From the onset, my assumptions were proven wrong. As Rob van Son stated in his opening post:

However, the most remarkable thing about any ICT4E assessments to decide on the introduction of ICT in education would be their uniqueness in history. One reason such assessments are so scarce is that there are few (if any) historical examples of assessments of any kind done before the introduction of an educational reform. Even less examples where the outcomes of the assessments really mattered in decision making.

This opinion was backed up in the comments with the general consensus similar to John LeBaron’s comment that while assessemnts themselves are not bad, but we don’t have the right assessment tools and their outcomes would be misused anyway.

Mary Hooker’s response was more in line with my thoughts – she opened with:

Yes we do need to assess ICT4E initiatives more particularly when we are working in environments with scarce resources as in the developing world where investment in ICT can constitute what Unwin (2004) describes as a ‘wasteful tragedy’ if it is not managed and utilized properly.

But then surprisingly, quickly agreed with many of the issues raised by Rob van Son – ICT4E assessments don’t capture outcomes very well, and are often disregarded because the entrenched practices of conventional schooling has strict rules that constrain and retard transformational curricular innovation, especially ICT integration.

Yet, Clayton Wright brought up a great point:

From a western perspective, the benefits of technology are obvious. But in the developing world, perhaps only the benefits of mobile phones, ATMs, and radio seem obvious. When given a choice, local officials would probably spend funds on providing clean drinking water, toilet facilities, medicine, and seeds for crops rather than spend it on ICTs. Local educators would want more teachers not computers. Thus, I believe that evaluations are necessary to demonstrate to the local officials and national policy makers that ICTs are worth the investment. They need to know what local problem(s) ICTs can address or opportunities that are possible.

How can we assure them that technology should be on an equal footing with other educational investments then? Can we really take Rob van Son’s title, “Stop Wasting Children with ICT4E Assessments” to heart? Is he right when he says:

There is little hope that ICT4E assessment as it is organized today will uncover anything that will actually influence educational practices. History is plainly against us. A full blown assessment about “Is [fill in ICT4E solution] a cost-effective improvement” will take years to complete, cost serious amounts of money, and will be irrelevant when published. The worst effect will be the delay which will deprive yet again several cohorts of school children in poor countries of adequate education.

In addition, if all teaching methods that are based on “transmitting knowledge” instead of “recreating knowledge” (aka Constructivism) fail to change the naive preconceptions of students, how does ICT then impart a better knowledge creation system than an increased focus on better teachers and more involved instruction? Rob van Son responded with a reasonable argument:

I think the old Oxford model of a lector and a few students is best. What ICT can do is help in situations where there is a lack of adequate teachers. But such a support cannot be “proven effective” using standard evaluation procedures based on current grading practices. On the other hand, evidence based educational methods are still not generally accepted. So I suggest to try to find a common ground where both the “establishment” and “evidence based research” can meet to improve education for disadvantaged schools. This is much better than waiting for an (elusive) consensus on evidence based educational reform.

In her second post, Mary Hooker agrees with Rob – there are inadequacies of evaluating the use of ICT and its potential for transformational innovation in education systems that are intent on simply harnessing it for maintaining the status quo. It doesn’t help that ICT is also multifaceted, with effects and impact beyond the expected, event by experts.

Worse, ICT is also very fast moving. With the quick change in technology (netbooks, mobile phones, Internet access) over the last few years, long-term studies of ICT impact can be obsolete before they are even finished. To this Mary Hooker responds that the focus should be not the devices then. ICT does not exist in isolation but within a larger socio-cultural context of the school and education system.

Which to me, brings us to classic Change Management – the systematic process of creating organizational change.

In that context, should ICT4E assessments ignore the technology – it changes to fast and is too hard measure its impact – and focus on assessing the ability of educational systems to best adopt ICT usage to their goals? A shift from “device X helps Y amount in reaching Z learning outcome” into “school system A has B ability to incorporate C amount of technological change within its current resource constraints” and then leave the school systems themselves to experiment with different technology?

We recognize the inadequacies of evaluating the use of a tool and its potential for transformational innovation in education systems that are intent on simply harnessing it for maintaining the status quo. As Rob (on the other side) observed ‘any real assessment of educational reform requires a new reflection on what skills and knowledge the children are supposed to acquire at school’.

And so in my response I would like to revisit the question presented by Wayan and reflect a little more on its parameters. I would also like to draw on commentary from both sides of the discussion (quite a lot of comments on your side Rob) to tease out some of the issues.

Do we need to assess ICT4E initiatives?

Rob notes that most reforms have historically been imposed without scientific support but rather on political prejudices. However the sense of fatigue with the failure of education reform syndrome is perhaps changing as we migrate into a 21st century information age. And as we do so, we are witnessing a growing discrepancy between school and the ‘outside world’ – where information, knowledge, innovation and creativity are replacing the traditional sectors of commerce and industry – and where new technologies are changing the way we interact, communicate, socialize and network.

It is a world where mobile connectivity is becoming commonplace and where digital literacy is a critical tool for social interaction, knowledge exchange and construction. If schooling fails to transform itself, it may be transformed albeit haphazardly by the technological transformation outside its gate – and perhaps in a way that may be detrimental to learning.

There is also the challenge of digital divides, both between societies and within societies – with access denied to the poorest and most marginalized. ICT is seen as bridging such major divides. There is thus a renewed sense of urgency, despite the fatigue, for systemic ICT investment and reform to provide all learners with skills they will need for meaningful participation in the economic, social and culture life of new knowledge-based economies and societies.

In such scenarios of massive large-scale investment and reform, assessments are needed to hold systems accountable. Assessments can also provide policymakers with the gateway they need to direct systemic change. As Clayton observes in his comments ‘evaluations are necessary to demonstrate to the local officials and national policy makers that ICTs are worth the investment’. They can help them to identify factors to best influence ICT impact (changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, teacher training) and well as the barriers to ICT use, such as lack of skilled support and adequate infrastructure.

If we assess, how do we do it?

Juan in his commentary describes his skepticism as to the relevance of some of the ICT evaluations he has come across over the years – in particular studies on proprietary software where the emphasis is more on evaluating technology than learning. He notes the lack of comparison with alternative activities and for cost effectiveness. John also comments that effective assessments have not been designed. On cost effectiveness John finds shocking a US study illustrating a lack of empirical research in an area where billions of dollars have been invested. What is particularly ‘unsettling’ is the notion that politicians don’t seem to care.

Yet I wonder John if it is a question that politicians don’t care or that there is a sense of exasperation with the lack of defined mechanisms for informing decision making for such a massive scale of investment and change? Scheuermann, Kikis and Villalba (2009) discuss the lack of clear information in most studies about the multifaced effects and impact of ICT on the learner and learning. It is a situation that is ‘especially unsatisfying for policy-making stakeholders that aim at defining evidence-based strategies and regulatory measures for effective ICT implementation and efficient use of resources’ (ibid. p. 1).

There are calls for more widely accepted indicators and methodological approaches to assess inputs, utilization and outcome/ impact of ICT integration initiatives in order to address this gap (Trucano, 2003; Blanskat et al. 2006; cited in ibid.). Yet there still remain limitations in these approaches on measuring the impact of ICT use – as they often represent a snapshot – a one time, one level approach. Ian comments on the ‘imperfection’ of the data collection in such evaluations more often conducted to appease funder insistence for seeing ‘educational’ results. He also draws attention to the difficulty in attributing the said results to the ICT intervention.

A more powerful approach is the use of indicators within development models of ICT integration in education – to study the progressive phases through which teachers and students adopt and use ICT. Morel’s Matrix is an instrument that can be used for evaluating the degree to which ICTs have been integrated in an educational system through four distinct successive phases: a) emerging, b) applying, c) integrating, and d) transforming.

In GeSCI we have developed an ICT-Education matrix to assist our partners in focusing on what teachers and learners actually do when they use ICTs in schools and institutions through each of the four successive phases (Figure 1). Such models when used to guide Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation (PME) in combination with the indicators approach can offer clearer outcomes on what the integration of ICTs in education should look like at each development stage.

Figure 1: GeSCI ICT- Education Matrix

I like Mark Beckford’s observation in that the key to assessment is to keep it ‘simple but useful’. We hope in developing PME tools as the ICT-Education matrix for our partners that we can do just that.

Related Link

Scheuermann, F., Kikis, K. & Villala, E. 2009. A framework for Understanding and Evaluating the Impact of Information and Communication Technology in Education Available online & accessed 23 November 2009

It seems that it does not matter so much in what you excel, only that you excel. Not coincidentally, this was also the main driving force behind the Chinese imperial examinations in the previous post.

In academic circles, there is a lot more interest in really measuring performance. But in these studies, very specific questions are asked in relation to bounded problems. Nothing like, “Are computers useful?”, because such a question is unanswerable in principle. There are well researched evaluation methods, see the companion post by Mary Hooker. A lot has been learned how children respond to formal education, and how they will learn (better). So the question is, why are these methods not used?

To get a glimpse of an answer, it is illuminating to listen (literally) to David Hestenes who has done ground braking research on the understanding of basic physics in students. His talk “Naïve beliefs about physics and education” is available on-line as a presentation and audio talk.

Simplified to the bare basics, almost everyone seems to believe that education is about the transmission of a substance, called knowledge, to the memories of the students. The schools function as a retail outlet of knowledge. Evaluation of education centres around determining how much of this substance ends up inside the heads of the students. Research has shown that students can indeed reproduce a lot of the factoids sprinkled in the teaching and textbooks when tested. However, when tested in ways that require real understanding of the basic concepts, a majority of students fail completely (see examples in the slides).

His research brought David Hestenes to the conclusion that all teaching methods that are based on “transmitting knowledge” instead of “recreating knowledge” (aka Constructivism) fail to change the naive preconceptions of students.

Summarizing the above in combination with the previous post, there is little hope that ICT4E assessment as it is organized today will uncover anything that will actually influence educational practices. History is plainly against us. A full blown assessment about “Is [fill in ICT4E solution] a cost-effective improvement” will take years to complete, cost serious amounts of money, and will be irrelevant when published. The worst effect will be the delay which will deprive yet again several cohorts of school children in poor countries of adequate education.

I think we must take a common sense approach instead. While waiting for the dissemination of the results of scientific research into the general population we should start with trying to find common ground with teachers, politicians, and parents. That is, seek for approaches that will allow all involved to reach a consensus on that will benefit children now.

Computers alone have benefits

Computers are useful in disseminating information, eg, electronic books, libraries, wikipedia, and as communication devices, eg, email, IM, video. They are great for writing and calculations and can greatly improve collaborative efforts. They are also great at stimulating children to read and write, eg, email, stories, their own blog, to explore their society and the world, and to get exposed and experienced in new languages. And they require and exercise skills that will be valuable in the workplace later.

There might be problems in languages with very little digital content for children. However, experience taught us that the existence of a large “market” of on-line computers is quickly followed by content. Even if the content has to be free (as on the Internet).

Computers in education have more benefits

One really unique benefit of computers is that it is possible to set up applications that allow students to practice skills that could before only be practiced in the presence of a teacher. Teachers can then spend more time on children who need personal attention.

This has been used in language learning for decades. Speaking practice, and reading and writing assignments, have been automated before. Students listen to recordings and record their own speech. Just listening to recordings of your own voice helps you correcting mistakes. There are currently even (limited) applications where a computer application can actually help students correct their writing and pronunciation.

As an example, I will plug here a Free Software (GPL) project to learn Mandarin tone distinction in which I participated: SpeakGoodChinese.

Enough with Assessments – Implement Already

I conclude that schools that lack resources like books and libraries, and over all, the required number of qualified teachers, will greatly benefit from implementing sensible ICT solutions that substitute for these shortages and improve teachers’ effectiveness.

All parties involved seem to agree that ICT solutions could ameliorate a least some of the problems in resource poor schools. But this approach also implies that ICT solutions should not be restricted to the classroom. Practice, studying, and reading should be done at home, collaboration and communication is done everywhere. What use is it to have school books and email on a computer when the student has no access to the computer?

There is obviously one caveat: ICT can only be useful if the (real) total cost of ownership can be made bearable.

ICTs can be powerful, essential tools for learning: understanding, interpreting and communicating about the real world OR they can be black holes into which we pour our money, intelligence and time, getting very little in return.
Dr. Patti Swarts, Education Specialist (GeSCI)

1. Do we really need to assess ICT4E initiatives?

In a word – yes. Yes we do need to assess ICT4E initiatives more particularly when we are working in environments with scarce resources as in the developing world where investment in ICT can constitute what Unwin (2004) describes as a ‘wasteful tragedy’ if it is not managed and utilized properly.

There is no doubt that ICT in education presents countries with great opportunities. I suppose this would support the perceived notion presented in this forum discussion that the benefits of technology are obvious – on a par with the obvious benefits of electricity. However the use of any technology whether ICT or otherwise also bring challenges – which need to be addressed if the benefits are to be realized.

Some of the ICT challenges in Education relate to, cost, sustainability, optimising usage and making teaching and learning meaningful for students, and relevant for the development of the country. Many policy makers, planners, managers, and practitioners still lack experience, knowledge, and judgment capabilities in the systems, methods, and media involved in what is still an emerging field of ICT in Education.

This lack of experience is particularly evident when dealing with the integration of the newer ICT technologies such as 1:1 saturation models. In my organization, the Global e-Schools and Community Initiative (GeSCI), we believe that assessment is essential for addressing such challenges.

2. Are ICT4E assessments effective in measuring outcomes?

I find that the belief presented in this discussion that ICT evaluations are necessarily flawed – because we do not have the correct tools to assess ICT impact in conventional systems – has some resonance in the literature. In a GeSCI commissioned meta-review research on ICT in Education, Le Baron and Mc Donough (2009) discuss the “grammar of schooling” (Arbelaiz & Gorospe 2009 cited in ibid.) – as in the entrenched practices of conventional schooling where ‘rules constrain transformational curricular innovation especially ICT integration’.

In this context Angeli and Valanides (2009 cited in ibid.) support a view that the transformational impact of ICT would require ‘a clear, commonly understood epistemological framework’ in order for ‘teachers to understand ICT’s transformational potential or for educational decision makers to assess whether or not high standards are being met’.

Despite the lack of such a common framework for understanding and assessment, I would agree with Clayton’s comment in this forum that even if we don’t have a perfect tool to evaluate ICT impact as yet, we should still employ what we have and in the process refine our tools.

3. Do we even have the tools to tell if they are effective? What tools are those?

There are several methods for monitoring and evaluating ICT in Education projects. Two of the most common approaches cited by Wagner et al. (2005) are Outcome Mapping (OM) and Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) – the former focusing on assessing the changes that programmes bring about in the behaviour and actions of stakeholders (e.g. officials, teachers, parents) – the latter focusing on assessing results in terms of products and services (e.g. curricula, teacher training, educational software) of a programme.

4. Are we really using these assessment tools correctly?

There is an emerging view that M&E traditional frameworks are not enough. There is a need to include components of applied research for ‘proof of concept’ – to provide more rigorous, field-tested knowledge about a) what works and why, b) how the initiative could contribute to educational development priorities (access, quality, capacity and relevance), c) the enabling conditions and barriers for taking the initiative to scale, and d) what might be the result of large scale application ( Batchelor & Norrish n.d.).

In GeSCI we take the process further – we believe that for M&E/research on ICT in Education to have any impact, the results must inform and shape policies and programmes and be adopted in practice. It is the interaction between these three dimensions that we believe is necessary to maximize the potential of ICT use for transformational impact in education systems.

Figure 1. Stakeholder facilitation in GeSCI research framework

5. And regardless of the outcomes, should we really wait for long-term results, or should we implement ICT4E deployments now, as the case is compelling enough already?

In a word – maybe. The case is not compelling. However governments made nervous by the digital / knowledge divide between developed and developing worlds are implementing ICT4E deployments anyway. What we should do is focus our efforts to pursue a deeper and broader research and evaluation agenda.

In my view such an agenda should shift from the current focus of much contemporary ICT –Education evaluation and research on quantitiatively measured learning outcomes (long term results and potentially problematic in terms of cause/effect attribution) – towards a focus on examining the qualitative potentially ‘distruptive’ force of technology such as saturation models to shake the “grammar of schooling” in transofmrative ways.

What do others think? Is the case compelling? Should we assess? What should be the focus of our assessment?

References

• Batchelor, S. and Norrish. P. n.d. Framework for the Assessment of ICT Pilot Projects . Available from infoDev & accessed 10 November 2009
• Le Baron, J. and Mc Donough, E. 2009. Research Report for GeSCI Meta-Review of ICT in Education – Phases One and Two. Available from GeSCI & acccessed 10 November 2009
• Unwin, T. 2004. Towards a framework for the use of ICT in Teacher Training in Africa. Available from infoDev & accessed 11 November 2009
• Wagner, D.A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R.B., Miller, J., and Unwin, T. 2005. Monitoring and Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects: A Handbook for Developing Countries. Available from infoDev & accessed 10 November 2009

.

However, the most remarkable thing about any ICT4E assessments to decide on the introduction of ICT in education would be their uniqueness in history. One reason such assessments are so scarce is that there are few (if any) historical examples of assessments of any kind done before the introduction of an educational reform. Even less examples where the outcomes of the assessments really mattered in decision making.

In my country alone, the Netherlands, we have just evaluated decades of sweeping educational reforms. Dutch results (sadly, only in Dutch).

One of the conclusions was that indeed, large reforms (e.g., “Het nieuwe leren”, or the new learning) were imposed without scientific support. Another that political prejudices, not any kind of data, were the main motivating factor in the reforms.

Just last week, the results came out about an assessment of yet another reform, in teaching arithmetic in primary education, implemented without “proper” assessment before introduction. Performance in arithmetic had declined and the fight was on which method was better, the “realistic” based instruction which is currently used or the classical, practice based method. The conclusion was that declining standards were caused by the teachers themselves having sub-standard arithmetic skills. So now the teachers will get remedial courses.
(see Evaluation of arithmetic teaching, again only in Dutch).

I am sure every reader can add examples from their own country where sweeping reforms were only assessed long after they had been implemented. The alternative, assessing educational reforms well before introduction, is a form of social engineering. Social engineering seems to always be more difficult than you think. And I think history has shown that education is no exception in this respect.

ICT4E Assessments are always biased

Historically, educational policies are completely determined by the political and religious believes of the parents and, by extension, the politicians and teachers. Scientific “facts” are never appreciated unless they completely align with the preconceptions of the “stake-holders” (minus the children). We might lament it, but such is the world. This is made worse by the fact that few parents actually understand what their children are learning. So the parents are likely to try to improve upon a schooling model of thirty years ago, to prepare children for a world which does not exist anymore.

On the ICT side, those who are old enough to have experienced the introduction of personal computers in the work place will remember that the introduction was definitely not the result of an assessment on the productivity. Accountants and secretaries were trained on computers because everybody understood the usefulness of Wordperfect and Lotus1-2-3. No questions asked. The same with the introduction of Faxes and Email. This lead to some weird discussions in economic circles “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics“.

So why would ICT4E assessments be different? They are not. But they are beautiful handles for political fights.

ICT4E Assessments are inaccurate

But lets suppose we will do such an assessment for ICT4E. What will be tested is very simple: Does this ICT4E solution improve scores on existing tests. The outcome can be predicted quite accurately:

• In resource poor schools, current practices are not optimized for the tests. Any improvement of resources, whatever resources they might be, will improve test scores indiscriminately
• In resource rich school, current practices are already optimized for maximal test scores, i.e., teaching for the test. No increase of resources will improve test scores.

The problem here is that the tests have been adapted to the curriculum, and vice versa. An illuminating example is mathematics education in the USA. Read A Mathematician’s Lament (PDF) by Paul Lockhart. From page 15:

In place of a natural problem context in which students can make decisions about what they want their words to mean, and what notions they wish to codify, they are instead subjected to an endless sequence of unmotivated and a priori “definitions.” The curriculum is obsessed with jargon and nomenclature, seemingly for no other purpose than to provide teachers with something to test the students on.

No mathematician in the world would bother making these senseless distinctions: 2 1/2 is a “mixed number,” while 5/2 is an “improper fraction.” They’re equal for crying out loud. They are the same exact numbers, and have the same exact properties. Who uses such words outside of fourth grade?

Students must learn completely useless factoids for the benefit of having something to test and they learn them because they are tested on these useless factoids. Like the distinction between mixed number and improper fraction of the example or (lower on the same page) the equally useless definition for sec x as 1/cos x.

The ultimate, bad, example of the parasitic relation between teaching and testing was English language teaching at Japanese schools. Testing was done exclusively with multiple choice tests. Formally, Japanese students earned high grades in the tests on English, but in reality they were at the rock bottom of proficiency in the world (see The Enigma of Japanese Power by Karel van Wolferen).

Assessments and the Chinese exams syndrome

The classical Chinese imperial examinations were the ultimate in pointless testing and learning for the test. Since the Han dynasty (200 BC), applicants to government positions were required to do an Imperial exam.

What is relevant to this discussion is that the contents of the exams were utterly disconnected from the work the civil servants were supposed to do and equally disconnected from any other form of reality of the time. But students would commit most of their waking time to study for these exams.

Obviously, these are extremes, but all curricula contain items that are there not because students might benefit from knowing them but to allow testing. On the other hand, all curricula skip items that the children should know but cannot be tested (easily). Testing students is important. But we all know that testing students to assess comprehension and mastering of the subject matter is only half the truth.

The other half is that we test to force students to study, which seems to benefit from sprinkling factoids to memorize throughout the lessons. As all humans, students won’t work if they do not see the benefit, and passing the grade is the easiest incentive. But we also know how this can backfire when the students will limit themselves to root learning the useless factoids just to pass the grade without any comprehension. The Chinese exams syndrome still affects many school systems.

But if we realize this, what would be the use of doing a ICT4E assessment? We would simply hide the failings of the existing system without uncovering the benefits and shortcomings of the new system.

Test Aptitude, not ICT4E

If we want to test whether changes in education really improve learning, we do have other tools. They are called aptitude tests.

What we do know is that learning is a function of practice. To learn you have to practice. To learn to read, you have to spend time reading. The more time you spend reading, the better you will read. To understand geography, you have to study maps, the more maps you study, the better you will understand geography. To learn a new language, you have to read and write in that language. Even better, listen and speak the language.

By the way, the easiest way to increase the English proficiency of children is to broadcast all TV show in original with subtitles. See “What We Can Learn From Foreign Language Teaching in Other Countries” (PDF)

Note that conventional (high-)school tests tend to grapple with language proficiency. In the Japanese example above, any improvement of teaching real English proficiency would have seriously decreased test performance as it would have taken time away from root learning the answers to the multiple choice questions.

So an assessment which investigates whether a change in teaching practices improves the times spend on really practicing skills and learning the subject will automatically tell you whether children learn “more”.

In the end, any real assessment of any educational reform requires a new reflection on what skills and knowledge the children are supposed to acquire at school. Only then is it possible to compare the old and the new. But this is both independent of ICT4E and a political hornets nest.

I’ve heard this refrain repeated often since then, and not just by those promoting technology in schools. Its a equal thought from those that feel geek lust is clouding our judgment and we should focus on teachers, not technology. Its also promoted by those that point out changes to educational methodologies have often happened by force of will, not empirical results.

Now, Nicholas Negroponte is putting forth the idea that one computer per child is like electricity – such an accepted benefit for society that we’ve moved on from discussing its impact to just looking for the right models to fund it.

While we may have differencing opinions on OLPC or its benefits, the basic questioning of ICT4E evaluations is compelling. Starting with the simple question of “Do we need assessments?” we can branch into related questions that examine the basic assumptions we hold dear, like:

1. Are ICT4E assessments effective in measuring outcomes?
2. Do we even have the tools to tell if they are effective?
3. What tools are those?
4. Are we really using these assessment tools correctly?
5. And regardless of the outcomes, should we really wait for long-term results, or should we implement ICT4E deployments now, as the case is compelling enough already?

For November, the Educational Technology Debate will focus on assessments of ICT initiatives in education – how we can both validate them and use them correctly to improve ICT4E overall. For discussants we’ll be joined by the following experts:

• Mary Hooker
  Mary Hooker is an education specialist with over 30 years experience working in the educational sector in Ireland and Africa. Since 2007 Mary has been working with the Global eSchools and Communities Initiative. Mary is currently engaged in studies for a Doctorate in Education with Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland.
• Rob van Son
  Rob van Son was a subject in early Computer Supported Education experiment in the 1980′s, and since worked on everything from small 8088 PCs and the first Mac to modern multi-core file and web servers. Rob is a linguistics expert with a focus on integrating information in spoken communication for Universiteit van Amsterdam. Rob has a PhD in linguistics.

Please join us for what we all expect to be a lively and informative conversation exploring assessment validity and tools for ICT4E. Your input can start right now in the comments below, and Mary and Rob will post their opening remarks beginning Monday, November 9.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

.