Clever s*ds - help required please!!

[Scurra]

Yes, that's why I don't particularly have an issue with doing what they do. It's calling it Information (& Communication) Technology that bugs me. Although at least it isn't called Computer Science!

"Digital Applications" actually seems like a very good name for what should be being done in those sorts of lessons. (i.e. making leaflets, using spreadsheets, displaying data etc.)

The dilemma is that, like learning foreign languages, learning computer programming is probably done best by the young when they haven't learnt bad habits or acquired so many preconceptions. But, like learning foreign languages, it will only be useful to a subset of those people in future. The question then becomes whether you should be teaching it to everyone in the hopes of finding those for whom it is best suited, or whether you should wait to find those to whom it is best suited and then teaching them. Which is, I understand, the basic paradox of education anyway.

[Bunnylump]

Well, I suppose it makes just as much sense to force all kids to learn to use computers as it does to force all of them to learn flipping history AND geography until they are 16, whether or not they can bl**dy well write, which is the lastest fantastic suggestion from the lovely Mr Gove. Yes, sorry, political. But it makes my blood boil. Why the heck they can't just let TEACHERS decide what kids can learn successfully, I don't know.

[Scurra]

Now here I might disagree with you, Bunny, because whilst there might be a reason for learning history and geography in the sense of understanding the world, there is an actual need to learn how to use computers because the modern world is built on them and without that knowledge or confidence then people will be increasingly unable to operate. It's genuinely important that people should be able to use e.g. the Tax Returns website!

(Having said that, I suppose I actually mean that people need to learn how to use devices rather than general purpose computers because that's what they will actually be using in the real world; at one level there is no real distinction between an iPad, a games console and a supermarket checkout till, in that they are not intended to be adapted for other purposes. This doesn't mean that people can't or don't, but then again some people modify their cars too.)

[Bunnylump]

Yes, but what I mean is that they DON'T teach them to do something useful on computers. They teach them a load of useless baloney which they will NEVER need and will NEVER use. And there is as much point in teaching them that as there is in teaching kids who can't write to do history essays.

[Scurra]

So what is this useless baloney that they do teach them then?

[Bunnylump]

Well, all sorts of nonsense. I'm sure it would be useful for people who are intending to go into business management, or administrative type jobs. It is UTTERLY useless for about 75% of the pupils who are forced to study it. What MOST people need to be able to do is:

to be able to write a properly set out business letter
to be able to use e mails
to be able to do internet banking


How in God's name it is ever going to be useful for most of the population to know how to use a programme to control traffic lights is absolutely beyond me. And there are a lot of kids who, because they are forced to waste time doing stupid things like that, totally miss the REALLY important bits like how to save files so you can find them again.

Sorry. Back off soap box.

[MBH]

So much for me to play with, but I'm knackere. [and what a nice change having Scurra start the political stuff - LOL]

So I'll just pick up on my knowledgable friend here (who's *accents* I understand perfectly) and give the answers...

Making pretty leaflets about tigers is *exactly* what computers are for. As well as being *exactly* for adding up columns of figures. As well as being *exactly* for recording river pollution sample results.

Almost nobody* needs or wants to deal with computers on a bit and byte level.
*relative to the general population

Almost everybody needs or wants to deal with computers to "do stuff".

Learning to deal with computers on the bits, bytes, and computer programming logic level means that in 6 months time when the 'doing stuff' looks and feels different - or in 12 months time when the same stuff is being done on completely different input devices (says he checking PB during the day on his touch-screen phone), then they will be able to SEE that the regardless of the packaging the principles haven't changed in the 30 years I've been playing with them. [Spot on Scurra].

Learning about computers this way means that all Giraffes questions are answered and a good stab is made at estimating what is required from a new system. [A good teacher will show them how to get to an answer, then tell them to double it ]

Learning about the principles of programming (even if there is no programming taking place) means that an understanding of what happens when you press 'Enter' will reduce frustration and annoyance at the 'stupid computer' when it does the wrong thing. It's the ideal time to talk about 'operator error' and 'error checking'.

Bunny's traffic light example sounds like they might be teaching some of this - but unless the reason for the theory is explained it can look like useless information. A clever teacher might 'program' a number of students and turn the rest of the class into 'data'.... that could be a fun and active lesson (especially when the teacher starts putting bugs into the program).


And remember from clvrlad's signature - there ARE only 10 types of people in the world

[clvrlad]

oops i opened a can of worms there

im thinking favourably to the raspberry
mostly i think cos i remember the bbc micro
it was my first interaction with a pc
we had a word processing program and dot matrix printer in middle school
(it was on a trolley that meant it could be wheeled round to different class rooms)

any excuse not to write

[Laura]

I've found that one of the biggest problems with computers lessons (deliberately not going with the abbreviations cos everywhere calls it something different) is that the bright kids already know how to use word, powerpoint, excel, send emails, use websites, save and relocate files etc. etc. by the age of 11, or if they haven't done much they can pick pretty much all that up in a term. I know all the kids at my little junior school can, but they are very lucky that they all get time in the IT lab every week from the age of 4, and use it for making posters and leaflets about tigers etc. but WHEN THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, not just for the sake of it!

At that point, you have the problem of them going up to secondary school, where the IT teacher has a mixture of those kids, who can do all that, and some who don't know how to save a document, and need telling at least ten times before they understand how to do it, and need reminding every week that they need to do it, or they lose every piece of work they ever do.

[Bunnylump]

That is exactly it. Some of this stuff is completely fine for the high achieving kids, who, as you say, have had access to computers and plenty of time and patient adults who support them at home. But for the ones who can't understand it or don't have the facilities or the support, they spend their WHOLE time doing "catch up". And they never, properly, have time to learn the absolute basics. So they will STILL be losing all their coursework on the computer by year 11. I think what I am saying is that there should be various levels available. Basics for some, where the simple, but essential skills are learned and then reinforced again and again until they are proficient. And then all the other stuff for those who want it / need it/ are capable of doing it. To insist that everyone ploughs through a GCSE in it is just STUPID.

But then I feel very much the same about English, maths, science, and even things like swimming!!

[MBH]

On my computer bus I bust myths and a major one is "kids are good with computers". More later.

[giraffe]

On the way to the bus stop this morning I asked the dancing elephant what they do in ICT. "Make leaflets and spreadsheets and bleugh!!" was the answer. Sounds like she has the same boring teacher that her big sister had.

My kids, particularly the elder two, did not use computers much before they went to senior school. Their primary school (Lally went to a different one for the last 3 years) was not very well equipped and the equipment they did have, the very old fashioned staff didn't know how to use. A lot of their friends could do all sorts of fancy things, but mine didn't use powerpoint, or spreadsheets at home, homework was written by hand. mWhen they went to senior school they were way behind most of the other children, but just about every subject the homework seems to be make a leaflet about the environment / Henry the eighth / music on the computer. Write a powerpoint presentation about xyz. So they picked it up quite quickly, but they are the sort of children that pick things up easily, so I realise they are not the sort to forget to save (or at least not after having to redo their homework a couple of times)

I don't think they should use them as much as they are encouraged to do. Children don't see the point in being able to write legibly any more, they don't look things up in a book, they waste hours looking for websites for the information that is in the book that we already own. They should be taught the basics of reading and writing (and speaking, because that helps with grammar and spelling) properly and shouldn't be doing all these extra things until that is mastered.

[MBH]

I'm glad you said that because I sometimes think that my way of thinking can stem from the fact I don't have kids (I just see other peoples). I'll throw another myth in here - people tell me computers stop you 'thinking', and I warn them of how dangerous that is and eye show them how grate thee spell chequre can bee

Anyway - back to the idea kids are good with computers - I remind people that they are not necessarily 'good' they are just comfortable with the equipment and (being kids) don't worry if they do things wrong.... a complete opposite of the parents and grandparents I'm dealing with. So I liken the computer to an average household kitchen - a number of tools that need to be individually learned (kettle, toaster, fridge, microwave, cooker, etc) and then the possibility of adding your own skills to the room.

So if you see a kid go and make a cup of coffee... then later go and make a cup of tea.... then a tray of coffee, tea, and a hot lemon for guests.... it can all look very slick and easy. My question to my clients is "How good are they at operating the kitchen". That makes them stop and look at it in a more realistic light. Roast dinner anybody?

It's a handy analogy I've stretched in a variety of directions to show how knowledge and skill can twist the rules. Ice cream in fridge makes sense to the beginner. Ice cream in oven??? First you've got to find out that Baked Alaska exists, and then find out how to create it - without that knowedge the concept seems mad.

I've also totally horrified some Mothers [sorry, it tends to be the women] when I point out to them that their 11-year-old "computer expert" at home has the brain of an 11-year-old I'm running a one-man campaign to get adults to take charge of the household computers until they are happy letting their child lock up the house and pop into town to buy the family holiday.

[Scurra]

I'm running a one-man campaign to get adults to take charge of the household computers until they are happy letting their child lock up the house and pop into town to buy the family holiday.

I think you'll find you are not alone in that particular campaign.

[giraffe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16493929

[eirian]

beat me too it!

[MBH]

Yes - I heard about that and thought of this thread Love the quote

Michael Gove called the current ICT curriculum "harmful and dull".

Totally beyond belief in comparison to what I THOUGHT was going on

[giraffe]

You thought it was safe and exciting?

[Bunnylump]

Yes it is dull. And pointless, most of it. But I am totally unconvinced that the replacement he is proposing is deliverable / an improvement.

What they NEED to do is to stop forcing children to do a GCSE in IT, and instead they should have short, basic classes which teach them about how to use Word, Excel and the safe use of the internet, and then have separate sessions where they can go and do their homework / research for coursework etc. where there are several really good IT teachers who can be on hand to show them how to do WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. Rather than filling their heads with loads of pointless twaddle they will never, ever, ever use and turning them off IT for life. Then, if they want to do advanced IT / programming / computer science because they are good at / like that kind of thing then that should be built into their option blocks. THAT would be a really good course FOR SOME PUPILS - but NOT for all of them.

As usual, all it really needs is a bit of common sense. But then that is rarely applied by the government to Education.

(Sorry, you have now pressed all my buttons and I am firmly ON my soap box. Feel free to ignore this and do something more interesting....)

Here is a perfect example of complete stupidity.

At one point (although this seems to change with the wind) it was considered ESSENTIAL that all pupils studied a MFL. As a consequence, the extremely low literacy pupils, who SHOULD have been learning how to spell and write IN ENGLISH, got totally demoralised and in some cases completely disengaged with learning because they had been forced to go to French / Spanish or whatever, which they never stood a chance with.

At another stage (again, this has changed back and forth with alarming regularity) they were all forced to do a technology. WHY? And, come to that, please explain to me what the point of "food technology" is?? Instead of learning to do something useful, like how to COOK, they learn how to make packaging, how to plan production processes or how to design adverts.

Currently, they are all forced to take RE. The result of this is NOT informed, tolerant pupils, it is disengaged, resentful students who disrupt the classroom.

Maths - yes, I agree, along with English, SHOULD be compulsory. It is necessary for daily life. HOWEVER, why it is essential for ALL pupils, regardless of ability, to take a GCSE? The result of this is that instead of focussing on, and learning how to add up, take away, multiply, understand how to weigh and measure things, they have to learn really useful things like ALGEBRA or SYMMETRY. Result? Switched off pupils who don't care and don't want to learn, who leave school unable to add up.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHH. It's NOT rocket science, is it??

Sorry.

[giraffe]

It varies from school to school. IT is only compulsory up to Y9 at Lally's school and so is RE. Neither is compulsory for GCSE at F's. I know the national curriculum says they have to do some in key stage 4, but they lump it all together in PHSCE and just have one lesson a week, which seems to be a chat about life the universe and everything, but seems to count as RE and various other compulsory bits. This means that there is enough time in the timetable or more lessons on the GCSE subjects.

The school K is at now is even weirder. They have 10 lessons a week (from year 7, although I think some of them are half lessons at the lower end of the school) So they spend a whole morning on Maths and a whole afternoon on English. Very odd and one of the many reasons we didn't send her there at 11+. These 3 hour lessons are taught in huge rooms with 90 pupils and 3 teachers (not sure if there are also learning support staff in there) They don't have a lunch break either. Lessons start at 8.30 and at some point in the morning they stop for "breakfast" then at 11.50 they go to their tutors for 20 minutes. Each tutor has 4 or 5 pupils from each year, so there are about 30 of them, but all ages. Then at 12.10 the afternoon lesson starts and at some point they are sent to lunch, when the canteen phones to summon them. (Sorry they call it the "Restaurant" and I think the 6th form catering students help in there) The whole thing is very very odd. K loves it (big change from the girls' school) They also seem to get outstanding GCSE results. They are non selective on entry, they have an entrance exam, but that is to ensure they take all ability groups. They have 100% of pupils getting 5 a-cs almost every year. It wouldn't suit every child and I think because it is known to be a school for hardworking people it probably deters the hooligans from applying.