time?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tablets in classroom via Monkey Business Images/www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Filling classrooms to the brim with computers and tablets won’t necessarily help children get better grades. That’s the finding of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en">a new report</a> from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). </p>
<p>The report reviews the links between test results of 15-year-olds from 64 countries who took part in the OECD’s 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and how much the pupils used technology at home and school. </p>
<p>Pupils in 31 countries, not including the UK, also took part in extra online tests of digital reading, navigation and mathematics. The countries and cities that came top in these online tests were Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan – who also perform well in paper-based tests. But pupils in these countries don’t necessarily spend a lot of time on computers in class. </p>
<p>The report also shows that in 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in the 64 countries in the study reported that they have a computer at home, but only 72% reported that they used a desktop, laptop or tablet computer at school. </p>
<p>The OECD found that it was not the amount of digital technology used in schools that was linked with scores in the PISA tests, but what teachers ask pupils do with computers or tablets that counts. There is also an increasing digital divide between school and home. </p>
<p>These findings, as well previous <a href="http://moodle.perins.net/pluginfile.php/98265/mod_resource/content/0/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_FULL_REPORT_%282012%29.pdf">evaluations</a>, indicate that just increasing the provision and use of computers or other digital tools for students, either at home or at school, is unlikely to result in significant improvements in educational outcomes.</p>
<p>In fact, the study shows countries which have invested more in introducing computers in schools, such as Russia and Portugal, have improved slower, on average, than countries which have invested less. Results are similar across reading, mathematics and science.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94724/original/image-20150914-4706-1uugwdp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.oecd.org/education/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm">OECD</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Across the countries in the report, students who do not use computers in mathematics lessons (or use them only rarely) do better on paper-based tests than students who do use computers, after accounting for differences in socio-economic status. </p>
<p>However, there are some countries that buck this trend: in Belgium, Denmark and Norway there is a positive association between computer use in mathematics lessons and student performance in maths tests. </p>
<p>My interpretation here is that you have to know how to use technology well to get the best from it in an educational setting. Introducing technology may actually make the process of educational improvement more difficult as teachers have to adjust to technological change while trying to improve their wider teaching skills.</p>
<h2>The Goldilocks principle</h2>
<p>There is also a persuasive case that the effective use of digital technologies for learning is an example of the “Goldilocks Principle”. Too much is not a good thing, but nor is too little: you’ve got to get it just right.</p>
<p>The best performing countries don’t have students using technology a lot (it is hard to tell how much teachers use technology such as interactive whiteboards from the surveys), but some of the least successful are also the lowest users. Overall levels of computer use in schools above the current OECD average of about 25 minutes per day are associated with significantly poorer results. To get the best from technology, it appears that you should be neither too hot, nor too cold.</p>
<p>However, this principle also applies to students’ use at home too, where the best performing students don’t use technology excessively, but they do have access to it. It would be wrong to assume a causal link here. It seems more likely that motivated and hard-working students get on with their schoolwork or do other things at home.</p>
<p>The principle is also evident in different subjects of the curriculum. As the graph below shows, the report suggests that students who make slightly below-average use of computers at school actually have the highest performance in digital reading. It is also important to note that for wider reading skills, rare users actually perform better than intensive users. In terms of the development of reading skills, digital technology may act as a distraction. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94726/original/image-20150914-4678-1vep8j0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.oecd.org/education/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm">OECD</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What teachers change</h2>
<p>One point briefly mentioned in the OECD report, but worth developing further, is the opportunity cost of technology use. What do teachers stop doing when they use computers or get their students to, and what do 15-year-olds not do at home when they use technology? </p>
<p>The net educational benefit of digital technology use in classrooms is likely to depend on whether such technology displaces other less effective learning activities or increases the efficiency of time that is spent learning. It is hard to assess this, but we should explore more carefully what technology replaces and whether it really is better than what went before. </p>
<p>There is no simple message about technology use in schools from this OECD report – and one of its main conclusions is unsurprising: “In the end, technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching.” </p>
<p>Obvious though this point may seem, I am sceptical that this will convince those in charge of the education purse strings to invest the same sums they have been prepared to spend on the purchase of technology equipment, on the effective training and development of teachers to use it well in their lessons. This is despite the fact that we know it is the quality of our teachers which determines the quality of the education in our schools.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47521/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Durham University received funding between 2008-12 from the Economic and Social Research Council/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the TLRP-TEL Programme for the SynergyNet Project which developed an interactive digital classroom using multi-touch surfaces. Steve Higgins led the education strand of this research.</span></em></p>A new report from the OECD says pupils in countries that invest a lot in technology in the classroom, don’t perform better in tests.Steve Higgins, Professor of Education, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/463262015-08-31T20:07:24Z2015-08-31T20:07:24ZStudents with laptops did better in HSC science<p>While there are plenty of reasons why students should be exposed to technology in schools, educational research is yet to produce consensus on the degree to which personal laptops boost learning.</p>
<p>Historically, when researchers examine what makes a difference in education, laptops, and other technology, come way down <a href="http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/">the ranks</a>. Some educationalists go as far as to describe the use of computers in schools as <a href="https://theconversation.com/driven-to-distraction-bringing-your-own-device-to-school-could-hinder-learning-18239">distractions</a>, plus there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/devices-in-schools-and-at-home-means-too-much-screen-time-for-kids-45709">concerns about screen time</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC81903.pdf">report from the European Commission</a> which looked at 31 recent “one laptop per child” initiatives from across 19 countries found little or no improvement in learning outcomes. However, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.982229">recent research</a> which examined a group of Australian schools found laptops did make a positive difference to learning. Not surprisingly, how the laptops were used determined the size of the benefit.</p>
<h2>The Digital Education Revolution</h2>
<p>In 2008, the then newly elected Labor government began implementing the (<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/computer-costs-and-confusion-continue-to-dog-the-latest-trial-of-technology-in-aussie-schools/story-fni0cx12-1227187628438">subsequently much maligned</a>) A$2.1 billion “Digital Education Revolution”, whereby it was intended that every Year 9 student would receive a laptop over four or five years, thus <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/digital_education_revolution_program_review.pdf">creating a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio</a>. </p>
<p>For 12 Catholic secondary schools in Sydney this meant that half of the Year 9 students in 2008 received a laptop and half did not. The distribution of who received the laptops was random in terms of socioeconomic status and average performance, having being imposed independently by a federal audit. </p>
<p>This ultimately lead to a dichotomous scenario whereby in 2011 half of the students in these schools sitting for the NSW HSC had been schooled for over three years with 1:1 laptops and half had not. </p>
<p>This created a natural experiment beyond our influence rather than a researcher-designed randomised experiment. This was also quite timely as many principals and education authority directors were wondering what would happen to their exam results.</p>
<h2>The effect</h2>
<p>We looked at the examination data from the 12 schools to see if the students with laptops performed better or worse in the sciences (our field of research) than those without. We predicted a null result. </p>
<p>To our surprise, when controlling for other factors (socioeconomic status, gender, school type, prior attainment and more), we found that those who had been schooled with a laptop did better to varying degrees and that this was statistically significant in biology, chemistry and physics. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93010/original/image-20150826-1603-1mn0syq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HSC physics students had the most significant gains from laptop use.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In senior science laptops were found to have no effect and the sample size for earth and environmental science was too small to produce a result.</p>
<p>We then found the “effect size” (an approach taken by prominent education researcher <a href="http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/">John Hattie</a> who gave a score of effect size to every kind of educational intervention so that we may compare them) was much greater in physics than in biology or chemistry. This presented the follow up question - why?</p>
<h2>The why</h2>
<p>In our <a href="http://www.citejournal.org/vol15/iss2/science/article1.cfm">follow up paper</a> we investigated why the students with laptops did better, particularly in physics, by surveying how physics and biology teachers and students actually used their laptops.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the physics students and teachers consistently reported performing more “higher-order” activities such as simulations and spreadsheets with their laptops than their biology counterparts, and much than those without laptops.</p>
<p>The biology students and teachers consistently reported more use of “lower-order” activities such as word processing, electronic textbooks and internet searching.</p>
<p>We also scrutinised the <a href="http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/">NSW HSC syllabuses</a>. Despite both the biology and the physics syllabuses providing identical motherhood statements about the use of technology in their guidelines there were no explicit mandates or recommendations for the use of technology in the biology content, unlike physics where there were many.</p>
<p>Ultimately we found that in HSC biology, chemistry and physics, those students schooled with laptops actually performed better than those without. This effect was much more pronounced in physics which correlated with greater higher-order use as mandated by the curriculum.</p>
<h2>The aftermath</h2>
<p>There are several repercussions from this research. The findings, as ever, are highly contextual (for these 12 schools; in southwest and south Sydney; in the HSC sciences; in 2011), but we now have some robust quantitative data regarding the use of technology and student academic performance in Australia. The crude data is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/09500693.2014.982229#tabModule">freely available</a> for anyone to perform their own analysis.</p>
<p>The research also suggests the “Digital Education Revolution” was not as shambolic or a waste of money in all cases, <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/computer-costs-and-confusion-continue-to-dog-the-latest-trial-of-technology-in-aussie-schools/story-fni0cx12-1227187628438">as portrayed in the media</a> . With the NSW HSC syllabuses about to be rewritten, we hope there will be greater consistency in the capitalisation on technology for “higher-order activities” across all subjects.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Crook is the Founder of CrookED Science, a science and technology education consultancy.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manjula Sharma receives funding from The Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching, and Department of Education and Training Australian Maths and Science Partnerships Programme.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent research which examined a group of Australian schools found laptops did make a positive difference to learning.Simon Crook, PhD Candidate - Physics Education Research, University of SydneyManjula Sharma, Associate professor, University of SydneyRachel Wilson, Senior Lecturer - Research Methodology / Educational Assessment & Evaluation, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.