Category Archives: Conferences

EduTech Africa 2020 Day 2

At most conferences the keynotes will give you a sense of the trends and direction the conference will take, what trends and issues are being given importance. This year’s conference has a preponderance of panels, and panels allow for diverse ideas to be thrown around, but this format also tends to dilute strong ideas. Nevertheless the theme of Day 1 appears to me to have been innovation and diversity and inclusion. Past conferences have foregrounded technology, pedagogy, and the teacher, but the curriculum itself appears to be getting greater attention. Who is teaching, what we teach, how we teach and how we teach with technology appears in sharper focus than previously when one or other of these concerns dominated the conversation. I interpret this as a greater realism. The events of the last year have shown us that teachers are vital, that they are able to adapt their pedagogy in an agile way, and that the curriculum itself is vital. Some students were able to gain access to that curriculum online, others were not. We cannot just dismiss knowledge with a simplistic call for skills above content. Students gain access to agency and empowerment through the acquisition of knowledge. To argue otherwise is to entrench privilege in our society.

Day 2 dawned bright and early with a discussion on global trends in tertiary education. What frightens me about this discussion is the sense that teachers can be done away with and the curriculum can be broken up into byte-sized chunks for easy consumption. A few master teachers teaching anywhere anytime, and a pick n mix Khan Academy approach to the curriculum does not appear very promising to me. Robert Paddock then addressed the issue of access for all and what measures might be taken to make a difference in our failing education system. A key problem is that great teachers tend not to be where they are really needed to improve the system in a scalable way. Paddock suggests an answer is the iBodi model which sets up an online platform which uses a mix of master teachers providing both synchronous and asynchronous teaching online together with dedicated mentors providing pastoral care to the students who meet in a physical space ( a micro school). Paddock argues that this model would allow more students to be reached and receive quality education.

This is an interesting model which seeks to avoid the pitfalls of master teachers dumping content online without adequate contact with students to mediate and scaffold this content. My immediate reaction is that while this model has great promise, I am not convinced that a mentor in the bricks and mortar micro-school alone is sufficient. To my mind high school students require greater content mediation. If this can be provided by teachers online or in the physical space, the model will work, but if this scaffolding and support is not enough I fear it will not work. The devil really is in the detail. I am wondering if onsite tutors may not be more workable.

I then watched a discussion with Syson Kunda, Cleo Karrim and Thomas Kaye on digital innovation in the classroom. Kunda identified a lack of teacher skills and under-resourced schools as major barriers to any solution allowing new technologies to overcome past inequalities. This is a Catch-22 situation. Digital technologies may be able to deliver greater equity in education, but the same barriers that created the problem hamper the solution. Low-tech solutions may offer a way to chip away at the digital divide and teachers as change agents are crucial in this process. Karrim spoke to the question of teacher training. Teachers are not being trained to act as digital innovators. Pre-service and in-service training needs to be done urgently and private and public partnerships need to be forged to facilitate this. Kaye stressed the need for teaching training to go beyond how to operate devices, but how to teach using the technology.

I was then involved in a panel discussion with Michael Vorster and Nneka Chukwulobe. The main takeaway from this discussion for me was how amazing other teachers’ work always seems! Both my fellow panelists are doing amazing work. I have been blessed in my career to work alongside amazingly creative and gifted colleagues, and having an opportunity to hear what other teachers are doing is always fantastic. Sharing best practice is perhaps the best way for teachers to learn how to make the kinds of innovations in their teaching that the conference has been foregrounding. In similar vein, it was great to hear from young robotics entrepreneur, Viresh Soogrem, and hear his story.

Delia Kench and Frank McCoy then discussed the implementation of a STEM curriculum at their school. There is a paradox in inter-disciplinary studies, namely how do you do inter-disciplinary work if you don’t have a discipline? At St Benedicts the emphasis has been on forging a new discipline rather than creating a hodge-podge of inter-meshing subjects. I hope that they write this case study up at some stage.

The day ended with a panel discussion on robotics and coding which I participated in with Karen Walstra, Delia Kench, Dylan Langheim and St Benedicts student Tashil Mistry. Again the emphasis was on teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the role of coding and robotics in the curriculum. With a new department of education curriculum in the process of being rolled out this discussion was most informative. Where does coding and computational thinking sit in the curriculum? How should it be taught? What threshold concepts and skills are important? How can girls be engaged? What core competencies and thinking skills are central? The discussion could have gone on all night, but I have to say that after an exhausting day I was glad when the session came to an end – Zoom is so exhausting, isn’t it?

Of course the main ideas one gets out of a conference largely depends on which streams and sessions one follows, but the strong sense I got last year and this was that the time for computing as a fully fledged discipline, a senior subject, core to the curriculum, has arrived. Exactly what this looks like is not yet fully worked out, but the days in which very few students, especially girls, have access to any kind of computer education are behind us. Going forward the big question is how to provide the very best, and the most empowering computer education we can, for all.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 14, 2020 in Conferences


EduTech Africa 2020 Day 1 (Virtually)

This year’s conference is being staged online, for obvious reasons, and while I have to say that I miss the buzz of a conference venue, it is so much easier to be able to manage work commitments and accessing the presentations and keynotes. I am not a great fan of exhibition halls and networking opportunities. It is way too noisy, too overwhelming for me. Being able to attend and present online therefore represents something of a relief. This year I am on two panels, one around STEM in education and the other around Coding & Robotics. This nexus of topics forms one conference stream and with government plans to introduce coding for all into the curriculum, something requiring urgent attention.

The opening keynote featured Lindsay Wesner and Gavin Esterhuizen discussing innovation in education. In a year in which the ways in which we do things has been utterly upended, it is a good time to reflect on innovation and the role of the technology coach in schools. Technology coaches have been introduced in many schools in an effort to nudge teachers into greater technology adoption. Certainly many teachers would not have been able to make the move online without support from tech coaches in their schools. I found Gavin’s emphasis on coaching the rather more traditional teaching skills of questioning and classroom management rather refreshing. He likened the coach in schools to a cricket coach who can help a teacher analyse and hone their skills. Too often we think of technology only in terms of new digital technologies, and forget that techniques, such as how to ask a question, are also teaching technologies. We should never waste a good crisis, and the emergency measures teachers have had to take to navigate 2020 should be used to examine and re-imagine what good teaching practice means. Digital technologies are all very well, and are increasingly part of the educational terrain, but the core business of teaching has not changed that much. While teaching online this year I found myself increasingly thinking, not about the ed tech stuff, but about how to draw out my students and help them survive the alienation of the Zoom classroom.

Jonathan Jansen then gave a talk exposing the disparity in access to online learning in schools and in universities along class lines. Covid has made these inequalities more visible. Jansen struck an optimistic note, stressing that this crisis has exposed the problem more starkly and raised the possibility of changes to our technological capacity and to our outdated pedagogies. Access is not just defined by differences in technological access, but also as access to quality teaching. Jansen warned that simply downloading teacher notes onto a device does not equate to quality access. This point is absolutely vital and represents much of the thrust behind a growing concern with pedagogy at this conference over the years. What was refreshing to me was the clarion call for greater emphasis on building equity in education. Pedagogy needs to be liberatory and aimed at giving all students access to ideas, knowledge and opportunities to live a life of significance. As Jansen notes, we do not have unlimited resources to reverse past inequalities overnight. We have to focus our efforts where it makes most sense. Throwing money and technology at the problem is not going to work. Our efforts have to be focused on what really matters. And what really matters, in my view is promoting greater equity. In a year which has been disrupted by Covid and by Black Lives Matter, the need for putting equity front and centre is clearer than ever.

Having listened to Jonathan Jansen’s talk I was interested to listen to a panel discussing disruptive technologies in education. I was disappointed to hear that the panel still placed the emphasis on how technological changes could disrupt education for the better. This is a topic worth exploring, but given the class, gender and race inequalities exposed by the events of this year it seems to me that the focus should have shifted to how the call for social justice is core to disrupting education. Technology, in the sense of devices and services available are important, but how we teach, and how we teach to overcome past inequalities is absolutely vital. I suspect that the battleground is probably in the classroom itself where the teacher has professional autonomy, and the ability to action change. Conferences like this one should be sharply focused on foregrounding best practice and creating platforms for teachers to address the issue directly. Our education system is constructed in such a way as to reproduce inequality, and it does this very efficiently. Some schools are well-resourced both in terms of equipment and quality teaching, others struggle for basic needs. Our system creates a two-tiered society, one school preparing future decision makers and managers, the majority of schools producing fodder for the drudge of the workplace. This is the system that needs to be disrupted.

Unfortunately much of the exciting technological innovation is happening inside the well-resourced elite schools rather than the greater education system. These are also the schools which are exploring different pedagogies to support learning, foregrounding critical thinking and creativity. Elite schools are usually good at providing teachers space for professional development and fostering this. The key, to my mind, is that those teachers who are privileged to have this space must make sure that what they develop is broadly replicable. I have worked in a squatter camp, and in an inner city school and know all too well how little space there is for teachers to explore their own creativity and develop adequate solutions for their students. To my mind the truly disruptive educational technology is what teachers create to empower their students and give them access to powerful knowledge, habits of mind and life long dispositions for learning.

This is a long-winded way of saying that to my mind the teacher is the greatest ed tech disrupter. And that is a frightening responsibility.

I then listened to Chelsea Williamson from iSchoolAfrica speaking about how technology can break down barriers in the special needs and remedial classroom to foster inclusion and promote equity. It is often said that good inclusive policy is good policy. In other words giving students with different needs full access is in itself good policy, not just for those with special needs. The strong sense I got from this talk is that different apps and ways of using the technology offer powerful differentiation points for those with disabilities, and that there is an urgent need for teachers to become aware of this and be trained in how to use them effectively. I have taken online courses on inclusion and technology through Future Learn, but I have to say that real learning involves using the tools in authentic contexts rather than just understanding what needs to be done. Because each context is different, in my experience, each teacher needs to go through the learning process themselves. It’s not something you can just pass on to someone else. Even having been through training, I do not feel confident in my own ability to pull this off. I think this is the great paradox of ICT integration within teaching. Ultimately it is a journey that every teacher has to take on their own, finding their own path. In a sense teaching is also differentiated. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.

The next few sessions I attended became a bit of a blur, I’m afraid. Attending a conference virtually means inevitable periods when real life intervenes. In my case I had a few bitty meetings that interrupted the talks and panels. Luckily the platform allows one to watch sessions later. I watched Neelam Parmar’s talk on her experience of bringing schools online, and the panel discussion on designing a 22nd Century curriculum through digital innovation. The sense I got was that this is a period of immense sense of possibility and change. Teachers are open to change in ways they were not previously. There seems to be a general feeling that the crisis caused by covid and lockdown has opened up acceptance for new technologies and pedagogies that did not exist before. And yet there is also a yearning for normality and a return to classroom teaching. Teachers have become aware of many of the advantages offered by technology, but also aware of its limitations.

In the panel discussion on diversity and inclusion a great many ideas were unpacked around what is implicated in inclusion. What is clear is that a vision is not enough, what is required is ongoing work to create a culture of inclusion to move beyond lip service. While technology may enable inclusion, buy-in has to come from all sectors in society. My own sense is that the only way to create equality and equity is to work towards doing it. This needs to be an ongoing effort, and it involves giving all students access at the level of the technology itself, the pedagogy and the curriculum. At the moment the discussion seems stalled at the level of how to give all students devices. What is really crucial is how the tools are used. The panel kept circling around this issue, and necessarily so. No one can see the future – all we can do is take the first steps and try to act on a vision of a world where all have equal access.

Robert Faltermeier talked about why pedagogy needs to change. I normally shudder when I hear people talking about the Fourth Industrial Revolution because the term seems imprecise to me. All we know really is that change is coming, and probably coming fast. I also feel that when people talk about the need to change pedagogy they also tend to talk vaguely about the need for more problem-based, inquiry, collaborative learning. I’m not so convinced. Everything I’ve seen about problem-based learning, for example, is that to work it needs a great deal of guided instruction and teacher scaffolding. The more things change, the more they stay the same somehow. Teachers tend to be conservative in their approach and I think rightly so. To make changes before we know the why, or what or how of it seems rash. It is probably best to stick to the basics. My gut feel is that students are best served facing the future with a solid knowledge of mathematics, science, language, history, art, technology, etc. Problem solving is important, but so is knowing Boyle’s Law or the history of the Third Reich. It is not then that I disagree with anything Robert had to say, more that I think pedagogy has to embrace more, rather than simply change. There does not need to be a flight from content when teaching skills. Critical thinking, communication, creativity and collaboration all need to be about something. All too often this move is seen as a move away from knowledge itself. It shouldn’t be. I was thinking all of these thoughts listening to Robert’s talk, when he concluded his talk by saying almost exactly what I have said here.

My first day ended listening to the panel on Teaching & Tech – providing quality education online. Karen Walstra and Steve Tudhope provided an excellent summary of lessons learned during remote teaching and best practice. To my mind this really summed up the day for me. The key question going forward is really about teachers and what they have learned during this period, how they view innovation and change, and how this crisis has changed thinking. I think teachers are still somewhat shell-shocked at the moment, and the real moment of opportunity will come as teachers start to really reflect on their experiences.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 13, 2020 in Conferences


EduTech Africa 2019 – Coda

Last week I attended the EduTech Africa 2019 Conference in Johannesburg and would like to wrap up my thoughts on the conference with a few observations. Now that the dust has settled the thing that sticks out most in my mind is the clear recognition of the rise of Computer Science as a K-12 academic discipline. The government’s commitment to rolling out IT as a subject, and the focus on coding across all age groups has established a clear sense that Computational Thinking and Computer Science belongs in the core curriculum in all schools. The big question is then how we get there. The announcement recently that PISA Assessments, which offers international benchmarks in Maths & Science, will now include Computational Thinking and Computer Science is confirmation of this. Most of the talks I attended addressed the issue of how best to teach Computer Science in some form or other. Passionate teachers shared their best practice, and their failures. So, the coda to my reflections on the conference is really to address that question. Is there a best method to teach Computer Science?

NS Prabhu (1990) in answering the question of whether there is a best method of teaching or not, concluded that the key factor in teaching success lay with the teacher’s sense of plausibility, the teacher’s sense of self belief that what they are doing makes sense, how passionate they are. There is clearly a great deal of plausibility around the teaching of Computer Science at the moment. Obstacles are being dealt with as opportunities, and there is a very real sense that inventiveness and creativity can overcome the constraints of budget and lack of training.

The clear consensus amongst teachers seems to be that physical computing forms the best approach. Most presentations highlighted the use of coding in conjunction with 3D printing and robotics. My very first exposure to teaching computing was with Seymour Papert’s (1980) logo system. I did not have the turtles, using only the computer interface, but I tried to make it more concrete by using physical cards with shapes students had to emulate. Computer Science is a very abstract subject and needs to be concretised for students as much as possible. The cost of all the kit needed to do this is prohibitive.

I recently came across micro:bits which uses a web-based platform for coding. The code created is then downloaded as compiled hex code to the microbit chip which executes the code. But crucially it also has a web visualisation tool, which executes the code in the code editing window. The micro:bit controllers are themselves fairly cheap, but having a visualization tool means that more students can code at any one time. A class would need fewer physical chips at any one time. I have not yet been able to test the real thing, but it seems to me a perfect fit for the kinds of physical computing tasks I would wish to introduce. It uses a block coding interface, but you can toggle to program in JavaScript or Python, making it ideal for transitioning between block-based coding to the text-based fare students will need higher up the school. You can also design 3D printed parts for interesting projects.

But I digress, back to best methods. Another strong thread in the conference was computing for problem solving. I have to say that I am a little dubious about the whole Computational Thinking leads to better problem solving generally. I believe it leads to better problem solving in computational contexts, but transfer of skills from one context to another is always problematic in my view. Nevertheless, I do believe that students should be given real world problems to solve as far as possible and Computer Science teachers are leading the way in envisioning how coding could form a central plank in cross-disciplinary problem solving exercises. There was a great deal of talk at the conference about the need for teachers to “come out of their silos.” There is certainly no need for CS teachers to set projects divorced from the real world, or set problems narrowly about computers.

The final method that was raised at the conference was unplugged computing, an approach which involves modelling algorithmic thinking without a computer. For example students might be asked to write code to control a class-mate acting as a robot to perform a certain task. A talk by a primary school teacher on coding in the junior years had us all playing rock, paper, scissors. I’ve forgotten why, but it was great fun!


In the end, my take-away from the conference was to think about the best approaches for my own classes. And most particularly how to integrate all three of these approaches better. To my mind this is the best sort of take-away!



Papert, S, 1980. Mindstorms : Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books.

Prabhu, N.S, There Is No Best method – Why?, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 24, issue 2 (1990) pp. 161-176

EduTech Africa 2019 – Day 2

The second day of the conference started with a series of keynotes focusing on the what, the content of education. Hayden Brown walked us through The Big History Project, an online course which looks at the history of the universe and our place in it. What struck me was the affordances offered by technology to take the curriculum to places beyond the reach of an individual teacher, but I sensed in Hayden’s story the power of a passionate teacher to make a difference.

Hadi Partovi talked about the need to teach computer science in all schools. His has done amazing work in promoting coding in schools, and represents a clear imperative to address a world where computer science is increasingly important. What struck me was how obvious that seems, and how important training teachers is going to be. I am not convinced by his argument that teachers can be reskilled to teach computer science that easily. There is not just a knowledge base to be learned, but a way of thinking too, and I’m not sure a short course can do that.

The drive to address an uncertain future in which we have to prepare students for a world of work that has not been created yet remains at the forefront of everyone’s attention. How to use the tools available, not just to enhance teaching, but also to empower students as authors and creators emerges as a central theme running through many of the talks. Whether the tool is a robot, VR goggles, a 3D printer or a Google doc, the central message of the day was how to make students the authors of their own stories, the architects of their own learning.

I have to end this summary of the day with a comment I overheard at lunch, that this is all very well, but conferences like this speak to those who are already enthusiastic about tech. But what of the rest of faculty? What of teachers who shun technology? How do we include them?

I have no answer to that question. But I do believe that the pool of teachers who are enthusiastic adopters has increased exponentially, and will continue to do so. Perhaps we have already reached a critical mass, a tipping point. Many teachers are quiet adopters, who have integrated technology into their classrooms without fanfare, sufficient to their purposes. Not everyone needs to champion a cause.

A bigger question is how to extend access to schools and teachers who fall on the wrong side of the digital divide. Lack of equity comes in many forms, but the most crippling way in which inequality is reproduced is the uses to which technology is put. Some students are being taught to think critically and be creative with tech, others to capture data in a mindless way.

That, to my mind is the big question that all teachers need to address.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 10, 2019 in Conferences, Uncategorized


EduTech Africa 2019 – Day 1

The tenor of this year’s conference is more subdued. Last year there was a clarion call for ending school and doing away with qualifications altogether! This year the call to transform education is rather more muted. The tone is one of quite confidence, perhaps, rather than radical fervour. The line-up of keynote speakers, of course, largely drives the tone of the conference, and voices from industry were notably absent on the first day, their place taken by teachers, by and large. The sense I get is that teachers have it under control. We’ve been playing around with how to integrate tech into our classrooms for years, and we are starting to get the hang of it!

Many of the talks I attended celebrated best practice. There is less and less advocacy every year, and more and more certainty both that technology is an important driver of change, but also that it has limits. I heard almost no voices of radical disruption, and some even voiced reminders not to throw traditional teaching methods out the window. On the floor of the exhibition hall educational publishers and the Interactive Whiteboard vendors have had to make room for a wave of robotics, 3D printers and coding solutions. Government’s move to introduce coding into the core curriculum has clearly put dollar signs in many eyes! As one who is actively looking for this kind of hardware for my grade 8s and 9s for next year, I had to force myself to look the other way. Never speak to sales reps. They all make the same claims and don’t understand pedagogy. I listened as hard as I could to my colleagues instead. So many teachers doing so many great things! We spoke about our successes, but also about our failures and dreams.

The voices raising concerns over the lack of equity, the digital divide, were also muted this year, and here I must voice my own concern. The drive to solve educational problems through technology inevitably privileges the already privileged. Our two tiered education system must not be allowed to reproduce itself this way. Teachers like myself, who work in well resourced schools have an absolute duty to pilot best practice that does not exclude by being prohibitively expensive. Government and Academia has a duty to encourage the wider adoption of this best practice. It always disturbs me when politicians open a conference and then spirit themselves away without staying to listen to the voices of the rank and file conference attendee. Sadly our deputy minister did just that, so I do hope he managed to get some listening in.

Right at the end of the day a panel of experts reflected on the effectiveness of e-learning, and the question that caught my ear was how to train the computer science teachers needed as the new plan to teach computer science to all is rolled out. CS is a discipline in its own right, and suggestions that you can retrain teachers to teach code is ludicrous. CS teaching has its own pedagogical concerns and while teachers may well, and probably should learn how to code easily, it takes training and experience to learn how to teach coding. Imagine you were thinking of retraining a cohort of Physical Education teachers to teach English, for example, and I think you’ll see what I mean. No offence intended – I certainly couldn’t teach PE to save my life! I sincerely hope that this point is understood by all stakeholders. There is still this mistaken belief out there that students are better at technology than teachers are and so kids can really teach themselves coding. Of course some can. Many of us are self-taught, but for the majority of students there is no substitute for a well trained, experienced teacher.

To my mind the tenor of the first day was all about this – the need for well trained, experienced teachers.


Coding & Robotics Summit – Johannesburg

Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution have become buzzwords in education, often used with little thought or understanding in slightly Pavlovian ways. There is a very real sense that big changes are afoot, and everyone is nervous about how to respond, and most particularly to be seen to be responding. I am not quite sure what to make of it, frankly. While it is clear that the working landscape will change as a result of AI, I am not convinced that much in the educational field changes … until it does. What do I mean? I think that it is already crystal clear that education should be looking to teach critical thinking, collaboration and creativity. I’m not sure that anything has changed around this. It is my belief that we should have as broad a curriculum as possible. Drama, History, Music should be as core to our curriculum as STEM. It makes no sense to me to de-emphasise or over-emphasise any field. So while I am all in favour of ensuring that coding & robotics forms part of the curriculum, I find the whole STEM, STEAM, and now STREAM (with robotics) debate counter-productive.

There will come a point, however, at which Machine Learning is powerful enough that meaningful AI applications are ready for classroom implementation. When Watson and Skinner built their teaching machines in the last century they imagined programmed learning which allowed for instant feedback and personalised learning paths, the kind of thing advocated by Pestalozzi back in the late 1700s with his one-on-one tutoring methodology. What emerged though, was the kind of drill and kill learning platforms that are the kiss of death for education. Computers are simply not intelligent enough to be able to spot when students are gaming them. However, AI does offer a possible resurrection of the idea with systems that are far more responsive and capable of analysing student production with sufficient nuance as to be useful. Real-time feedback loops enabled by devices which can read the learning brain, are not Science Fiction anymore. Nor are teaching machines which can sift the huge amount of data collected and make sense of it. There will undoubtedly, then, come a point at which AI teaching machines enter the classroom. In the lead up to that we can probably expect a range of apps that employ AI in some way, and answer particular pedagogical needs. As I get older, face and name recognition would be nice! But full-blown AI in the classroom is a little way off yet. Meaningful data analytics is probably much closer, but I’m not convinced having a wealth of data is always a good thing. I am also afraid that that data will be harvested for purposes unrelated to education. Imagine how you could Cambridge Analytica a population if you owned the data being collected on how everyone learns and thinks?

The focus of this one day conference was on Computational Thinking and on coding and robotics as a vehicle for teaching thinking skills, building the habits of mind and dispositions necessary for a post-singularity world. The South African government has recently announced that it will be introducing coding into the primary and GET phase (middle school) curricula. Karen Walstra opened affairs by walking through the history of Computational Thinking and its component parts, how coding concepts can be used across the curriculum and not just in coding classes. I am planning a blog article on Computational Thinking so I won’t dwell on it here. Her talk was vital in terms of introducing Computational Thinking, and in laying thinking skills as the foundation of any curriculum changes. However, what worries me is that an increased interest in coding has elevated it beyond what I think it is capable of providing. Computational Thinking, Coding & Robotics is not a magic bullet which will suddenly solve all education’s ills. It is a necessary skill to learn, a useful knowledge base, and a set of dispositions that all students need, but it should be seen as forming part of the thinking skills programme, not replacing the existing curriculum. All subjects and all skills are vital, in different ways. Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of coding’s place in the curriculum, but learning problem solving skills requires a broad world knowledge, and there are a number of thinking skills beyond the computational that are needed. Important, yes. A magic bullet, no.

St Enda’s Secondary School students designing a school website, circa 2003.

What her talk did highlight was the notion that all students can benefit from learning coding. The team from CodeJIKa presented a cogent case for this with their wonderful extra-curricular code club programme teaching students HTML, CSS and a little JavaScript. They have an online curriculum which runs largely through peer to peer learning. When I was teaching Computer Applications at St Enda’s Secondary School in the early 2000s I used the same approach. HTML & JavaScript are browser based and so do not need compilers and can be used offline – a huge consideration where Internet connection is a big problem. To my mind starting with a markup language is also helpful because it is easier to slip into, helping students get into the habit of moving between the concrete and the abstract. You can then start to slip JavaScript in quite organically and start introducing key programming concepts. Robyn Clark, from CodeJIKA, stressed how web design is also helpful in building entrepreneurial skills, giving students a side hustle. The CodeJIKA approach is to my mind a fairly easily replicable model across under-resourced schools. It is also flexible and stackable as App development, robotics and programming proper can be added as the skills and knowledge base increases. Amini Murinda from ORT South Africa presented what they have been doing in expanding coding and robotics in a growing number of schools. Both programmes clearly show that coding & robotics initiatives are engaging and transformative.

We heard from two speakers representing robotics companies, who spoke about where robotics and AI is headed, and why we should not fear job losses, and how investing in coding in primary schools could reduce failure rates in higher education. These talks provided a useful backdrop and a perspective from the world of work. I would have liked a greater emphasis on curriculum, but the summit was useful in bringing together participants from industry, teacher training and secondary and tertiary teaching sectors. It would have been great if Government had also been represented. We need many more of these discussions.

The big take-away for me was the need to take these pilot projects, together with the experience of primary and secondary teachers from the private sector who have been developing their own programmes, share best practice and work on a curriculum and pedagogies that make sense.


EduTech Africa 2018 – Moving Beyond the Technology to Make a Difference t

Over the last decade or so the focus of the ed tech conferences I have attended has shifted increasingly away from the technology itself towards what we can do to transform education. In the early years it was as if ed tech enthusiasts were like magpies, dazzled by every shiny new tool. Some of that sense of wonder still exists, of course, and is healthy. We need to be alive to new possibilities as technology evolves. But over the years we have learned to become more discriminating as we found what tools actually worked in our classrooms, and learned not to try to do too much at one time. The focus started shifting towards pedagogy, towards how to use the tools effectively. Behind this was always some thought as to the significance of the impact of technology on education. Common refrains have been the development of 21st Century Skills, personalised learning, a movement away from teacher-centred to student-centred approaches, problem-based learning, what technologies will disrupt education and learning based on the burgeoning field of neuroscience. The overall sense has been one of promise, that technology has the potential to make teaching and learning more effective, and that education will become transformative in liberating humanity from a model  grounded in the factory system and a mechanised reproduction of knowledge and skills.


This year’s conference was no different in content although the technologies have changed somewhat. The focus has shifted towards Artificial Intelligence, robotics and coding, especially how to involve women in STEM and how to infuse computational thinking across the curriculum. However, this is the first time the sense I have is not one of advocacy, but of militancy. Speakers from the world of work were united and adamant in a condemnation of schooling itself. A clear preference for extra-curricular learning and the futility of academic qualifications was presented stridently. Employers, we were told, prefer people able to solve problems. If any learning is required it can be delivered, just-in-time at the point of need, online via MOOCs. Tertiary qualifications should be modular and stackable, acquired over time when required to solve real world problems. Educators endorsed this stance stressing personalised learning and the use of Artificial Intelligence and even real-time feedback from brain activity. The sense was one of an urgent need for a curriculum based on problem solving rather than subject disciplines. If you need some Maths to solve a problem you can get it online. You don’t need to study Maths divorced from real world imperatives.


The very idea of tertiary institutions is clearly under massive assault, and it cannot be long before they come for secondary schools as well. What scares me about this is not that I don’t agree that learning should be problem-based at some level, or that degree programmes should not be using MOOCs and blended models to achieve greater modularity and be more student-driven. What scares me is what we lose by doing that. My fears are based on two premises.


Firstly, I believe that knowledge should be pursued for knowledge sake rather than for the needs of the world of work alone. Of course our education should prepare us for employment or entrepreneurship. To argue that it shouldn’t is folly. But knowledge has its own trajectory and logic. Mathematical knowledge, for example, represents a body of knowledge bounded by rules and procedures. It forms a coherent system which cannot be broken up into bite-sized chunks. Can one quickly study calculus without studying basic algebra just because you need calculus to solve a problem? Historical knowledge is not just about reading up on Ancient Sumeria on Wikipedia quickly. Historical knowledge is founded on a system of evidentiary inquiry within a narrative mode of explanation. I worry that just-in-time knowledge will lack a solid enough base. If we erode the autonomy of the universities and do away with academic research, what happens to knowledge? It will become shallow and facile.


Secondly, I believe that the discovery model of learning is deeply flawed. Of course, if left to our own devices, following our curiosity, we can discover much. It is a fundamental learning principle. But it is not very efficient. There is no earthly reason why teaching should be ditched. Being told something by someone else is as fundamental a learning principle as learning something for yourself. It is an effect of socialised learning. We learn from each other. Teaching is an ancient and noble profession, and there seems no reason to ditch it now. The scholar’s dilemma is that it is unusual to discover anything unless you know it is there, and this requires guides and mentors. The world we live in is complex and vast and we need a working knowledge of a great deal. Without extensive teaching, it is difficult to see how we could acquire the knowledge we need.


I would argue that we need a broad-based liberal education, focusing on critical thinking and problem solving, which gives us a grounding in Mathematics, the Sciences, the Arts and Humanities. At this stage, after a first degree, say, the best approach could well be just-in-time content delivery delivered online.


Just because technology can disrupt education doesn’t mean it should. Teachers have been very conservative in their adoption of new technologies, and I think this is a good thing. Education and knowledge are just too important to change willy nilly. We need to be certain that we are not destroying our evolutionary advantage, our ability to think, simply because we can.


EduTech Africa 2018 – Day 2 of Just-in-time Learning


Dr Neelam Parmar

On the second day of the Conference the focus seemed to shift from what schools should be doing, to the nature of learning itself. Dr Maria Calderon took us on a whistlestop tour of what neuroscience has to tell us about learning. Key to understanding this is the surprising role played by emotion in mediating learning experiences. If the amygdala is too excited learning is blocked. Ian Russell then stressed the importance of changing the way learning happens in schools so that it reflects how the world now works and students are better prepared for the world of work. Learning needs to be flexible and delivered just in time. Employers are interested in your skills not your qualifications. The days of students earning a degree and then entering the world of work are gone. Mark Lester amplified this idea by stressing how tertiary learning is increasingly blended and modular. Life-long learning is the new norm.

Dr Neelam Parmar presented us with a model for weaving together technology and pedagogy. Choices around technology and pedagogy are driven by decisions around curriculum and finding a match between schools and the world of work. She left us with an image of the accelerated use of AI in schools: robots in China that monitor student attention and nudge them awake when they fall asleep.

It is in many ways an image which encapsulates the future and its possibilities. Technology can deliver a more personalised, seamless tracking of educational achievement, much of it delivered online. Students of all ages can learn what they need to learn just in time, building their own curriculum. The curriculum can be based on the task, the challenge at hand. And yet there is a danger, a danger that we will lose the ability to discriminate out what it is that is important to learn. The dilemma of self directed study is that you can’t know what you need to learn until you have learned it.

There is a strong movement away from traditional school disciplines, towards problem based learning, and I believe this is a mistake. Knowledge is coherent because it is bounded by a field. If it becomes nothing more than fodder for solving problems we lose something very valuable and that is the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake. Something happens when you do history for its own sake, not just to prepare for a career in politics, for example. Or if you do maths just for engineering. You lose a certain perspective, you lose knowledge itself. Knowledge is not just something you gain to live, it is something, almost tangible that enriches our lives because it throws up surprising perspectives and unleashes powerful forces of change.

The conference this year had a strong sense that the teacher is increasingly irrelevant, and I’m not that convinced that wide awake robots are the best solution. I think the teacher will be with us for quite a while yet!



EduTech Africa 2018 – Day 1 Just-in-time Teaching

The first day of the Conference started with an impassioned plea from Sameer Rawjee to make schools places where possible futures could be prototyped rather than relying on the reproduction of the present. He envisioned a future world of technology where the role of technology was to make our lives easier and liberate humanity. Schools should be places where this vision of a future where humanity has a place and can thrive is fostered and explored. This set the tone for a conference where coding, robotics and Artificial Intelligence was foregrounded, and where the role of technology was to transform pedagogical practice, empowering flexible, life long learning focusing on the development of skills, attitudes and dispositions in tune with a changing world.

Chris Rodgers spoke next on robotics and the importance of makerspaces in fostering learning and problem solving as a basis for integrating and reorganizing the curriculum. When solving problems, students arrive at a diversity of solutions, and draw on what they need to know, when they need to know it. Teaching becomes just-in time interventions, reflecting the way the world works.

In the break away sessions this theme was amplified. The role of the teacher has to change. Learning needs to become more flexible, and with this change comes the need for relevant knowledge on demand. A move from a push to a pull model, if you like. The classroom of 2030 will have to reflect this out we will have failed or students.


EduTech Africa 2017 Day Two – Spot The Teacher!

DLSHyGZW0AEMS7W.jpg large

Trying to extract the main theme of the second day at the EduTechAfrica Conference is a bit like trying to spot the ball in one of those popular press football competitions from my youth! Mark Sham set the tone by calling on the conference to dismantle schooling entirely! He reminded us that schooling’s function is to reinforce inequality in society, and in a world where artificial intelligence threatens almost all our jobs, schooling, by stifling creativity, critical thinking and problem solving skills is not just broken, but is positively dysfunctional.

Dee Moodley on the other hand talked about the importance of Presence, that almost indefinable human aspect to education, the human touch that all teachers need. Neelam Parmar stressed the need to drive change through reshaping education through experiential learning. People need to look forward to change! Meanwhile the coding and robotics people were agonizing over how to manage a coding across the curriculum agenda, and in another track the process of managing ICT integration technically and in terms of human resources was being poured over. Mark Hayter and Lora Foot reminded us that teachers need to be able to function within newly imagined learning spaces.

The mantra for the day was perhaps “the teacher is still the driver”. And yet the role of the teacher is clearly a contested space. There are many visions of the teacher at stake: the teacher as someone who needs to be converted as ICT Champion; the teacher who needs coaxing and mentoring to overcome their fear of technology; the teacher who must nurture or engage her students; the teacher who must experiment and play; the teacher who must surrender control of the classroom. The teacher who must oversee the dismantling of the schooling system itself!

What is perhaps most clear is that the role of teachers is as uncertain as the role of technology in education itself. We are at that wonderful moment, perhaps, where there are as many visions of the future as there are eyes to see, and anything is possible. What frightens me, frankly is that the rise of big data may well overtake these democratic impulses and squash them with a technocratic Taylorist vision of educational efficiency. In a world where Betsy de Vos can run the education system in America, technology may well become an authoritarian nightmare!

Perhaps the only bulwark against this might be to find the teacher in the picture and ensure that teaching and learning remains a deeply humanistic endeavour. Only by finding the teacher can we ensure that values are central to our schooling system.




%d bloggers like this: