Image 01

Archive for March, 2010

Taking the C out of ICT

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

4040954784 f3fb99475e m Taking the C out of ICT

The title of this post comes from a presentation made by David Anstead at the Naace Strategic Conference in March 2010. To summarise, David’s most contentious suggestion is that we should remove the C (communication) element of ICT. His reasoning for this is that research by Ofsted  has suggested that the ‘communication  and presentation’ element of the ICT curriculum is being over-emphasised in schools and that other elements of ‘data-logging’, ‘control technology’ and ‘using spreadsheets’, were being overlooked. My inference from his presentation was that if we removed the (C)ommunication aspects, we would have more time to devote to those other aspects.

My first reaction upon seeing the graphs that Ofsted produce to show that Communication and Presentation is being fully covered is to take a moment to congratulate schools, staff and pupils for this achievement. Ofsted’s initial response appears to be that we should look at the other aspects of ICT and remove the emphasis upon Communication and Presentation.

When I put this suggestion to teachers, that we should remove ‘communication and presentation’, they were surprised and horrified, saying things like ‘but that’s the best bit’. My own feeling is that if my learners were doing really well in a topic, would I want to stop doing that topic or would I want to stretch it further?  If my learners consistently did well, might it not be an indication  that I am not stretching them, not challenging them enough and not maintaining their interest? In which case, would it not be better to challenge them and stretch them further to regain interest and raise their achievements? Or should I just stop?

Something that has me worried about the findings that Ofsted present is that in their report it indicates that the over-emphasis upon Communication and Presentation is evident in schools where ICT provision is weak; “The Importance of ICT” page 13 para 23. So it appears that this is not quite a common occurrence or one that can be observed equally across all schools but one where the indicators are skewed by the findings in schools with weak ICT provision.

In the light of this paragraph, I’d venture to suggest that the course of approach might not be to remove the Communication and presentation aspect of the ICT curriculum but to seek to strengthen the provision of ICT within these weak schools.

David did support his argument at the conference with a quotation, apparent from a pupil, along the lines of ‘my brother did programming but all we get is PowerPoint’. I seriously doubt the validity of that quotation, had it read ‘father’ instead of ‘brother’ it might have been more accurate as I don’t think ‘programming’ has been taught on any large scale within school curricula for many years.

Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel there is something behind the message that David is giving us here. Pupils do seem to be bored with the ICT curriculum and with powerpoint presentations and probably do want something that engages and challenges them more. In my schooldays or my father’s schooldays, we were inspired to become train drivers or pilots, if I were at school today I guess I might be inspired to become a website designer, a computer games programmer or a designer of apps for mobile devices. Does our current ICT curriculum meet the needs of such aspirations?

I seem to detect a groundswell of opinion in favour of emphasising ICT as a separate subject, giving learners ‘computer skills’ and knowledge of how computers work. This would be distinguished from using technology as a tool to help teach across all subjects. Perhaps Ofsted’s argument is feeding into this viewpoint. However, if we remove the Communication and Presentation aspects, can we honestly say that what is left of the ICT curriculum will give learners the skills and knowledge they seek?

I remain unconvinced that taking the C out of ICT is the right approach. If the over-emphasis upon communication is most marked in schools where ICT provision is weak, then surely the emphasis should be upon strengthening the ICT provision in those schools. If it remains that Communication and Presentation is well taught in schools, then let’s praise that fact and seek to build upon  it by stretching and challenging our learners further and raising their achievements. There is much about communication that is not taught in our schools, such as utilising web2.0 tools, web3.0 and other emerging technologies. Above all, there is more to presentation than PowerPoint. Equally, if we are to give our learners tools they need for the 21st Century then we need to re-examine our ICT curriculum and the ICT skills we teach and require of our learners, simply taking parts out cannot be the answer.

The Importance of ICT. Ofsted report

 Taking the C out of ICT

Possibly Related Posts:


Reaching the Not-Online

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

683237726 1a41ee505b m Reaching the Not Online
Image by dougwoods via Flickr

One thing that I took from Martha Lane Fox’s speech at this year’s NAACE conference was the statistic that 40% of those people not online were from the most disadvantaged groups in society. Well actually, the statistic that struck me, was that this means that 60% of those not online are from groups other than the most disadvantaged.

My guess would be that these are people who could afford computers and internet access but, for some reason, have chosen not to have it. Maybe they live in a ‘notspot’ – an area where there is still not internet access for some reason. Maybe they do live in an area where there is internet access but for some reason have chosen not to have it; this could because they have not appreciated the value of internet access for learning,. perhaps they feel that no one in their family requires learning, perhaps they have religious or political reasons against internet or technology.

Whatever the reasons, if we are to close the digital divide  the question remains, how can we reach these people?

 Reaching the Not Online

Possibly Related Posts:


Pupils and new Technology

Monday, March 8th, 2010

3004458325 60505a3c51 m Pupils and new Technology

There is an interesting article from a piece of Australian research into kids and how they interact with technology.

Basically it says that kids appear to want the latest piece of technology … nothing new there! But the report goes on to find that kids are a lot more tech savvy than we’d believe … I guess most teachers would say that that’s not new either.

The most important finding it would seem, at least as far as educationalists are concerned, is that kids want the same level of technology, sophistication and facilities as the kit being sold to their parents. Kids are well aware of when they are being offered some ‘dumbed down’ piece of kit. As the report says ‘ today’s kids are clearly tech-savvier than ever, and know when they’re being sold a kiddie version that isn’t as good as their mother’s, father’s or older sibling’s gadget.

So it seems that we should avoid being patronising with regard to the technology we allow our kids to have. After all our kids grow up quickly but the technology grows even quicker and very son becomes obsolete, so why give our kids technology with limited functions whuch would only appear to make that tech have an even shorter life?

 Pupils and new Technology

Possibly Related Posts:


ICT : Education on the cheap?

Monday, March 1st, 2010

1412355940 5a0d537dde m ICT : Education on the cheap?

A few weeks ago I took part in an online discussion led by Stephen Heppell on the Vital website. Stephen Heppell is a very highkly regarded figure in the world of education and if you ever have a chance to listen to him speak or present, then I’d certainly suggest you do so. He is a speaker who inspires and provokes thought.

In the online discussion, Stephen asked why was it that ICT had not reduced the costs of education? Apart from Health and Education, ICT had been deployed and used to reduce the overhead costs or running costs of their users. I cannot speak for Health but I can for Education and I felt at first that this was an unfair question. After all, we started introducing technology into the classroom we did so not to reduce costs but to expand and improve the resources and experiences offered to learners. So to criticise us for not using ICT to reduce costs when that had never been our aim, did seem unfair.

Was it unfair, though?

A few days after the online discussion, I received in my inbox an email linking to this article about ICT for students with disabilities in developing countries . In this article it suggests that students need ICT partly because it is cheaper than training and paying for a teacher. The inference being that ICT is a cheaper resource than a teacher and one which, possibly, better addresses the need of the students.

This would be quite a contentious argument here in the UK. How many people, schools or local authorities would welcome replacing teachers with computers, even if it reduces the bill?

 ICT : Education on the cheap?

Possibly Related Posts:


Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?

166940673 91223e5e6c m Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?I came across this article on the Wired UK website. It claims that playing Tetris can alter the structure of the brain; which is quite a bold, one might even say, alarming claim.

It appears that researchers have used brain scans to illustrate that playing the simple computer game had distinct effects upon the brain. It would appear that some areas showed greater ‘efficiency’ and other areas showed the development of more grey matter.

1078134204 8bf7bf4ca8 m Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?

Unfortunately, the article does not really tell us what parts of the brain were found to be more efficient nor which ones developed more grey matter (or indeed whether there was any cognitive improvement as a result of having more grey matter).

Cynically, you notice that the research was funded by ‘Tetris’ makers, so I guess they had an interest in promoting potential positive benefits of using their game. The research also seems to have studied only the brains of adolescent girls, why not boys? Had the researchers assumed that boys might already have played or been exposed to such games and, therefore, were less likely to show any benefit?

Cynicism aside, the research would tend to add weight to the view that playing games is not just a mindless activity or distraction from real thinking. It does tend to show that playing games can act as a mental stimulant. Which may also lend weight to the view that playing games can have a beneficial education effect. Stimulating the brain, relieving boredom have been known for a log time to be of benefit in learning. So maybe, playing games such as Tetris can be beneficial. YOu do have to put this against the addictive nature of some games, however, and ask at which point does the positiove benefit of mental stimulation give way to the time-wasted element of addiction?

Finally, the article makes a claim that playing Tetris could help offset the effects of old age; another bold claim which may or may not be the case.

 Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?

Possibly Related Posts: