Skip to content

1

Between 2014 and 2017, a team of researchers from the Open University, Lancaster, and Manchester Metropolitan universities set out to explore the ways children use digital technology outside school and the extent to which that connects with what happens inside school.

The project was called NP3 — New Purposes, New Practices, New Pedagogy. It was funded by the Society for Educational Studies and ran over two years across 13 primary schools in England and Scotland. More than 100 children and 60 teachers took part. Forty-three 'log children' used digital cameras to capture their home digital technology use and were interviewed individually. More than 20 of their carers were also interviewed. Thirty-one teachers were each observed teaching at least one lesson and interviewed at least twice. It was a substantial piece of work.

What it found was, in retrospect, predictable, but the evidence matters. Schools and children were, in effect, living in parallel digital worlds.

...continue reading "What NP3 Taught Us About Children, Digital Technology, and Schools"

The title is, on the face of it, an odd claim. PedTech clearly is a thing — there is a book about it, a series of posts on this blog unpacking its implications, and a growing body of practice around it. So what does it mean to say PedTech is not a thing?

PedTech is not a thing in the way that EdTech is a thing. It is not a tool. You cannot pick it up, deploy it, or choose between versions of it.

...continue reading "PedTech misconceptions: PedTech is NOT a Thing"

Originally published 24 Oct 2022

The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy was developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis (1982) to support the assessment of learning, by identifying the sophistication of the learner’s understanding (mental model). This post suggests a couple of shortcomings of the taxonomy and a revised taxonomy (SOLO2.0) which helps to address them.

...continue reading "SOLO 2.0"