What I found were teachers acting as gatekeepers to their respective classrooms, modifying or rejecting outright a curriculum that clashed with local, professional knowledge (Foucault, 1980) of what was best for their young students. Instead, they were teaching digital skills that they believed to be more relevant (such as e-safety, touch typing, word processing and search skills) than the computer-science-centric content of the national curriculum, as well as prioritising other subjects (such as English and maths, science, art, religious education) that they considered equally important and which competed for limited class time.
https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/englands-computing-curriculum-a-clash-of-values-beliefs-and-purpose
I am looking at this as part of my readings at the moment, and when I consider the responses to certain topics or questions based on our local groups, I see the same issues starting to creep in. When students complete there work, they are given typing practice to do. When a student is not considered capable of creating a digital outcome, they are given word processing or presentation standards to complete. While this might be considered busywork, is it in the best interests of our subject, or is it still developing its sense of identity. Considering the teachers that could be teaching it have gone through typing, Text and Information Management, Business Administration, Computing, Information Management, Technology, Digital Technologies.
Is there an issue with how Digital Technologies is seen within the school and by other teachers? is this being compounded by the teachers not seeing what other teachers are actually teaching within the school? Do teachers get to see other teachers in action?
I read in the lastest ERO report about digital technologies, the following has been copied from the report https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Its-early-days-for-the-new-digital-technologies-curriculum-content.pdf
The NZCER (2016 report) found the most common use of digital devices in the classroom was limited to practising skills, research on the internet, and creating documents or power point presentations. Just over half sometimes generated multi-media work or played games or simulations. It was far less common for students to collect and analyse data or do any coding or programming. This level of use indicates a lack of understanding of or capability to extend learning in ways not possible without devices. It clearly demonstrates the need for development in this area.
Most respondents to ERO’s 2018 survey (71 percent) had confidence their teachers will implement the DT curriculum content. However, the confidence is clearly at odds with the fact that only seven percent said their teachers sufficiently understood the DT curriculum content and its place in the NZC and had enough knowledge and skills to implement the DT curriculum content. Nor does the statement of confidence take into account that 30 percent of schools had concerns about the capacity of their teachers to complete the work. This disparity was not explored in the survey questioning. It is possible the stated confidence could be a reflection of the confidence the respondents had in the professionalism of their staff to do what was necessary regarding the curriculum.
The respondents had a range of different roles and would, of necessity, have a slightly different perspective on what was happening in the school. ERO has taken each response at face value, being unable to verify any of the claims made.
What is getting in the way of progress?
While many schools have started to work with the DT curriculum content, progress has been hampered by some schools’ lack of awareness and lack of commitment to their responsibilities regarding the gazetted curriculum content. Progress has been further hampered with difficulties sourcing information and accessing Ministry PLD. ERO suggests the Ministry consider these aspects:
The lack of commitment by some school leaders to this compulsory curriculum content is of concern. Boards of trustees should consider including a component in their principal’s appraisal focusing on meeting the obligation to implement the DT curriculum content from January 2020. This is their obligation under National Administration Guideline 1 which states that:
Each board, through the principal and staff, is required to:
I read in the lastest ERO report about digital technologies, the following has been copied from the report https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Its-early-days-for-the-new-digital-technologies-curriculum-content.pdf
The NZCER (2016 report) found the most common use of digital devices in the classroom was limited to practising skills, research on the internet, and creating documents or power point presentations. Just over half sometimes generated multi-media work or played games or simulations. It was far less common for students to collect and analyse data or do any coding or programming. This level of use indicates a lack of understanding of or capability to extend learning in ways not possible without devices. It clearly demonstrates the need for development in this area.
Most respondents to ERO’s 2018 survey (71 percent) had confidence their teachers will implement the DT curriculum content. However, the confidence is clearly at odds with the fact that only seven percent said their teachers sufficiently understood the DT curriculum content and its place in the NZC and had enough knowledge and skills to implement the DT curriculum content. Nor does the statement of confidence take into account that 30 percent of schools had concerns about the capacity of their teachers to complete the work. This disparity was not explored in the survey questioning. It is possible the stated confidence could be a reflection of the confidence the respondents had in the professionalism of their staff to do what was necessary regarding the curriculum.
The respondents had a range of different roles and would, of necessity, have a slightly different perspective on what was happening in the school. ERO has taken each response at face value, being unable to verify any of the claims made.
What is getting in the way of progress?
While many schools have started to work with the DT curriculum content, progress has been hampered by some schools’ lack of awareness and lack of commitment to their responsibilities regarding the gazetted curriculum content. Progress has been further hampered with difficulties sourcing information and accessing Ministry PLD. ERO suggests the Ministry consider these aspects:
- explore more direct communication options, including increased presence of Ministry advisors and opportunities for face-to-face workshops to improve engagement with the DT curriculum content, especially as schools move into the planning phase
- consider including hyperlinks in online material to help people navigate resources and information about the Digital Technology curriculum content
- enhance the scale and reach of Te Kete Ipurangi (TKI) content.
The lack of commitment by some school leaders to this compulsory curriculum content is of concern. Boards of trustees should consider including a component in their principal’s appraisal focusing on meeting the obligation to implement the DT curriculum content from January 2020. This is their obligation under National Administration Guideline 1 which states that:
Each board, through the principal and staff, is required to:
- develop and implement teaching and learning programmes:
- to provide all students in years 1–10 with opportunities to progress and achieve for success in all areas of The National Curriculum
While it is good to see the work that is going into this in New Zealand and the opportunities, I still fear that we will still see the same statement appear in an ERO report"Teachers were acting as gatekeepers to their respective classrooms, modifying or rejecting outright a curriculum that clashed with local, professional knowledge."
No comments:
Post a Comment