MEMORIA DESCRIPTIVA.

The third key capacity element needed for new pedagogies concerns how to use technology in

the service of deep learning from a school and system perspective. Effective implementation of

digital tools and resources across whole systems involves not just using them as part of learning partnerships and deep learning tasks. School and system leaders seeking to implement new pedagogies successfully develop the enabling conditions described above alongside investments in digital access. Without the broader vision and capacities, investment in devices for everyone rarely pays off in terms of learning outcomes. However, we have seen successful integration of technology in publicly-funded schools and education systems, and we share here some examples of what happens when visions and capacity-building come before purchases.

When students each have their own devices, full access to digital learning applications and resources, and the freedom to explore and use these elements as part of well-structured deep learning tasks, learning can be dramatically expanded. For maximum impact on student learning, technology integration needs its own set of ‘enablers’. Systems cannot simply buy a device for every student and expect new pedagogies and deep learning to ignite. Technology in schools changes the conditions, but does not by itself shift practices. Effective technology integration requires many elements: digital resources that align with learning and curriculum goals; technology training for staff as well as professional learning focused on building pedagogical capacity; high speed Internet access; integrated assessment and progress monitoring systems; reporting mechanisms to allow frequent learning from the work; communications with parents and stakeholders; infrastructure that includes security and privacy protections; support and maintenance for the equipment; and a digital citizenship policy. The costs of this will be discussed in the next section, but we will say here that when a plan is done well, the return on investment can be immense.

The best examples of technology integrated with other elements of new pedagogies come when whole schools and systems – rather than individual teachers or classrooms – undertake the integration. The Fontan schools in the Americas and Spain have done this by using

technology as a tool to support learning partnerships:

In schools based on the Fontan Relational Education model, every student has a digital device, through which they access curricular materials and carry out deep learning tasks individually or with peer groups. Through the system’s online Qino Platform, students, parents and educators access learning materials, collaborate, communicate and manage students’ learning plans and projects – anytime, from anywhere with internet access.

Technology helps the scope of the learning. I am not talking about virtual school. Technology is how our method works, but it wouldn’t work without the personal relationships [between educators and peers], figuring out who each student is individually. We use technology to personalise WITH the student.

For school and system leaders thinking about ubiquitous access, some of the biggest questions involve personal devices, content filtering and parental acceptance. The ‘bring your own device’ or BYOD movement is taking off in many schools and systems, allowing students who own their own laptops, smartphones or tablets to bring them into schools and make them part of the learning experience. These programs of course face the significant challenge of student equity, of all students having the same or similar levels of access to digital learning resources. This challenge is likely more of a problem in societies and schools that have high levels of economic inequality among their student populations, and in such contexts, the implementation of a BYOD policy should be very carefully considered to ensure it does not exacerbate the challenges that poorer students face. Some systems beginning these programs are addressing this challenge by providing school or system-funded devices to all children who do not already own a device. In our discussions with leaders who had implemented BYOD, it became clear that going down this path was not just a policy and resource decision but also a powerful cultural change statement. In the Peel school district in Ontario, Canada, when the leadership team announced the new BYOD policy at a meeting of school principals and teachers, there was a standing ovation from the audience.

Yet with freedom comes responsibility. When students gain access to tools that give them the ability to access information and to communicate their ideas and opinions globally, that access must be balanced with the development of ethics for responsible use. Alongside empowering students with devices, schools need to develop programs for digital citizenship that provide clear

guidelines for appropriate use of the technology.92 _{Teachers and leaders have said that trying to}

limit or control access is ineffective and that digital citizenship is more realistic:

The emotion was palpable. It goes back to the co-learning stance – that is what you need. You need a sense of freedom, a sense of optimism, and you need a sense that experimentation is OK and that is how we learn.

Shaun Moynihan, Superintendent of Curriculum Instruction, Peel School District, Ontario

92 _{Jensen et al 2011}

We talk with kids who are using tech inappropriately and guide them to think about that more constructively. To try to block it is like trying to stick a finger in a dam.

Pauline Roberts, 5th and 6th Grade Teacher, Michigan, USA

In a heavily filtered school environment, the opportunity to cultivate students’ appropriate use is effectively denied. A policy that opens school networks, paired with instruction on appropriate use, identity protection and safety, would far better enable students to become more conscientious consumers (and producers) of Web 2.0 content.

Finally, an essential element of successful initiatives is the inclusion of parents. Without parental consent, understanding and explicit support, digital access programs do not reach their full potential. Parents need to understand how the technology is being used to improve learning. Gaining this consent and support is one of the new roles of school and system leaders. Indeed, developing public support for the new pedagogies model as a whole should be part and parcel of technology initiatives. One example we saw was a survey of parents in Peel School District, to determine parents’ priorities for the program – which were more professional learning for teachers, equitable access, Wi-Fi and more parental communications. In Pauline Roberts’ school in Michigan, they host monthly parent technology nights, where parents are introduced to applications such as Twitter and are shown how it can be used for learning purposes. Such programs involve parents in the learning process and engage them as stakeholders and partners in these new learning experiences.

The new change leadership that we have been describing in this chapter represents a huge challenge, but signs indicate that it is as attractive to people as it is daunting. The traditional school is being broken open and new forces for learning are almost spontaneously erupting. And we find more and more leaders—students, teachers and administrators alike – who recognise and embrace the new possibilities. Right now, at the early stages of these dynamic developments there is a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty as to where things might and should go. This is normal at times of upheaval. The good news is that things are converging to create the distinct possibility that a critical mass of radically new learning practices are emerging. There is a good chance that these developments could turn out to be the new norm one day soon. Leadership at all levels has never been more critical. The best news is that leaders who want to make a difference now have an opportunity to have a huge impact.