1 Redefining ICT
Why redefine ICT?
Background
Commissioned by the UK computing community, the Royal Society investigated the subject āICTā in schools, publishing their āShut Down or Restart?ā report in January 2012. They recommended a rebranding of ICT, with a split of the subject into digital literacy, information technology and computer science, and āComputingā as an umbrella term for the subject as a whole.
The media clamoured that ICT lessons were āboringā ā pupils were quoted describing lessons that only taught them how to use Microsoft Office, with a peculiar attention to PowerPoint, possibly perhaps because the National Strategy framework focused more on Office applications rather than the National Curriculum Programme of Study. There were few media reports on the inspirational ICT lessons taking place in many schools.
In the light of the report and the publicised expressions of concern, Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, announced at the 2012 BETT Show that he would ādisapplyā the old Programme of Study and its attendant attainment targets for ICT from September 2012, allowing schools to develop their own schemes of work, and giving them the opportunity to teach programming and other aspects of computer science. He announced that ICT was to continue as a National Curriculum subject with a new Programme of Study called āComputingā for all maintained schools.
It is worth considering some points from Mr Goveās speech at Bett12:
Schools, teachers and industry leaders have all told us that the current curriculum is too off-putting, too demotivating, too dullā¦Instead of children bored out of their minds being taught how to use Word and Excel by bored teachers, we could have 11-year-olds able to write simple 2D computer animations using an MIT tool called Scratchā¦. By 16, they could have an understanding of formal logic previously covered only in university courses and be writing their own apps for smartphones.
Many ICT teachers were disheartened by these apparently negative comments on the profession. Indeed, simply introducing āComputingā per se will not make a difference, unless we have a meaningful review of both the pedagogy and assessment because these affect pupilsā enthusiasm for the subject and their progress in the discipline as well as in technology enhanced learning (TEL). However, within the same speech there were opportunities for technology and computing that went unnoticed, overshadowed by the curricular headlines. Goveās speech continued to reflect and challenge, setting out a vision for UK schools with hints about possible pedagogical change:
Every day we work in environments which are completely different to those of 25 or 100 years agoā¦. But there is one notable exception.
Education has barely changed.
The fundamental model of school education is still a teacher talking to a group of pupils. It has barely changed over the centuries ⦠a teacher still stands in front of the class, talking, testing and questioning.
But that model wonāt be the same in 20 yearsā time. It may well be extinct in tenā¦. And the current curriculum cannot prepare British students to work at the very forefront of technological changeā¦
We want a modern education system which exploits the best that technology can offer to schools, teachers and pupils. Where schools use technology in imaginative and effective ways to build the knowledge, understanding and skills that young people need for the future. And where we can adapt to and welcome every new technological advance that comes along to change everything, all over again, in ways we never expected.
As teachers, we are surrounded by pressure to change our methods and improve our performance. Pressure to perform is rarely so intense and we know we must be able to demonstrate our pupilsā progress ā yet teachers set themselves high benchmarks and many have learned to fear failure. Full of self-doubt, it is no surprise that many good teachers are abandoning thorough ICT schemes of work in order to buy or borrow from the rush of untested schemes for the new Computing curriculum. The observant have noted a new trend recently emerged ā āScratch is the new PowerPointā.
However, while there is clearly a change in emphasis, Computing is more than computer science and programming. Good lessons previously taught in ICT will fit the information technology and digital literacy aspects of the Computing curriculum, and schools that have taught the āsequencing instructionsā in the old Programme of Study will be able to build on this to address the new computer science content.
Most teachers I meet ask for help āunpickingā the new Computing curriculum. Some resources are emerging with focus on coding and programming and those excellent teachers are beginning to panic, drowning in tense online discussions, apparently new terminology and desperate about the need to learn new skills ā from where? Opportunities for new pedagogies, however, are relatively overlooked.
The Ofsted school inspection handbook states that inspectors need to consider how well leaders and managers ensure that the curriculum:
ā is broad and balanced (in the context of the school) and meets the needs, aptitudes and interest of pupils
ā promotes high levels of achievement and good behaviour and successful progression to the pupilsā next stage of education, training or employment
ā is effectively planned and taught
ā is based at Key Stage 4 on an appropriate balance between academic and vocational courses.
Where any school does not provide the National Curriculum, inspectors will explore the schoolās reasons; a broad and balanced curriculum is required, including the teaching of ICT. Outstanding teachers regard the National Curriculum Programme of Study (PoS) as a minimum and offer considerable contextually relevant enrichment opportunities. However, if the National Curriculum PoS is viewed as the total of subject learning, then lessons are likely to be deemed inadequate. Ofsted is helpfully clear in describing indicators of outstanding teaching, learning, curriculum, and leadership of ICT. Inadequate achievement is described as follows:
ā Pupilsā lack of understanding impedes their progress in many aspects of the subject. They develop insufficient skills in using and applying ICT.
ā Pupils rarely demonstrate creativity or originality in their use of ICT but seem confined to following instructions.
ā Pupils do not work well with others, and do not know how different roles can contribute to successful outcomes when using ICT.
ā In secondary schools, significant proportions of students in Key Stage 4 neither study ICT nor develop their skills systematically through other subjects.
ā Pupils lack interest and enthusiasm for the subject and cannot describe the relevance of ICT in a technological age.
So the opportunities are twofold: change the curriculum to refresh and focus on computational thinking as well as IT and digital literacy, and change the way we teach our lessons to achieve outstanding teaching and learning. A challenge, but not beyond our reach ā we need to focus on understanding the possibilities and revising our existing good practice.
This chapter discusses the āhowā ā alternative models of pedagogy, approaches to the subject and assessment ā to support the āwhatā (the subject content), and offers some ideas from school case studies, approaches, and conversations. The opportunity for improving the lives and careers of young people and the impact on āUK plcā is compelling.
Changing good ICT lessons into opportunities for new and outstanding learning
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones weāve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
(Barack Obama)
The change of curriculum with its promise of greater freedom to schools is a terrific opportunity to review and adapt ICT schemes of work. It is adamantly not necessary to abandon good lessons designed to deliver the old ICT curriculum, but teachers do need to consider how learning outcomes might be more effectively achieved and what needs to be done to ensure they deliver the outcomes of the new Computing curriculum. Inevitably some lessons will not carry over, but the reality is that if a lesson worked well for the old curriculum, with a tweak here and there it will work for the new! I have included examples of approaches; although they are from all kinds of curriculum areas, all are relevant to teaching the Computing curriculum as well as supporting cross-curricular safe and creative use.
While your main reference will be the new Computing curriculum online publication, it is worth also considering some of the good-quality guidance that has been produced by organisations such as Naace and Computing At School (CAS), including:
ā āNaace Curriculum Frameworkā for Key Stages 1ā3 with further resources including Assessment and CPD freely available here: wĀwĀwĀ.nĀaĀaĀcĀeĀ.cĀoĀ.uĀkĀ/ĀnĀaĀaĀcĀeĀcĀuĀrĀrĀiĀcĀuĀlĀuĀmĀ and wĀwĀwĀ.nĀaĀaĀcĀeĀ.cĀoĀ.uĀkĀ/ĀcĀuĀrĀrĀiĀcĀuĀlĀuĀmĀ
ā āComputer Science: A Curriculum for Schoolsā produced by CAS, describes what a Computing curriculum at school might look like: wĀwĀwĀ.cĀoĀmĀpĀuĀtĀiĀnĀgĀaĀtĀsĀcĀhĀoĀoĀlĀ.oĀrĀgĀ.uĀkĀ/ĀiĀnĀdĀeĀxĀ.pĀhĀpĀ?ĀiĀdĀ=ĀcĀaĀcĀfĀsĀ. More resources are available from wĀwĀwĀ.cĀoĀmĀpĀuĀtĀiĀnĀgĀaĀtĀsĀcĀhĀoĀoĀlĀ.oĀrĀgĀ.uĀkĀ/ĀaĀnĀdĀ the CAS Community
ā āComputing 2014 ā Guidance for Primary Teachersā published by CAS and written in collaboration by CAS and Naace members. The guide has been sent to schools: wĀwĀwĀ.nĀaĀaĀcĀeĀ.cĀoĀ.uĀkĀ/ĀcĀuĀrĀrĀiĀcĀuĀlĀuĀmĀ/ĀpĀrĀiĀmĀaĀrĀyĀgĀuĀiĀdĀeĀ. The guidance is also relevant to KS3.
We are affected one way or another in our daily lives by the activities represented in curricular subjects and few more so than Computing. Much of the time, ICT infrastructure is so embedded as to be invisible and our interface with it seamless, yet we marvel at āSmartā technologies and devices that allow us to do things we would never have dreamt possible, while relying on ubiquitous ICT to allow us to engage with daily activities. The ICT report from the Forum for the Future, Conn...