Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Information and communication technologies in education’

Risk-taking is an essential part of development…

I have tussled with my views on eSafety since well before it was ever labelled thus! With an almost Victorian upbringing (but not age!) and no access to television nor computers, throughout my formative years, the influence of my ‘nurture’ has instinctively been to ‘lock things down’ for children, in order to keep them safe and protect them from the undesirable. It has taken me years to understand – largely through experience, research and a bit more independence of thought, that locking everything down simply won’t do.  Indeed I would argue that we place children in more danger by doing so.

Without trying to pretend that I am more knowledgeable than I am, there are some fundamental basics to learning that I think we all understand. Let’s take the development of speech as an example:

1. We learn through imitation; that is why I speak with the accent I have.

2. We learn through making mistakes and having those pointed out to us; that is why some people speak with grammatical accuracy and some do not. During the development of our speech, it is natural to make grammatical errors; such is the complex nature of speaking English that subject agreement is not always logical. Where these ‘errors’ are pointed out, speech is improved. Where it is not, ‘bad practice’ becomes embedded.

3. We learn through experimentation and risk-taking. By pushing the boundaries in our use of vocabulary and in what we read and hear, we learn what is possible and more about ‘what is out there’, extending our knowledge and understanding as we do so.

Okay, you’ve guessed where I am going with this? – over-simplified though it might be:

1. Imitation: I have less of a connection to make with this one, save to say that peer-pressure is involved – ‘My friend is on Facebook, so too must I be’ and of course, this inevitably leads to the making of mistakes.

2. Mistakes: it is natural, and within reason – desirable, for young people to make mistakes – it is a fundamental part of growing up and development. With the way in which eSafety ‘rules’ are moving in this country (as with Health and Safety before it!) we are stifling a key element of our children’s progress. We complain that they are passive and unimaginative, but we do not allow them to explore or to try things out. (Outside of eSafety, this has manifested itself in such developments as children not being allowed to play outdoors, teachers not being allowed to touch their pupils and the reduction in school trips.)

3. Experimentation and risk-taking: ‘Risk-taking’ is a bit of an educational buzz word at the moment. China does it and we don’t apparently. (Yes, I know I’m over-fond of simplification!) It has even been said that it is becoming a Core Skill. (Heather Rolfe, NIESR) By setting Risk-taking as a school objective or target, many UK Schools are setting themselves up for failure – or merely ‘fooling themselves. Increasingly, school policy is written to eliminate any possibility of risk-taking or spontaneity. In protecting ourselves, under the guise of protecting our children, creativity is plain and simply being stifled from the crib on.

Many of the ideas I appear to lambast, I do understand and sympathise with – have even held. I understand that with the changes in the law, key members of our establishments find themselves in impossibly responsible – and frightening – positions. I understand that we all want to do our best to protect the young people around us. My point is not to question this; it is to ask whether or not we have gone, and continue to go, too far in the wrong direction.

In doing so, might the horrible irony be that we are harming the majority, in order to protect from shadowy, unsavoury possibilities?

Might we be producing a generation of young people who are unable to and unwilling to take risks, so afraid have they been made to feel about the possible consequences. Instead of asking, ‘What is the worst possible thing that might happen?’ why don’t we ask, ‘What is the worst possible thing that is likely to happen?’ How much freer might we be, whereas, not to do so leads to equivalents such as not boarding a flight in case it might crash; not visiting the London Olympics lest it is the target of a bombing campaign and indeed, not eating out in case someone has poisoned the food!

Problem finding is oh so easy, but  what is the solution? I would suggest that we accept that the world out there has many similarities to the one we have always lived in and that the dangers posed by the internet etc merely magnify what has always existed. (I never sat in front of a television or computer growing up, but I need more than my 2 hands to count the number of times I was ‘flashed’ at!) I would also suggest that young people today are not quite as horrified by some of the things that horrify us as adults – they have been brought up in a very different way, with access to many different media – bringing them, on a day-to-day basis into contact with what we might not fully approve of.  Although, we may feel this in some ways to be a sad indictment of society, it is a true one and we need to work with practical realities in our efforts to prepare children for their places in the real world.

Over-filtering and blocking access to numerous sites in our schools, keeps us in a legally sound position, but morally, we are doing our pupils no service whatsoever – we merely ‘push’ the problem outside of the school building, intensifying it as we do so. (The increased use of VLEs is forcing us to reconsider this position – and fast.) As teachers, many of us know what the issues are – parents often don’t. We have the curriculum relevance in our schools to be able to educate in these areas. I am a real fan of the 360 eSafety Self Review tool by the South West Grid for Learning:  It seems to work on the very sensible premise that the higher the ‘mark’ your school gains, the less you are likely to have ‘locked down’.  And the reason for that? You will have educated your students to make educated and sensible choices for themselves, freeing them up to take personal responsibility for their actions. What is the point in preventing them from accessing certain sites at school, when they can walk out of the door to the classroom and access it from their unfiltered smartphones? With these devices, they can access it on the bus on the way home and also from the pcs which they have in their bedrooms. This is where the true potential danger lies; that because of our policies and approach, children have neither the experience, nor education to make sensible decisions and their mistakes can become ‘big’ and public very quickly.

Much better to open up, for instance, a low-key chat facility in school, allow them to access YouTube – so useful in so many ways – but all this on a monitored network, where low-level mistakes can be picked up at an early stage and  consequences gradually made clear – all within a safe and controlled environment and with  full communication with parents about what the school is trying to achieve.

With proper planning, effective monitoring, a well-communicated AUP and clear sanctions, all this is possible and desirable. Let them take risks, I say!

Advertisements

Computer Science: the new English Language?

December 7, 2011 2 comments

The last thing I have time for tonight is writing a blog, but this one is bursting through my pores, so if I want to sleep, it has to be given its voice!

The odd thing is that I didn’t even think I had much to say on this topic and yes, I agree the title is somewhat obscure.  Hopefully, whatever falls on the page tonight will make the link less tenuous.

Michael Gove recently stated that, “the ICT curriculum in the past has been written for a subject that is changing all the time. I think that what we should have is computer science in the future.” 

Call me uninformed, but I’m struggling to see how one clause follows the other in this statement.  So humour me while I break it down for my own benefit:

  1. “The ICT curriculum in the past has been written for a subject that is changing all the time.”  Yes, that’s true, so is the point that the curriculum has not kept abreast of the changes in ICT?  Fine, that seems to be the truth and its irrelevance and lack of rigour are in part to blame for the fact that I haven’t been allowed to introduce the subject at examination level in MpoW.
  2. “I think that what we should have is computer science in the future.”  Okay and why not? There is clearly a dearth of availability of Computer Science teaching in UK schools and making it more widely available will please those in the Gaming industries, amongst others.

But I still can’t see why one clause follows the other. 

Why does it have to be one in place of the other?  Surely these are two quite separate, if complementary subject areas?  Is this not like suggesting that English Language teaching is the future, in place of English Literature?  (Ha, link made, but still a little tenuous, I accept!)

Whilst there is overlap between the two subjects and they are often taught by the same teacher, they are each intrinsically valuable – and separate. Where would we be without our studies of literature, of characters from other times and cultures and of their relationships with each other?  However, often meaning and our ability to empathise is enhanced by looking at the language of the piece – how it is constructed and shaped.   An understanding of both subject areas helps to make a valuable whole.

Often, there is an intellectual snobbery about the study of the English Language with only a few continuing this at a higher level –but no-one is suggesting that because it can be more rigorous and challenging as one’s studies progress, that it should replace the teaching of literature!  After all Chaucer, Wordsworth, Shakespeare – they are all dead: it is an outdated syllabus which hasn’t kept up with the times!  That is pretty much an equivalent to Gove’s argument.

No, rather it is recognised that there is a richness, depth and breadth to literature which should never be dismissed – nor in my view made optional, as it so often is, particularly at KS4.

Back to ICT – this should never be abandoned in favour of Computer Science.  Again, there tends to be an intellectual snobbery which emanates from those who hold tight to their Computer Science degrees.  Skilled and specialised they might be, but in my experience, they are often lacking in the C of ICT – communication skills!  (A wild generalisation, I know!)   That C, however, is very important in our modern world and if we take Bloom’s Taxonomy, revised to incorporate digital elements, we can see that ICT is fundamental in being able to deliver this capability – from the lower order communications skills such as texting and emailing right up to the higher order collaboration, negotiating and debating, we can see that the highest order thinking skills can be achieved through the effective teaching of ICT.

The National Curriculum Programme of Study states: “The increasing use of technology in all aspects of society makes confident, creative and productive use of ICT an essential skill for life. ICT capability encompasses not only the mastery of technical skills and techniques, but also the understanding to apply these skills purposefully, safely and responsibly in learning, everyday life and employment. ICT capability is fundamental to participation and engagement in modern society. ICT can be used to find, develop, analyse and present information, as well as to model situations and solve problems.” 

Really, what is there to argue with here?  Does this sound like a subject we can afford to ditch?

What can be argued – and the Computer Scientists DO legitimately argue, is that ICT is not often taught well.  It is rarely taught by specialists – and along with subjects such as PCSHEE- suffers as a consequence.  In addition, teaching is historically towards a qualification which is poorly constructed and tends not reward students who demonstrate higher level skills and thinking.

This does not mean it is not a valid subject.  Poor national qualifications, poor provision and poor teaching do not invalidate ICT as a subject.

What examination bodies and schools must do is recognise the value and importance of ICT.  Do we want our students to go out into the world with the fear and lack of confidence in technology that we see their teachers and parents exhibit in their attempts to function adequately in the modern world?  Technology is not going to go away.

To return to Gove’s comment about ICT  being a subject which is changing all the time, well what better subject within which to incorporate the teaching of and development of independence and transferable skills? 

ICT should be taught to all and at every Key Stage.  Computer Science should be taught more widely – agreed, but in reality, this is likely to be suited to a somewhat narrower body of students, those with a particular and more intellectual interest in the Science behind the practical and more general application of the subject.

both these subjects can and should exist,  as do English Literature and Language in the best of schools: complementing and enriching each other.  ICT should be at the ‘core’ of this relationship: studied by all, helping to deepen and enrich the study of Computer Science where this is chosen.

%d bloggers like this: