there is a vigorous discussion occuring on the Vic 7-10 IT email list about the pros and cons of the last IT conference - was the "revolution" theme, and a lot of the web 2.0 focus (the miracle of wikis and blog etc) , limited to buzz words without educational substance, void of historical perspective, without deep rationale - or was it a discussion of the state of play, with some inspirational case studies?
i didn't even go to the conference, but i had been having a parallel discussion with the keynote speaker, Prof Stephen Heppell - after i heard him a couple of days later. i was going to email something to the list but i thought the issue deserved to go beyond transitory email - so here (with Stephen’s permission) it is:
My what big teeth you all have 
I didn't get to the conference - so please ignore everything I am about to say.
Although I did hear Stephen Heppell at another forum - and lots of web2 examples etc - so maybe you can listen in again.
I liked his content, and sense of education and change - lots of interesting ideas, and felt like a good sense of kids and schools. I also had some questions, which I followed up in email with him - re classic tech IT,
"You mention that you put the “C” into ICT (not just old IT). I was interested in that as I have looked into the terms somewhat – and used them to structure a proposed enquiry(3) into my masters (around dimensions of engagement in classic IT and emergent ICT).
You strike me as a bit of both : Eg while the conference speaking etc would seem to sit more at the ICT end, there is a small font link to "Jolly Faithful XServe" -- “if you care about these things – (I do)” from http://rubble.heppell.net/ which is a pretty classic IT reference, underpinning all this digital creativity.
Small font acknowledging that caring about the underlying IT is an acquired taste, or ... geeky enough that can overpower learning or popular palette?
I wonder if we should aim at both IT and ICT in some way?
and if you think those more technical skills are at risk, if we aim at web 2 blogging and wikis and movie making, good as that is (very wide range – but depth?)
eg visions like that of Papert (Logo) and Kay (Smalltalk, Squeak, Etoys) - for computing to be child’s play – exploring big ideas in maths and science – do you think that might get less attention than deserving in this web2.0 context?
(you mentioned you use your ipod as a server - what does it serve?)
Stephen's response :
I get blamed for the C in ICT more than i claim it! But have always cared about geeky too - I was very prominent in the Hypercard movement when we had hosts of students and teachers making and swapping code and resources. We certainly have a crisis of capable developers and the crisis is even worse in terms of gender balance - very few girls now, although wasn't originally the case. In truth we really lack "low start high finish" tools that can get developers up and running quickly - Dylan, VIP, Script X and a number of others promised this, but came to naught - we still need them.
many children now see the computer as a tool for creative and other fab work, but not enough as something that they can develop themselves - ie they consume applications rather than evolve them. I do worry about this heaps.
I just have a bunch of token pages - including video streaming - on my iPod's Apache - obviously as you flit from network to network the IP wander about so it isn't much use serving a domain name for example. But is is fun! S "
So in reading that - a few themes I might not have expected - which possibly aren't prioritised in his presentations I guess :
- Need for "low start high finish" tools
- Crisis in lack of developers
- Tendency to see computer as only 'fab tool'
- *Tendency to consume not evolve apps* (compare http://www.edutopia.org/no-gamer-left-behind)
- **Worrying heaps about all this**
Rob : One more question,
I heard Jamie McKenzie a while ago, and his presentation was also largely expounding the learning that is facilitated by web 2, but his writings & website, show some other concerns - eg recently a scathing critique of the whole 'digital native' meme
Stephen Heppell:
Well, I don't buy the digital native either - look at how MySpace is now full of pensioners doing their family trees, etc etc. Kids got there early, but maybe the difference is between those of a mechanical era (who worry things might break) and those of a digital era (who enjoy finding what does break!). But I think Marc Prensky did the world, and esp the US some big favours with his Digital Native thing because it gave people a chance to think afresh. With the pace of change if (as many did) you fail to notice the pace, then it takes a big push to get back up to speed with whree we are in all this - and the DigiNative stuff was that (useful) big push.
So a more nuanced view of the pluses and minuses of web 2 & digital native etc than it might seem - not that we should be surprised, if we let people be 3D, and not projections of our limited view.
Actually maybe, since we all love Higher Order Thinking and all that, we need to take up the challenge Bill Kerr has issued - eg Do a PMI or 6 hats where it matters - on trends in IT education - do a 6 hats on that?
those tools are all a bit dinky when the topic is too safe; if we rule our own assumptions as out of court
cheers all -
PS sure the conference was great, flawed, fascinating - as we all are
PPS (I also left early to go meet Bill, who has put some very interesting stuff in my path (Squeak, Etoys, an amazing thesis on Alan Kay's vision of the dynabook (- revolution there, maybe))
PPPS Someone on the list (Carolyn?) made the point that the conference title "you say you want a revolution?" was more challenging that it might appear at first glance .... we might read it as a naïve proclamation : "ICT / Web 2 = revolution"
the intention was apparently a bit more challenging - you say you want a revolution ..... well how are we going? etc
(much as I appreciate Bills input and generosity re all things Squeak - his "take no prisoners" approach in discussing the conference - is, well, very 'passionate'/provocative - and we like that, no?)
[errata - Bill has pointed below that i've mis-attributed a comment on the discussion list; wasn't actually him who made comment on the conference in the "take no prisoners" style of language. It seemed out of character to his usual depth of argument - but was my mistake- i've apologised below. His points are still strongly argued, of course, but not insulting.]
“Take no prisoners” is a bit rich
Initially I commented on the list about the buzz words - what I’m really doing is asking people to discuss the underlying issues, which are important. Many teachers see themselves as passive implementors of policies developed by others - that doesn’t really fit with any progressive notion of education.
The response was a bit awkward (I felt) so I let it go and wrote the Stephen Heppell piece on my blog rather than pursue it on the list. Overall it was a good conference (the workshops) and I didn’t want to offend those who had done the hard organisational work.
Then it came up again, a few days later, on the list and so I posted more comments and a link to my blog and a summary. I stand by my representation of Stephen Heppell’s *presentation* even though you have demonstrated that there is much more to Stephen than what we saw in his presentation. Is that a reason not to criticise his presentation and the context –> buzz words, too much hype?
Here is a real problem. Many people don’t even want to discuss these issues, they are too worried about not wanting to offend by raising real questions. This is a strong part of “normal” teachers culture. So we have the organiser saying “everything was great” and people who disagree too polite to contradict. Not healthy.
Stephen’s response to your mail does present a different side to his views - one that I didn’t notice at his keynote. (pity you weren’t there to judge that too) My motivation was to try to spark some real discussion on the issue of web2.0 (and other) hype. I still want to see that - and you have provided some, so thanks.
I don’t like this culture where expressing an opinion, is interpreted as bad manners.
Comment by Bill Kerr — November 30, 2007 @ 3:47 am
Hi Bill,
expressing opinions is vital - its the essence of debate and progressing IT teaching beyond fads - and why i’ve taken the trouble of writing this post
i was curious enough to want to meet you, that i broke my attendance at Stephen Heppel’s session, to have a coffee with this well argued person.
Describing a keynote as “99% irrelevant” (you used more derogatory and emotive terms) on the email list, is what i had in mind when i said you were using a “take no prisoners” approach
i also feel deeply enough about these things to debate them, and i’ve cited you as having a key (kay) influence on how i see ICT
cheers
rob
Comment by rob — November 30, 2007 @ 4:15 am
hi rob,
?? Someone else said “99% “bum fluff” “, not me. First reply after my initial ‘”education revolution” and other buzz words’ post to the list
I think I was and am focusing on some issues and not personalities. I don’t believe that I used “derogatory and emotive terms”.
Comment by Bill Kerr — November 30, 2007 @ 5:16 am
my mistake Bill
sorry for the “taking no prisoners label” - obviously misdirected.
i’ve always found your stuff well argued so the 99% thing seemed a strange comment from “you” - but was my error in misattributing the phrase - missed the authorship in scanning the discussion/replies on the discussion list. sorry.
agree that debating the nature of ICT is not always in vogue or vigorous enough.
by parallel, when i did a certain week long course, a lot of participants had genuine concerns about the methodology etc - but necessarily suppresed by a sense that your right to independent thinking is bought off - since you attended a week of training - “it was surely great in both concept and execution, and worthy of replication” - sort of has to become the official perspective; we look at the successful case studies which re-inforce that! - wow! -; rather than the the large chunk of teachers who don’t replicate the full training)
(as against : a week of time certainly allows for some good planning - but the ICT integration may be rather incidental to the creativity and productivity that derives simply from time release and peer review … )
anyway, i digress … although maybe not far from the debate here
most agree that ICT has not yet been generally transformative in education, despite 25 years of efforts and promise - and yet we can be too complicit with agreeing that the latest initiative must have been great … until it fades enough so we can label it as the old thing (we can all admit that the old training course was limited, once the new one comes out, but not at the time)… anyway, thats sort of the debate around web 2 here (and interesting that Stephen Heppel does have some richer doubts and issues, than a simple ICT evangelist might think)
Comment by rob — November 30, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
““you say you want a revolution?” was more challenging that it might appear at first glance …. we might read it as a naïve proclamation : “ICT / Web 2 = revolution”
Well, well, well, I think that is why we have a theme (or alleged buzzwords)! It certainly has provoked discussion. I’m certainly not against criticism of the themes or the keynotes - as long as it is considered. I was part of the group that proposed the theme. Whilst we did see the 2.0 YouTube movie, the theme was to provoke thought and discussion and most certainly not that of “ICT/Web 2 = revolution.”
Web 2.0 is only one part of ICT, albeit a yet to be really tested promise of possibility. ICT to me denotes the ability of computers to transcend the artificial barriers of subject boundaries - to prevent the “Balkanization” of content by the use of computers to deepen learning and to allow students a dynamic vehicle to demonstrate their understanding. IT to me is more about the computer science subjects – programming, software development and IT Apps.
Has ICT succeeded in changing education? No. It’s far too patchy to say that it has been successful. The reasons for this lack of success is not so much to do with the lack of potential, it is more to do with the oft most neglected but most critical component in the whole shebang - teachers. And the most glaring omission in the Rudd revolution – which was totally separate from the VITTA theme – is that of any plan to support teachers in making the most of any plan to provide laptops to students on a national basis.
So, returning to the point of this comment, ICT is much, much more than any perceived potential of Web 2.0 and yes, there was a richness of thought that was deliberately intended in such an ambitious topic. As for Stephen Heppell’s keynote, it made us all think and that’s what a keynote should do. If time permitted, I’d love to reply to some of the alleged shortcomings of his address.
Comment by Phil Callil — December 2, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
In reponse to Phil:
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I acknowledge again that the VITTA revolution theme was distinct from Rudd’s “education revolution” but welcome the opportunity to say more about the latter. It’s important to discuss that because it’s our new current reality. I agree with you that one reason the Rudd / Gillard scheme will flop will be lack of support for the teachers.
What also ought to be mentioned IMO is the “vision thing” and “commercialisation”.
Vision: OLPC has a vision part of which is to empower children, as quicker learners - of course that creates an issue wrt the power relationships b/w kids and teachers and also teachers as learners (as well as teachers). This is more in line with a real revolution, ie. represents some sort of overthrow or potential overthrow of teacher authority
Commercialisation: We don’t have a “personal computer” while it contains proprietary software that spies on whether you are running a legal copy of Windows. Also proprietary computer software is packaged these days to not contain any programming languages at all, by default (cf OLPC which has three - etoys, logo and python). Then we have warnings to users not to enter “Program Files” and the file extensions are hidden by default. Active discouragement to look under the hood
The Rudd / Gillard non revolution will be quite limited mainly because it will be mainly about productivity and vocationalism. This is a non vision which quietly ignores the potential of computers as creativity and imagination machines.
I see the coming failure to train teachers as less important than the whole failure of vision.
Comment by Bill Kerr — December 2, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Hi Phil
as i said i didn’t hear the keynote, and haven’t commented on it myself - but i did like what i heard the “Innovation Next Practice” session later that week.
so …. “If time permitted, I’d love to reply to some of the alleged shortcomings of his address”
i think that this post - extracts of an email discussion with him - possibly functions somewhat like that anyway-
ie shows that he had some deep concerns that were not self evident in the session i heard, and perhaps not readily apparent in his keynote either, (which i haven’t commented on, since i wasn’t there)
(yet his concerns at lack of technical edge and lack of developer level mindset, gender imbalance, and consumption rather then production of fab simulations - pretty interesting concerns, hey?)
i feel these concerns are actually not that easy to raise - seems like there is a bit of a gee whiz factor around ICT - that we can all be complicit with.
not directing that at you - you’ve spelt out concerns for some classic computer science - but the school level approach to these things can get swept away as too hard etc - and indeed its not easy to find the right balance
Comment by rob — December 6, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Hi everyone,
As the President of VITTA, I have to say that conversations such as this are extremely pleasing.
I must say that when Phil, myself and other members of the VITTA committee sat down to plan the conference theme, we wanted to move in a different direction to that of other conferences (both by VITTA in previous years and other ICT conferences). How many of us have attended conferences with themes like ‘Act IT!’ or ‘DigITal Now!!!’ or with other generic themes that immediately induce a lack of interest (or a feeling that is going to be ’same old-same old’)?
Speaking on behalf of the VITTA executive and as our first full year holding these positions - we wanted to make an impact with the conference theme and bring everything together in terms of the keynotes and flowing down through the conference strands. Now - whether or not you feel that we were successful in doing this - we had a real hard go at it - and we feel proud of what was accomplished. Whether or not the conference keynotes were ’successful’ or not - our conference theme has promoted more discussion certainly that any VITTA conference theme in recent memory (perhaps ever)! It’s not that we are especially sensitive to critism over our conference or its theme - but, understand - all the hard work that goes into an event such as this does make one quite ‘house-proud’ (so to speak). It’s really comments which blantantly took shots at our keynote or conference saying that it was 99% retoric of irrelevant that do feel a little unreasonable.
In structuring our keynotes - we sought to get a high profile international keynote (firstly) who would be able to inspire with big ideas and challenge the audience. In our minds, Stephen filled this brief perfectly. I personally feel that a keynote should be short of specifics and long on ‘big’ concepts - and I think that anyway in the audience who felt critical of the keynote as they did not get value - possibly missed the point.
Our next two keynotes broke down the theme further, with varying degrees of detail. You expect to get detailed curriculum and policy / implementation specifics in conference sessions - but I would argue - not in ‘keynotes’.
So anyway, and I am probably labouring the point somewhat - please feel free to discuss our conference and it’s theme. Such conversation is extremely healthy and welcome (as long as it is constructive). I am hoping that you will all find our 2008 conference theme to be equally interesting when it is released shortly!!
All the best!
Adrian Janson
VITTA President
Comment by Adrian Janson — February 29, 2008 @ 12:08 pm