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"

Originally posted 5th December 2018

One of the challenges facing the NP3 team was how to describe and differentiate between the pedagogical practices in the classrooms that we were researching. In essence, what were the key features of practice that needed to be considered in order to differentiate between the teaching in each setting? The obvious answer seemed to be to use core theories of learning and development as the basis for a framework to help us compare pedagogy across contexts. Patricia Murphy therefore devised the Innovative Pedagogy Framework, starting with the following theoretical positions:

  • Traditional (Behaviourist/Information Processing)
  • Constructivist
    • Cognitive/Piagetian
    • Radical
    • Social
  • Innovative (Sociocultural)
...continue reading "The Innovative Pedagogy Framework"

[This post was originally published in 2014]

We assume that digital technology can improve education and that ‘the challenge’ is how to bring innovative technology and educational professionals together. However, the research evidence shows that despite massive investment digital technology has not resulted in significant improvements in learning experiences or attainment in education (e.g. Luckin et al., 2012) [http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/decoding-learning].

...continue reading "Is teaching a profession?"

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"

This is part of a series addressing common misconceptions about what a PedTech approach actually involves. The first post in the series includes three misconceptions:

  • Misconception 1 PedTech and EdTech complement each other
  • Misconception 2 EdTech is about 'system level' technology whilst PedTech is about 'classroom' or 'learner level' technology
  • Misconception 3 PedTech advocates a particular pedagogical stance

This post goes deeper — to a mistake that is easy to make precisely because it looks like good practice.

...continue reading "PedTech Misconceptions: Start with your learning intention"