The great thing about - and the problem with - technology is that it’s fast moving. That’s particularly true in edtech, where the landscape is littered with theories, manifestos, toolkits, software solutions and broken promises.

In 2012, I inherited a module called ICT in Education, taken in the second year of Blackburn College’s education studies course - a bachelor’s degree that prepares students for a wide range of roles, including teaching, youth work and leadership. The module was based on competency in Microsoft Office tools, using plagiarism software and utilising the internet for research. Assessment was via a 2,000-word critical essay on technology in education and a similar-sized exam on two case studies.

It felt dusty, worn and pointless (but met the requirements of the university). It was supposed to prepare students for life in primary and secondary schools - but in a world that was already long gone.

The need to upgrade the course was obvious. But we knew we needed to find meaningful use, criticality and skills that would stay relevant across the years rather than becoming obsolete.

Our students are diverse, with a wide variety of ages, backgrounds and entry routes. They do not bring a universal aptitude for technology but have a wide spectrum of skills and experience.

In collaboration with them, we had to consider what to include in a digital education and how we would generate critical and theoretical frameworks of evaluation, use and application.

First, we created a three-year technology strand that developed awareness commensurate with a three-year degree.

People often generate an online presence unintentionally, so we wanted to raise awareness of what digital identities we had and how we might develop these for various professional purposes. As such, in year one, students create an online identity based on awareness of different types of network, and develop academic skills using technology. They are assessed through a digital portfolio and authentic digital identity.

In year two, they develop critical and evaluative skills in how technology is used in conventional and changing educational contexts. They are assessed through an evaluation of technologies, used in a specific context, and an interactive essay.

In year three, they complete a “technology-enhanced learning project”, applying technologies through dialogue and co-creation in a community or educational context.

Rather than looking at how to use technology, the emphasis is on why and what to do with it.

Interaction and innovation

The interactive essay (IE) in year two is at the heart of the change, where innovation faces convention. We created it with two distinct goals: to apply developing skills in using audio, video, websites, animation, blogs, online materials and other existing technologies to tell their stories; and to create a network of peers and mentors in their area of study with whom they could share ideas.

The concept has several innovative elements: using multiple forms of media to present knowledge; evaluating the tools used, and making informed and measured choices based on purpose, effectiveness and appropriateness; writing for various audiences and avoiding academic-only presentation; and operating from a mantra of “avoid design in isolation” to escape the common issues of technology being imposed on people without prior dialogue.

Similarly innovative was the decision to allow students to write their own essay questions based on the topics covered on the course and applied to an area they either knew or aspired to engage more deeply with.

As a result, we’ve seen significant works created looking at the benefits and limitations of technology in primary education - from cyber bullying and online safety, to gamification, to the impact of austerity on school technologies, to the marketisation of educational technology and the nature of digital divides.

We also provide a standard question for those less willing to explore their own topic areas. This asks for a critical discussion on any impact technology has had on the student experience in higher education (about 25 per cent of students take this option each year).

The essay requires organisation of time and resources, and must be submitted at the end of the 12-week module.

As with a standard essay, it has a word limit (2,000 words); this encourages greater care in deciding the time each element will be given. Animation and video creation are powerful, for example, but require greater effort behind the scenes and this becomes a part of the students’ learning experience.

We initially had issues over validation, where the move away from a traditional and familiar essay was contentious. We provided a strong, research-based academic justification and we were lucky to have supportive academic advocacy on the panel.

Quality guidelines needed to be amended and developed to include this type of assessment, and it was resisted at first. We had to be assertive in highlighting the fact that our approach was more valuable than what we planned to replace.

Our resistance to teaching any new technologies as part of the module was also questioned. But we were acutely aware that technologies proliferating in 2012 might not be anywhere to be seen in 2014, never mind 2019 (voting sticks, anyone?). This challenge to explore, trial and apply was necessary in creating critical digital educators who could respond to future scenarios just as well as the here and now.

Initial student responses were muted. Prolonged exposure to, and familiarity with, traditional essays meant the move away from these was unsettling for some. But now, several years in, we have seen that the initial horror is almost a necessary starting point for meaningful change. It is followed by exploration, experiences of frustration and epiphany, self-reflection and authentic and original production.

Early examples saw students reading a prepared essay to a fixed camera. Students have since used video to create short documentaries, to present interview responses from primary data and citations from recordings of their sources. Over time, the films have become livelier, narrated and more carefully planned.

Podcasts have grown in popularity and evaluation forms have been built in to blogs to collect feedback from their networks. In more basic approaches, PowerPoint remains a staple as other presentation software, such as EMaze and Prezi, wane in popularity (at the same time as they become fee-based).

It is never the case that the technology makes the essay but it is crucial that, regardless of level of skill or awareness, the students have the opportunity to reflect on their use. Cost, skill, accessibility and usefulness become experiential concerns rather than hypothetical, theoretical contentions.

On a technical level, grades are above module averages and satisfaction survey measures are excellent.

In only one case did a student say they would complete a traditional essay in preference to the interactive essay. Offering this choice is crucial, not least to avoid us becoming another pound of pressure in the push toward technology.

In the seven years since inception, several students have gone on to become teachers with responsibility for ICT in their schools, win awards in colleges for technology innovation and shift career paths to take on master’s qualifications following encouragement from the new networks they’ve created.

From the initial application in 2012, we’ve made strides in developing the concept through funding awarded by the Higher Education Academy Catalyst projects. This allowed us to bring in student interns, intensify our research and create case studies and a co-creation/co-researcher student body.

Students presented to academics (Neil et al, 2017) and the concept was later adopted at universities in Liverpool, Northumbria and Edinburgh. It was massive for us, as a higher education course based in a further education college, to receive wider recognition and justification for our innovation.

We cannot develop educators based on aspirational futures alone and, instead, the concept of the critical digital educator helps us respond to what is, not what should be.

Our mantra of “avoid design in isolation” could be a useful model for edtech advocates as we generate purposeful future practice not stymied by the same old thinking.

Peter Shukie is a lecturer in education studies at Blackburn College

This article originally appeared in the 29 November 2019 issue under the headline “An edtech reboot that has one eye on the future”