This case study draws on Fiona’s research into the impact of digital technology in schools. The featured example comes from sixth-form teaching, where students had access to individual iPads. Digital search tools supported their preparation before the lesson, while digital mind-mapping software and Microsoft Speaker Coach helped them develop and present their ideas. The activity moved between online research and physical collaborative work, with written material converted into visual and spoken forms.
What was the challenge?
Digital technology is often introduced into schools because it is seen as something modern education ought to include. For Fiona, this starts in the wrong place. The important question is not what a particular device can do, but what learning needs to happen and whether technology can help.
She describes this as a shift from an ‘edtech’ mindset towards a ‘pedtech’ approach, where decisions begin with pedagogy. Without this clarity, schools risk forcing technology into lessons without knowing what difference it is intended to make.
“Historically, a lot of schools thought, ‘Digital is important in the wider world, so we must have digital in our school.’ They shoehorned it into teaching and then wondered why it didn’t make much difference.”
The opportunity in this example was to reconsider how sixth-form students used lesson time. Instead of remaining seated and using technology individually, the aim was to create more space for purposeful talk and collaborative thinking.
What did you do?
Students completed preparatory research before the lesson and brought their findings with them on their iPads. This meant that classroom time did not need to begin with everyone searching for basic information.
Once in the lesson, students worked in small groups around glass writing walls. They discussed what they had found and mapped their ideas directly onto the walls. Because they already had their source material available, they could concentrate on making connections and challenging each other’s interpretations.
The students photographed their shared work and converted it into a digital mind map. This became the structure for a group presentation.
As they rehearsed, they used Microsoft Speaker Coach to receive feedback on their delivery and the clarity of their slides.
The technology did not dominate every stage. At some points it supported the students, while at others it deliberately stayed in the background so that face-to-face discussion could take priority.
“It is not whizzy technology. It is just cleverly sequenced in a really intelligent way.”
Multimodal Use
The learning moved between several modes. Students began with digital research and then developed their thinking through conversation and physical movement around the classroom. Their handwritten notes became photographs, which were transformed into a visual mind map and later communicated through a spoken presentation.
This movement between modes mattered because it allowed each form to serve a different purpose. Digital tools made information readily available, but the students’ discussion was where much of the deeper thinking happened. The mind map helped them organise that thinking before they communicated it to others.
Fiona also highlighted the potential of generative AI to make the relationship between language and visual communication more tangible. In other school-based research, learners used descriptive writing as prompts for AI-generated images. The resulting image gave them immediate feedback on the precision of their language.
“They are seeing a very tangible output. They can see the effect their vocabulary is having.”
Because the response came through the generated image rather than a teacher simply asking for a better word, students appeared more willing to revisit and improve their descriptions.
What did this look like in practice?
The classroom was active rather than desk-bound. Students stood together around the writing walls with their research open on their devices.
They questioned each other, reorganised ideas and gradually produced a shared representation of their understanding.
The photographed wall became a bridge between the physical and digital parts of the lesson. Students did not have to copy the same notes repeatedly. Instead, they could use their time to refine the ideas and prepare to communicate them.
The final presentation was therefore not a separate activity added at the end. It grew directly from the students’ research and collaborative thinking. Speaker Coach provided private feedback during rehearsal, helping students make adjustments before presenting to the class.
Fiona’s analysis suggested that the quality of students’ talk improved. Their conversations became more focused and their vocabulary more precise, moving them towards higher-level questioning.
What was the impact?
One of the clearest effects was on the quality of classroom dialogue. As students had already completed the initial information-gathering, they were ready to discuss the subject in more depth when they arrived.
“The conversation they are having is very targeted. The vocabulary is more precise, so they move into that higher-order thinking space.”
Physical movement also changed the feel of the activity. Students were no longer restricted to speaking with whoever happened to be sitting beside them. They gathered around a shared workspace and could see their thinking develop collectively.
Technology also reduced low-value repetition. Students did not need to write up the same material several times as they moved from notes to planning and presentation. Fiona saw this as a productive use of digital tools because it released time for the parts of learning that depended on students thinking together.
The approach also strengthened learner agency. When digital resources are clearly organised and introduced by the teacher, students can access support when they need it without waiting for someone else to direct them.
Ethical or practical considerations
Access needs to be considered carefully. Individual devices made this example easier to manage, but Fiona emphasised that the central principle was timely access rather than ownership of a particular device.
Accessibility tools also work best when they are part of ordinary classroom practice. If features such as text-to-speech are reserved only for particular learners, they can become visible markers of difference. When they are available to everyone, students can choose the support that helps them without being singled out.
Schools also need to look critically at claims made about technology. Fiona cautioned against accepting simplified headlines about digital learning without examining the research behind them. Debates that position paper and digital tools as opposites can distract from the more useful question of what each enables learners to do.
“It is a contemporary blended toolkit where we choose the right tool for the task. That will be different for different people, and that is okay.”
Reflections and Advice
The strongest feature of this approach was its sequencing. No individual tool was especially complex, but each was introduced at the point where it added something useful to the learning.
Fiona’s advice is to begin with the educational vision rather than the available technology. School leaders need time to ask what learning should feel like in their setting and what they want learners to become. Only then can they decide whether a digital tool supports that purpose.
This kind of thinking cannot be completed in a brief after-school session. It requires space for staff to examine their assumptions and reach a shared understanding of why they are using technology.
The next step would be to explore the approach with different groups of learners and consider where the sequence needs adapting. The aim is not to reproduce the lesson exactly, but to retain its underlying principle: technology should create better conditions for learning rather than simply digitise an existing routine.
Quick start guide for colleagues
Allow time for students to complete some focused preparation before the lesson. In class, give them a shared physical space where they can discuss and organise what they have found. Once their thinking is visible, use a device to capture it and transfer it into a digital format that can support the next stage of the task.
A moderate level of digital confidence is sufficient. The greater challenge lies in planning the sequence and being clear about why each tool is being used. Avoid adding technology to every stage of the lesson or asking students to reproduce the same work in another format without a clear learning benefit.
The approach is particularly well suited to sixth-form or further education teaching where students need to develop subject-specific language and present complex ideas. It can also be adapted for younger learners, provided that the tools and level of independence are appropriate for the group.
