Apprenticeship levy: 8 potential pitfalls but it's a game changer

No one predicted the apprenticeship levy in the budget, the Conservatives out-manoeuvred Labour by legislating for a levy on large employers. The truth is that Tristram Hunt was Labour’s Achille’s heel. He knows nothing about vocational learning, just another public schoolboy and academic, dislocated from the reality of the majority of young people, who do NOT go to University. I’m not speculating here. I spoke to him personally on this issue before the election – he was clueless. The truth is that this is a productivity issue, alongside the recognition that the academic route is not for everyone and that the strongest European economies have adopted this models. Tom Wilson, the Director of Unionlearn, called it a game changer. It is. But there are potential pitfalls.

1. Feed from schools

There’s some irony in the fact that Alison Wolf, who recommended this policy, was also responsible for abolishing a huge tranche of vocational learning in schools. With a succession of Labour and Conservative Education Ministers hostile to vocational learning in schools, the EBacc has all but led to its disappearance. We can insist on academic qualifications for entry into apprenticeships but this will be a hindrance for many, not a help, especially in Maths. The solution is a functional maths alternative.

2. Quality control

Apprenticeships are not trivial. They demand quality control. There’s background theory and knowledge, actual practice in the workplace, as well as attitudinal and pastoral issues. In many ways it’s more complex than degrees. Additionally, they’re sector specific. We’ve had the trailblazers in some sectors, which act as exemplars but there’s much more work to be done. The important thing is to stick with it and not get too critical too early. Mistakes will be made but we owe it to young people to get this right. An apprenticeship needs to be structured with good support for students. These are young people who need guidance and support, not treated as cheap labour. We need the best of employer training and practice, as well as strong educational components. There has to be adequate regulation, namely an overseeing body, to keep everyone honest.

4. Brand through accreditation

Credible accreditation matters in terms of employer, parent and student acceptance. We need to create a credible currency, whether its independent accreditation bodies, such as City & Guilds, educational institutions or employer accreditation. It’s a matter of building the brand to sustain effort into the future. This is all about seeing apprenticeships as a viable alternative.

5. Money matters

The levy levels the playing field. If you don’t have apprenticeships, you either do them, or pay, so that there are opportunities for others. It will be interesting to see whether this will be linked to revenue, profits or payroll. We don’t how much the levy will be or how it is to be collected (suggestion is 0.5% of payroll: £2 billion). It has to be high enough to pay for the 3 million apprenticeships promised by 2020, without the Conservatives resorting to statistical jiggery-pokery, to get to that figure. 3 million apprenticeships over 5 years needs a lot of money – billions (plural) not millions.

6. SMEs

One immediate problem is the large company focus. Our economy is also driven by small and medium sized companies. One would hope that opportunities are also available in this context. This is not easy but selected criteria, around high growth, high productivity sectors, may allow some of these to participate. The public sector also has to respond.

7. Technology support

There is a real opportunity to use technology to manage apprentices, who are in many different locations. This is not just tracking but supporting them and spotting potential drop-out. There’s also an opportunity to get scale on the delivery of content. This is not blue-sky, as it’s already been implemented in pools of excellence. To ignore technology is to ignore the present.  The point is not to recreate the apprenticeships of the past but those of the future.

8. England only

This is employer-led but as the levy only applies in England, and many large companies operate across the UK in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, how will those countries respond. It could lead to a drain of apprenticeship activity towards England. It would be great to think that these countries would adopt this policy but they won’t. Interesting tensions here.

Conclusion

I welcome this policy. The idea that forcing everyone into HE is the route to higher productivity is patently false. Our productivity has stagnated in the face of substantial increases in HE student numbers and graduates. We have ignored the majority of young people for decades, leaving them to an underfunded FE system, a truly awful career’s service and the vagaries of the market.

There’s no real problem with the idea of apprenticeships. My nephew and his parents were delighted when he got one in a large company in Scotland. The problem was that he was only one of three, from 588 applicants. The demand is huge, the supply pitiful. Where there’s market failure on this scale, the government has an important role to play. We need to grab this opportunity, shape it and not get bogged down in petty carping. The left must see this as an opportunity and not a form of cheap labour or, as New Labour did, as non-aspirational. The right must not play games and do this on the cheap, with holes that allow employers to exploit the system. Evidence from abroad shows that it needs co-operation between employers, government, training providers, accreditation bodies and unions. So come on CBI, don’t be such a bunch of stupid sceptics. There’s a lot of good people who want to make this work.

Buddha (6th and 5th C BC) - monasticism & mindfulness

The Buddha is thought to have lived across the sixth and fifth centuries BC, although the exact dates are disputed. China contains half of all Buddhists. Outside of China are Thailand (13%), Japan (9%), Burma (Myanmar) (8%), Sri Lanka (3%), Vietnam (3%), Cambodia (3%), South Korea (2%), India (2%) and Malaysia (1%). Seven countries have Buddhist majorities: Cambodia, Thailand, Burma (Myanmar), Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Laos and Mongolia, where Buddhism plays a significant role in education through the monastic tradition and monastery schools.

Buddha as teacher

Teaching is one of the Buddha’s nine epithets as an ‘Awakened One’ but the texts show a man who is detached and hesitates to teach. There is no rush to action in his teaching of the road to enlightenment, as that would stimulate the very desires he wants to still. It should not surprise us, therefore, that the Buddha was disinclined to teach, as throughout his life, his method was largely by example. This also explains why he said so little about education and teaching. Buddhism is a practice, an inward looking practice that attempts to still the brain, not fill the mind with knowledge of the earthly word, the world of illusion, nor stimulate critical thought. However, there are parables and stories the Buddha tells that show his willingness to explain, such as the ‘Fields’ parable and use of the ‘Lotus’ as an analogous device. Bearing this in mind, one can see why Buddhism has not been a major force in educational thought but had been a force in religious, and therefore educational, practice.

What is taught

The Buddha, is seen as the route to understanding, living and ultimately enlightenment. The moral guidelines are clear with a focus on honesty, purity, truthfulness, kindness and sobriety.  Generosity and self-sacrifice are also strong traits. Above all, the sublimation of the self away from greed and selfishness characterizes Buddhist education. There is, therefore, a strong belief in cooperation not competition. This is in direct opposition to many western values of individualism and education as a preparation for an active life and for a competitive position in the job market.

In Buddhism, the mind is everything and peace and enlightenment come from within. This is not a filling of the mind with knowledge but a stilling of the mind. There is teaching of sacred texts but the Noble Eightfold Path requires one to live a life based on a right view, right thought, right speech, right conduct, right vocation, right effort, right attention and right concentration. This is far from the liberal arts tradition in the west or more recent pragmatic use of education in the East. It’s influence is more through cultural norms than its direct influence on education.

Monastic education

One significant cultural and methodological effect is the monastic tradition. The monastic tradition in Buddhism and submission to religious teachers and practices within monasteries is the mainstay of Buddhist education. To become a monk or nun is an alternative form of schooling in many in countries of South-East Asia. It was the mainstay in many countries before the modern era and still plays an important role as a supplement or alternative to state schooling.

Zen buddhism

Interestingly, the monastic tradition wasn’t taken up with relish in China, as it clashed with the Confucian idea of staying within the family, so Zen Buddhism, a more personalized form of enlightenment, linked to Daoism, emerged. Zen teacher-master exchanges are a pedagogic product of this particular tradition. ‘Koans’ are stories or dialogues that are used to illustrate or a method to practice Zen teaching. The teacher guides the student, through dialogue, to Zen enlightenment.

Mindfulness

The recent rise of Mindfulness in education is one example of Buddhist ideas influencing western workplaces and education, as the world becomes globalized, so ideas flow from one culture to another. This mix of Buddhist meditation, that took root in California in the 60s is alive and well in Silicon Valley today. It could best be described as a genuine religious practice, twisted somewhat for use for use by corporations.

Conclusion

With approaching half a billion Buddhists one would expect the Buddha and Buddhism to have had a significant effect on education but, apart from the Buddhist monastic tradition, there is little to suggest that it has had a significant effect on educational thought outside of religious teaching. It’s effect is primarily cultural, through moral norms.

VR v AR: the new Battle for reality

Augmented Reality is here with Microsoft’s Hololens. I’ve tried AR, but have doubts when I put these experiences up against VR. Sure they're different types of experiences but which one will become the more dominant consumer choice? Having braved wearing Google Glass in the street, which is AR of a sort, I’m not so sure that it has what it takes to conquer the world. Here’s why.

1. Dick effect

Glassholes, Bluetooth earpieces… we’ve seen this stuff come and go. We’re a vain species and don’t like tech that makes us look like fools. Now you look like a dick with a VR helmet on but you’re in there and it’s so all-encompassing that you don’t care. I’ve had people fall over on me, get up and carry on as if nothing had happened. You don’t see yourself as others see you. In this sense, VR & AR, for the moment, are limited to indoor, site specific uses.

2. Got to be better than existing devices

In all use cases, you have to ask, am I better off with just my mobile, tablet or laptop. I’m seeing precious few examples where I’d wear the Hololens. The publicity video shows a woman below her sink doing some plumbing, wearing the Hololens. Why not just use a tablet? Sure, you’re hands free, but if both work with gestures or voice recognition there’s no real added value.

3. VR overwhelms, AR underwhelms

With AR you feel as though the projected object is actually projected into your eye. It doesn’t have that all encompassing experience of VR ‘presence’. Hololens feels like a souped-up Google Glass. It’s not but it has that feel, commercially. VR is a more holistic experience and seems so rounded. VR overwhelms, AR is good but can underwhelm.

4. Mobile

That’s me with the galaxy gear – mobile VR. VR has this link to mobile. AR doesn’t have that Google cardboard and Gear mobile application. In other words VR has several device routes to market, AR does not. You can pop a mobile into a cardboard or plastic mask and it works.

Gameplay

With VR you have this immediate application in games, where immersion is intrinsic to the experience, even enhances and creates new opportunities for new types of games, especially horror. AR doesn’t have that massive single market to make money and build upon amazing experiences. Sure you can have Minecraft on a table but that’s not enough.

5. Addressable market

Facebook (Oculus) has this 1.5 billion market to draw upon and their product is Facebook, a social tool, loved and used Microsoft’s product is an office tool. Ultimately, developers need to see a clear market and use that to spring the cash for applications. Both have that problem. But VR has the games market, simulations market and destinations market. It also has the movie and TV markets in its sights.

Conclusion

Who really knows? This all comes down to compellinging and innovative user experiences in the consumer market and practical and relevant experiences in other markets. These are two thrilling pieces of tech. Both will eventually succeed but my initial analysis suggests that VR will succeed quicker than AR.

Teachbots - are Robot Teachers are inevitable?

Sure to make most educationalists and teachers splutter with indignation, robot teachers (or at least teaching assistants) may not be far off. I wrote a piece Robot teachers five years ago, and have been following to progress ever since. Teachers will always be with us but can robots extend and enhance learning in the home and classroom? The point, in the short term, is not to replace teachers but to replace the teaching of SOME TEACHING TASKS. Cheap, consumer tech, with brilliant AI and UX software point towards a future where robots will have the affordances necessary for this role.

You already use robots

Robots already play a major role in your world. At any given time you are likely to be wearing, watching, listening to, eating, driving, flying or using something that has been partly made by robots. They are already your manufacturing servants. Why? In some tasks, they outperform humans in precision, consistency, endurance, strength and speed. The lesson is clear. When robots can perform a task more precisely, consistently and with greater endurance and speed than humans, then, given reasonable manufacturing costs and social acceptability, they will be used. Robots have now started to emerge in education and learning.

One-to-one promise

In terms of learning theory that backs up the possibility of robot teaching, let’s start with some research. Bloom is famous for his taxonomy but, in my view, his more substantial contribution was his famous paper, The 2 Sigma Problem where he compared the effectiveness of the lecture (conventional), formative feedback lecture (mastery learning) and one-to-one tuition (tutorial). Taking the straight lecture as the mean, he found an 84% increase in mastery above the mean for a formative approach to teaching and an astonishing 98% increase in mastery for one-to-one tuition. Google’s Peter Norvig famously said that if you only have to read one paper to support online learning, this is it. In other words, the increase in efficacy for one-to-one, because of the increase in on-task learning is immense. This paper deserves to be read by anyone looking at improving the efficacy of

learning as it shows hugely significant improvements by simply altering the way teachers interact with learners. Online learning, in the widest sense of the word, promises what Bloom called ‘one-to-one learning’, whether it’s through self-paced structured learning, scenario-based learning, simulations or informal learning. This points towards the future of learning as being individual, personalized, one-to-one teaching, if possible.

Human-all-too-human

So what about research that backs up the use of robots? Nass & Reeves published a remarkable book The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. They completed 35 experiments to show that people confuse media with real life. This conclusion shows that we have a disposition towards suspension of disbelief when interacting with most media, to see media as having human dimensions. It’s hard-wired. The conclusion we can draw from this, and I did when designing online learning programmes, is that learning experiences, if delivered in a suitably human manner (not necessarily by real humans) can be successful. The key is that learning experience must conform to certain social and physical rules. If we can deliver learning as if it were being delivered by a real person in a realistic way, it works. What Nass & Reeves researched was the role of simple physical and social rules. We respond to politeness, avoiding unnatural pauses, flattery, don’t like harsh judgments and so on. These are the things that we expect in dialogue. If this can be created through robots, AI and good UX, we will will have come a long way towards the one-to-one tuition that Bloom shows is the most effective way to teach.

Design

There is one more dimension to robot learning that matters – design. Donald Norman laid the ground rules for successful technology, the touchstone being its ‘invisibility’. This is true ergonomically but also true of interfaces, which need to be cognitively ergonomic. Norman saw our emotional responses to design in terms of:

1  Visceral (appearance)

2  Behavioural (performance)

3  Reflective (memories and experience)

Interestingly he thinks Americans value 2 more than 1&3, whereas Europeans, at least the cultural classes, value 1&3. He claims that different people buy things with different fuel mixtures of the three emotions. Different companies design to different types of emotions. Great companies, like Apple, deliver all three. As he explains in Living with Complexity, it is not that technology delivers too much complexity. The fact is, we live in a world of complexity, with complex technologies that do complex things. Live with it – that’s reality. The enemy is not complexity, it is dreadful design. Complexity needs to be tamed, masked or made invisible with good design. This is precisely what robots are starting to deliver – great design that makes the mechanics of learning invisible.

Robots meet AI &UX

Most great technology is a combination of technology The iPhone is a cluster of existing technologies where the sum is greater than the parts. Brian Arthur, in The Nature of Technology, thinks that this is an essential feature of technology, the coalescence of existing technologies to create something exciting and new. This is what makes the confluence between robots and AI so exciting.

With adaptive learning (AI in learning), where what the robot delivers (using algorithms) is always in response to who you are, what you know and what you do, we get somewhere towards the necessary one-to-one, personalized and more human-like delivery necessary for robot teaching. Remember also, that machine learning, the ability of the robot to learn, even learn on the back of aggregated data from many learners from a network of robots, could see rapid progress in effectiveness. These adaptive systems are already here. I work with them in real educational institutions with tens of thousands of learners.

Search, speech recognition, gesture recognition, touch screens, text to speech, automatic translation – all of these are now available and only getting better. They are being be embedded into robots. Speech recognition is the big leap but some are also taking advantage of touchscreen interfaces on the chest of the robot. With sensors, movement, balance, vision and hearing, these robots are getting pretty serious.

Early experiments

We’ve had simple robots that allow teachers to teach from a distance in rural schools. The Nexus Academy of Columbia allows teachers to Skype in and control this robot from their computer, going up to student’s desks and checking work. 

Robosem is a Korean Robot used to teach English. It takes a hybrid approach, either using a real teacher via teleconferencing or through autonomous, adaptive  lessons that use speech recognition and motion tracking. There are many of these examples but we are now seeing some serious commercial activity.

NAO

Time to introduce NAO, now used in education in 70 countries. You can teach NAO and NAO can teach you. This is nowhere near the dream I’ve outlined above but it’s a start and it works. With speech recognition, NAO will call you by your first name, teach your child multiplication tables, wake you up, monitor your home if you’re out. NAO will be able to recognize members of the family, your friends, judge moods, know your preferences. This is just one of a slew of early robots that will eventually find a role in education.

Pepper

Now let me introduce Pepper with it’s four microphones, two color video cameras, 3D sensor, touch sensors, bump sensors, lasers, sonar, and gyros positioned in the head, body, arms, and legs, voice recognition and a touchscreen on its chest, with wifi. This companion learns from its environment and draws from it’s cloud-based, updated, master algorithms. It has emotion recognition reading visual expressions and from speech tones. Price: $1900.

Applications

The ‘cute’ factor is the current focus, as these are aimed at young children but the long-term goal is much bolder. I see the first advances in early literacy, numeracy, simple programming, as well as second languages. I also see real applications for children with autism and other differences in learning, where the pressure on parents is immense and the needs often different from traditional classroom learning. Children with autism have been shown to respond positively to synchronised behaviour from a robot. This is used to move the child on to other types of social interaction. Robots have being used to with autistic children using mimicry to establish trust.

Looking to the future, check out this amazing example of robots teaching other robots. Berlin researcher Luc Steels, has developed the robots that learn, speak to each other and speak back.

Beyond this we have Google investing madly in AI and robotics, with Deepmind, created by a learning expert (here for some background to relevance to learning). Google was the obvious buyer for this type of company, as it thinks in terms of deep, basic problems, looking for generic solutions. Google has the eyeballs, brains and behavioural traits of billions of humans. They have the data that matters. This means they can apply Deep Learning solutions on scale. But they’re not the only game in town. IBM’s Watson is set to deliver AI on tap, Microsoft are using AI in their services and the Chinese search giant Baidu are all hiring, buying and experimenting.

Conclusion

As Stanford’s Nass & Reeves showed, we need teaching and learning services to at least appear to be friendly, patient, efficient, polite, relevant, relevant, personalised and…. well social and human. Parents spend hundreds of millions on one-to-one tuition for their kids. Much, much more is spent on teachers and teaching. Robots can give unlimited amounts of attention and help, in ways no teacher, or even parent, can. Robots don’t get hangovers, don’t take holidays, never discriminate on grounds of gender, race or accent. They’re patient, scalable and consistent. Wouldn’t it be wise to pay attention to something that takes at least some of the pain away?