VIEWS & OPINION


Why learners and teachers will reap the benefits of EdTech when it comes to life-long learning


Comment by ALIKI CONSTANTINOU, Educational Consultant, Soffos.ai


Education has been the focus of media attention over the past year, and much has changed in this time. In particular, the rise of asynchronous learning and teaching via video conferencing platforms have ushered in an increased need for innovative educational technology (EdTech). Although these changes have been necessary, disruption to schooling


has adversely impacted learners of all ages. For instance, according to a recent study from the National Foundation for Educational Research, early years students in 2020 were, on average, making two months’ slower progress across a variety of subjects when compared with earlier cohorts. To recover lost progress, educators need to consider what is missing


with online learning models, and remind themselves of what makes teaching and learning most successful.


Investing in EdTech with a “Socratic” edge Much of this comes down to ensuring that online incentives are able to offer the same sort of active, discursive learning that in-person teaching provides – namely, the “Socratic” method of learning. Ordinarily, these incentives take the shape of co-operative dialogue in


the classroom, whereby educators guide and provide students with prompts, encouraging them to pose and answer questions to stimulate their critical thinking capabilities. By encouraging students to challenge presupposed ideas, this results in continuous, lifelong, and active learning, which many experts have commended as one of the most effective means of teaching. Unfortunately, the Socratic method often gets lost in translation when


implemented across digital channels. Naturally, some educators will struggle to hold the attention of their students on Zoom, and as a result, they might not engage as they would in-person.


AI is the answer That’s why institutions need to think outside of the box, and look towards technologies that can replicate Socratic learning outside of the classroom, and even in the absence of a teacher. In the near future, learning platforms that utilize artificial intelligence (AI), as well as natural language processing (NLP) and immersive solutions like augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR) will likely be the answer. These innovations will work to bolster student engagement and


overall educational success. With the ability to conduct thorough knowledge audits to determine what students do (and don’t) already know, AI-driven tech will be able to provide prompts and drive discussion just as a teacher or peer would, but at a level that is reflective of a student’s current level of understanding. Further to this, NLP technologies will ease the plight of overstretched


teachers, who often do not have adequate resources to offer round-the- clock and personalized supervision to every student. Leveraging cutting- edge technologies will mean that each pupil has access to their own classroom assistant, that can personalize their line of inquiry so that they are always actively engaging in their learning. Likewise, these technologies have the ability to maintain records of


their interactions with students, providing teachers with access to sophisticated analytics that can inform their own lesson plans. No doubt, this will make it easier than ever to curate a curriculum that accounts for any collective knowledge gaps and areas for improvement, and amplify student progress. Ultimately, educators have nothing to lose and everything to gain by


harnessing tech solutions to drive their learning incentives, and I am confident that in the future, EdTech will have a large role to play in the pursuit of life-long learning.


22 www.education-today.co.uk


Covid-safe ventilation of school buildings


Comment by ANDREW LERPINIERE, director, Webb Yates Engineers


The guidance and discussion on how indoor ventilation can be used to minimise the risk of airborne transmission of the Covid-19 virus has focused on offices for most of the pandemic, but now attention is turning to schools. Offices are relatively controlled environments with the building manager having a clear view of who uses the building and all occupants knowing how to use the building, with homeworking available to keep occupant numbers within manageable levels. None of this generally applies to schools, however.


The construction industry body CIBSE (Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers) issued version three of its Covid-19 Ventilation Guidance on 15 July 2020, which says: “Evidence continues to suggest that in poorly ventilated indoor spaces airborne aerosols are a possible transmission route and the precautionary advice remains valid.” The precautionary advice was to, “ventilate spaces as much as reasonably possible with outdoor air.”


The question for schools is exactly how to follow that guidance. In a practical sense there is only so much that can be done with any space, whether naturally or mechanically ventilated, to introduce as much outdoor as possible.


In summer 2020 we worked with the Victoria & Albert Museum to assess the existing ventilation provision, using the CIBSE Covid-19 Ventilation Guidance as the basis of the assessment, and implementing the resulting recommendations. The museum had followed the guidance and done all possible to maximise outdoor air supplies, but had it made their spaces Covid-safe? We decided to monitor CO2 levels in every space, initially two to three times a week. We set a target level of 600ppm CO2 or less for all spaces that would be open to the public and consistently met that target, in all public spaces, both before the museum reopened and when visitors returned.


It is not possible to say that 600ppm is a 100% Covid-safe guarantee, but it is probably as close as we can realistically get to outdoor air without being outdoors. The critical point, having done everything to introduce as much outdoor air as possible, is to have some understanding of how ‘safe’ those spaces are.


The same approach could be applied to schools. The vast majority will be naturally ventilated. There will be a huge range in the effectiveness of ventilation and undoubtedly plenty of poorly ventilated classrooms, but I doubt that we really know how well or badly ventilated most schools are.


Monitoring C02 levels, as a direct indication of air quality, is a simple way to measure how well ventilated a classroom is. Thought needs to be given to how this is done; not every classroom in every school needs to be monitored all the time. A standard, scientific approach to gathering data is important. As is an intelligent approach to analysing that data. Schools are full of people who, with a little guidance, would be able to undertake both, at relatively little cost.


It may be that there is a fundamental problem with the ventilation of our schools, and that limitations on ventilation systems in some school buildings make effective outdoor provision almost impossible, but without more extensive measurement we cannot be sure. Understanding the issue makes finding a pragmatic, cost effective solution much more likely.


May 2021


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48