I can just copy, right?

Hands up if you've ever found an image on Google and used it in your assignment/resource/blog/etc?

Image by gaelx: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gaelx/6915188757
Used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Yep, that's probably every single one of us. Why not? It's a pretty easy thing to do, and no one will get hurt, right?
Well, it's highly likely that no one will actually get hurt, but what about the principle of the thing? If you created something that you were really proud of, then put it out there for other people to enjoy, would you be happy with anyone using it? Any time? For any purpose?

Increasingly, our lives are being digitised. We have this amazing access to a wonderful collection of digital products that we can download in an instant and share just as quickly. But the question is, should you? And more importantly, should your students?

For many of us, the digital world came upon us while we were already operating in an analogue space. We were used to making mixed tapes that would only be shared with us or our significant others, the posters that we made for class had clumsily photocopied pictures, pictures cut out of magazines (or old encyclopedias!) or even hand-drawn ones.They would be viewed by our teacher and maybe our class (and perhaps if we were really special, the principal or the assembly).

Then Google images came along (and all those other 'sharing tools'), and suddenly you could have access to all these cool pictures and stuff.

All this happened before anyone could come up with any rules for use, or ways to protect intellectual property. And hey, they still haven't.

But that doesn't make it right. In fact there are some pretty clear copyright guidelines that we should all be living by. Not only so that people can create in the knowledge that they will receive recognition (and sometimes money), but also so that we are modelling best practice for our students.

So how does it work?
In Australia, Copyright Law is pretty straightforward:

• As soon as you create something, copyright protection is automatic.
• If you use something that has been created by someone else, you must seek their permission.

Ok, so it's a little more complicated that that, but these are the basics (you can read more here).

So basically, any picture you take off Google Images has been created by someone else and is subject to copyright. And you need to seek their permission to use it.

But...

A question that I hear often is "what if I can't find out who created it?", which is a perfectly legitimate question and is at the heart of this problem. The Copyright Council says 'too bad, you can't use it', and that not asking for permission because you can't find the owner is not a defensible position in a copyright infringement matter. 

Another question I hear a lot is "does it really matter if I'm just using it for school?". Technically, it doesn't really matter as much, as if you're only using a small proportion of a work (e.g. 10%), it falls under the 'Fair Dealing' exceptions. However, this can be tricky when it comes to images, as most of us don't tend to use only 10% of an image. And unfortunately, despite some general advice, there are still many grey areas here. 

But even if you do think it's OK to use that photo, the other part of this is what I mentioned earlier, the behaviours that we model for our students. We want them to value to creative work of others (and hopefully create their own works), and we want them to use the internet in ethical and appropriate ways (heck, it's even spelled out in the curriculum). So it's important that we model appropriate and ethical behaviours for them.

Image by opensource.com: https://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/4371001458
Used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

So what can we do?

Where possible, seek permission for any work that you take off the internet. If you can't figure out who owned it, don't use it, or at least acknowledge it (though again, this is rarely considered a defensible approach under Copyright Law - except in some educational cases). 

- OR - 

Create the work yourself. Get out your camera and take a photo of something that illustrates your point. Better yet, get your students to do it!

- OR - 

Use Creative Commons licensed material. If you don't know, Creative Commons is a worldwide system of licensing that allows content creators to specify how their work will be used. It's growing bigger every day, with millions of people around the world licensing their content in ways that allow other people to use it and build on it while still retaining some ownership over their creation. 

Using Creative Commons licensed work gives students (and teachers) the opportunity to access quality images, sounds, music and video in ethical ways that don't breach copyright. I think it's our job to teach our students to used content in this way, by sharing their own work, and by accessing only appropriately licensed content. This is what we should be modelling for them too. 

I teach Creative Commons to my students (pre-service teachers) in the hope that they will use it in their practice. Hopefully, they will also teach it to their students. 

To find Creative Commons licensed material, you can search the Creative Commons portal, or Google offers a Creative Commons search, as does Flickr (just use the 'Advanced Search' function).

Watch this video for more information about Creative Commons.

EduTECH Theme #1 - Changing Education Paradigms: Sir Ken Robinson

I must admit, I've got a bit of an educational crush on Sir Ken Robinson. He's an enormously engaging speaker, and I've quite enjoyed his TED talks (How Schools Kill Creativity, Bring on the Education Revolution and How to Escape Education's Death Valley), books and articles.
Apparently I'm not the only one. This year was the first time that Sir Ken (as he's affectionately known) has appeared at EduTECH in person (the last two years he appeared via video link, which was still cool, but didn't have quite the impact that a live appearance had). The poor guy was mobbed wherever he went (though I guess that's why he earns the big bucks!), and while I got in a quick hello, I'm too much of a 'I don't want to bother anyone' person to actually pipe up and ask him for a picture or anything. However, I did have a front row seat:

Robinson gave a rather entertaining keynote on the first day, as well as more of his insights during the gala dinner that evening. While much of what he says is stuff that he's said before, I think the value lies in the delivery. He has the ability to make an audience of nearly 5000 people laugh, Tweet like crazy and walk away inspired; and with the message that he's delivering, I think that's a good result in itself.

So, what was his message? Well the first one that I picked up (and Tweeted) was his discussion about educational leaders and the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement). While most of us involved in education understand the need for educational change (as outlined in my last two posts), Robinson said that the leaders and policy makers (who "pass through education without touching the sides") that are so carefully studying our schools and our outcomes (mainly via testing regimes), don't really know much about education, but feel quite confident about passing judgement on it. This has meant that the changes that are really needed just won't happen.

Robinson also talked about change. The rapid pace of change in many areas.

He talked about technology; how tools "expanded our mind and extended our reach, and brought a whole universe into our grasp". But he also talked about how tools are 'neutral'. It's the creative capacity of the people that use the tools that give them life. Robinson gave the example of the cupboard full of instruments that is nothing until people pick them up and play them. So tools are great, technology tools are great, but without people to use them in purposeful ways, they are rarely going to be useful.

He talked about how we're adapting rapidly to technological change, and how it's changed the way we socialise, how we've adapted to the incredible speeds that we now enjoy in our internet access and processing power ("Come on, I haven't got all minute!"). He noted his discomfort at technological advances such as Google Glass. He's not sure about the 'inconvenience' of having to take your phone out of your pocket to access the internet, and how silly this might look to our grandkids ("oh, what was it like, having to carry that thing about?"). And he pointed out that in a decade or so, we might be working alongside non-organic 'beings' that have the same rights that we do (was he joking? You tell me!)

He also talked about population growth. Our current generation is the biggest since the dawn of human history. The biggest rate of growth is in the third world, and it's in cities. This will have an enormous impact on quality of life, work, resources and education.

The effect of population growth in the past led to industrial farming methods and all those things that we're now finding are causing problems: technology that made farming quick and easy (combine harvesters etc); chemical fertilisers; and pesticides, because the monocultural farms produced by these advancements produced ecosystems that lacked diversity and were prone to disease and pest invasion. This was good for a while, but we now find that the topsoil is eroded and nothing grows without a lot of artificial intervention. It's taken essential nutrients out of our diet and led to the rise of processed and fast foods (and all the associated problems). Robinson argued that this industrialised farming was a result of the technology and the mindset at the time. It's all about yield and output.

Robinson then argued that this is what education is at the moment: yield, output, big data, PISA, etc. And that it, like industrial farming, is not sustainable. Nice analogy, huh?

The good thing is that the problems we've had with food and health have led to the growth of organic farming; with the emphasis on the soil, rather than the plant. Robinson argued that we need to move to organic education. Education that is not focused on yield and output, but on culture (well-being), ecology (diversity), equality (fairness, justice, equity) and care (focused on all aspects of the system). For many students, public education is the only opportunity that they have, and we need to make big changes to ensure that everyone has that shot. The thing is, he emphasised that we need to change education from the ground up, rather than relying on the policy makers to make the changes for us.

The school is the soil, the students are the flowers, the school leaders are the clouds and the government is the sun.

So, continuing the farming analogy, Robinson's suggestion was that in schools, we need to concentrate on the 'organic' principles of culture, ecology, equality and care. Every school is a microclimate, and it can create its own culture. Governments come and go, but the people that actually do the work keep going. The principal's job is to shelter the microclimate from the harsh 'sun' that is government policy, and just get on with doing what they know is the right thing for their school and their students.

And finally, Robinson argued that as schools, parents and students, sometimes it depends on the questions that we ask. If we ask 'how can we improve maths outcomes', then the energy goes into addressing that. If we ask 'how can we improve the life of that child, right now?', then that's a different question all together.

Thanks Sir Ken.

Many people will recognise Sir Ken Robinson's ideas from this RSA animation from 2010. Check it out if you haven't seen it!

Also, check out this visual interpretation of Sir Ken's keynote by Cathy Hunt at the iPad Art Room. Cool stuff huh?

Created by Cathy Hunt

EduTECH Theme #1 - Changing Education Paradigms: Sugata Mitra

In this post I'd like to go back to the beginning. Sugata Mitra was the opening keynote speaker for EduTECH, and he definitely set the theme for the conference.

I've always been fascinated by Mitra's 'Hole in the Wall' project (if you're not familiar, it started in 1999 and involved installing computers into walls in remote Indian villages and observing the behaviour of the local children), so it was great to be able to hear him speak about it, and about his ideas around the 'School in the Cloud'. And he spoke so engagingly and eloquently. I loved his stories about the original project; how within 5 months of their very first use of the unfamiliar computers, the kids were using it to Google their homework and quote websites such as the 'Harvard Business Review'. I was also quite taken with his story of a further experiment (that by his admission was designed to produce a fail result) that was to investigate whether Tamil-speaking children could learn (in English) about DNA replication through these street-side computers. They didn't. In fact, they understood it quite well!

So, as a result of this research, Mitra proposed that perhaps there are some things that students can actually learn for themselves, and that 'Knowing' is obsolete. Not knowledge, but knowing. That perhaps the things that are traditionally taught (and tested) in schools are not really what we should be concentrating on. Can you see a pattern here? Like Jukes, Mitra emphasised that traditional schooling models, where students are taught skills for jobs that no longer exist, and behaviours that are no longer required, are also obsolete. That they are producing students that know a lot of useless facts, but can't think for themselves. He asked us what boss would want an employee that is constantly asking 'what should I do next'? Not many; they are after creative thinkers and problem solvers (again, can you see the pattern?).

At first glance, it would be easy to think that perhaps Mitra was saying that teachers are obsolete too. He isn't. He's saying that children can learn anyway. But seeing as how schools aren't going anywhere, he suggested that perhaps students could benefit from a different approach to learning, even if it was only for one session a week. They would do this with the assistance of an 'admiring figure' (the teacher?) that encourages students to go further, question themselves, come up with creative solutions. He used grandmothers in his first experiment. He put out a call for people that were willing to donate an hour of their time each week to talk online with students. These people (mainly retired people) would log in for an hour a week and talk to students, read to them, ask them questions, and provide encouragement and admiration for what the students were doing. Mitra called this the Granny Cloud. This approach has been very successful with Indian children, and also with children in Columbia.

The success of this approach has developed into the idea of what Mitra calls a 'SOLE': Self-Organised Learning Environment'. He suggested that learning should take place on the 'edge of chaos', and that students are pretty good at figuring things out with a bit of encouragement. He included a beautiful analogy of the surfer: who does not have someone on their shoulder saying 'tilt to the right now', they figure it out for themselves and sometimes fall off, but they have someone on the beach (or beside them on another board) shouting 'go for it!'; 'you can do it!'.

To create a SOLE, he said that the first things that are needed are a broadband connection, collaboration and encouragement/admiration. Schools can definitely provide this.

Three requirements to set up a SOLE: Broadband, collaboration, encouragement/admiration.

Interestingly, Mitra also suggested that 1:1 is maybe not the best approach for schools, as it does not allow for collaboration. While it's good for students to have their own device to use at home, Mitra suggests it's much better to use shared computers in class, so students can talk and collaborate (because this is where the big learning happens). What do you think about this?

The other things that are required are a curriculum of questions, peer assessment and certification without examination.

Certification without examination. Do we always have to test?

How do we do this? Well Mitra suggested that we (us, the students) can find the big, interesting questions in the curriculum, leave the children alone to find the answers by talking to each other, searching the web, critically analysing the sources of the information that they find. We can provide encouragement and admiration, but must try and refrain from giving them direction. We can then see if they've found the answer, or at least have gotten some way towards that. Not by testing. Just by judging for ourselves whether they've "done a good job"; whether it's "good enough".

Some interesting things to think about. And I tend to think that it's approaches like this that might get us somewhere towards the educational change that we're looking for. That Ian Jukes so passionately argued for. Changing one little thing at a time. Providing some flexibility and self-organised learning even just once a week, to give our students the opportunity to learn on their own, pursue topics of interest, and collaborate in meaningful ways. What do you think?

If you would like more information about SOLEs, you can download a free toolkit here. 

EduTECH theme #1 - Changing Education Paradigms - Ian Jukes

Most of the keynote speakers at the EduTECH conference spoke about the theme of the changing workforce and how ill-prepared schools and education systems are for it. How standardised learning; designed to fit schools full of kids that were destined for agriculture, manufacturing, repetitive/menial tasks and automated jobs; doesn't really fit the future world that requires creative thinkers and problem solvers.

The view from the back - Ian Jukes' closing keynote

Ian Jukes was the final keynote speaker, speaking about 'disruptive innovation', and its impact on education. He gave this message passionately and emphatically. Here are some key points:

Jukes spoke of disruptive innovation as the technologies that are (and have been for a long time) changing the world. This includes the massive container ships (that carry 18000 containers filled with manufactured and agricultural goods from China to almost any port in the world within one week); as well as the technologies that allow hundreds of tasks once completed by humans and animals to be performed quicker and cheaper by machines and computers. Think about how this has changed the world, and the workforce. What do all those people do now that once harvested corn, or answered/directed phone calls, or entered data into forms? While the technology is great, and keeps getting better, it is changing the world economy. Now think about the impact that this has on education. This was the big point that Jukes was going to make.

"No generation in history has even been so thoroughly prepared for the industrial age as the current generation."

- David Warlick

In the US, and increasingly in Australia, many of the 'routine cognitive' jobs that schools traditionally prepared students for (think agriculture, customer service, auditing/bookkeeping, manufacturing, data entry) are being outsourced. Because it's a better economic decision for a company to outsource this kind of work to the cheapest (and most reliable) worker. Which by the way is not usually an American or Australian. And sometimes it's not a human at all...
People in location-dependent jobs (hospitality, plumbing, construction, etc) are somewhat of an exception to this massive change in the workforce, though at the same time, they are not on the salary level of a 'white collar' worker that performs these routine cognitive tasks. 

Jukes then talked about the 'creative class' (as outlined in Richard Florida's book), and how they will come to dominate the high-income earning end of the spectrum in first-world countries in the near future. These are the people that experiment, analyse, disrupt, and well...create!

We kinda know this stuff, don't we? But here's an interesting example: Jukes spoke about the booming app economy. In 2008, the app industry didn't exist. Mainly because apps (or the devices that use them) didn't exist either. But since then, the app industry has boomed, creating/providing more than 800000 jobs across the world. Think about how many industries have shed jobs in that time. 

We are only just starting to do 'app development' in schools. But at a more basic level, it's not a priority of education systems to teach the skills that people that go into these industries might need: creativity, problem solving, coding (a controversial issue in itself), entrepreneurship, collaboration, the willingness to fail and try again, and the ability to respond to constructive feedback. 

So I wonder, what might the workforce look like in another 6 years? What jobs will disappear all together? 

"If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near."

- Jack Welch

So Jukes asked how we are changing our schools to fit this new model of work. Are we changing it? He argued that to stay competitive in this kind of environment, different skills are predicted to be important in the coming years: skills such as creativity, critical thinking, teamwork, problem solving and interpersonal skills. He argues that "the world doesn't care what you know, only what you do with what you know", and that memorisation of facts is not important at all. I agree with this. After all, we've got Google to do that for us...

He reiterated the point that our schools were designed to educate people for a world that existed a long time ago. He says that 85% of time in schools is devoted to 'routine cognitive work' - the kind of work that will be outsourced in the future! If we keep trying to force everyone into the same 'box', and test them for the same outcomes, then we might miss the chance to nurture creativity, and we'll definitely miss the opportunity to teach those 'creative class' skills. There's something to the story of the 'school dropout' who makes it big. Jukes made a good point about that too: the rate that students drop out (10-15% in secondary school, up to 50% in universities) should be unacceptable. He said that if he ran a business with this rate of disengagement, he'd be out of business, so why is it acceptable in schools? Perhaps it's because kids don't see the point of being in schools. If they don't have plans to do routine cognitive work (and really, who does?), then how is school meaningful to them?

I think we know this. Instinctively as good teachers, I think all of us know this. But sadly, the kinds of people that makes the decisions about education don't seem to. So Ian Jukes challenges us to change this. One lesson at a time. One unit of work at a time. One school at a time. Make it something that cannot be ignored. Show them that it can work. to do things differently. 

What do you think?

You can see a similar keynote (sadly without the slides, but with all the passion) here. You can also see more of his work here: http://learningfutures21.com/. 

Personalised learning, creativity and educational change: EduTECH 2014

This year, I attended EduTECH for the third time. While there are always moments at these conferences that feel like either a hard sell or a complete waste of time, if nothing else it is a good boost of motivation, and an affirmation that this area of education that I'm so interested in really is important!

There was an amazing collection of international keynote speakers at this year's conference; from educational rock star Sir Ken Robinson, to Sugatra Mitra (he of the 'hole in the wall experiments', the always-engaging (and inspiring) Ewan McIntosh, and the very passionate Ian Jukes. All of them spoke about the importance of creativity, of the changing educational environment and of the need to change the way we approach education.

Me and the event MC, Adam Spencer. I can only wish I was that cool and clever!

There were also some fantastic locals that had a lot of great things to say. I saw Dan Haesler at EduTECH in 2012, and I love his commitment to well-being in students and teachers. I have seen first hand how much of an impact good relationships, a strong values program and an emphasis on emotional intelligence can have on a school community, so I hope that he can continue to grow his audience and share his message.

It was also the first time I've heard Judy O'Connell speak. She struck me as extraordinarily committed and knowledgeable about the field, and I am interested in finding out more about her work.

I like it when I am able to hear from local experts such as these. These conferences are often dominated by international speakers, and while they are always inspirational and engaging, I like to think that Australia has just as many clever, innovative people that are just as capable of delivering this important message.

In the coming days/weeks, I will go back over my notes and blog about my reflections to these and other conference presentations, but also try and include some interpretation: just what exactly does it mean for teachers, pre-service teachers and schools, and what the heck should we be doing?

Here's to the inconsistent blogger!

I love to blog. There's something immensely satisfying about getting your thoughts and opinions out there to the 5 people that occasionally read it big wide world.

This blog was my first. I started it way back in 2008 when things were very different, both for me and for technology in schools. In the intervening six years I've been through my own personal crisis and two job changes. For a while, I was working for the local government (technically I'm still employed by them), and always felt a little hesitant about posting. Now, I'm working for a University, and I thought if nothing else, it might be worth resurrecting my blog for my students (hello students!).

I've just been to a big education technology conference (more about this in the next post), which has provided me with some motivation to keep going. I am on the right path here, and I hope that I can bring some of you along for the ride.