Forums
/ Subjects / ICT

The "Perfect" KS4 ICT Qualification

Last post 20/11/09 at 20:25 by Sensatus, 34 replies
Post started by benrothwell on 12/11/09 at 12:10

Rate this topic

All Topics
Select colour:
  • ICTSubjectAdvisor avatar
    Offline
    21
    Posted by: ICTSubjectAdvisor 17/11/2009 at 09:32
    Reply
    Joined on 24/08/2009
    Posts 44

    I've read this topic with great interest.

    I was an IT professional for 5 years, programmer and systems analyst. I then taught for almost 10 years before taking a job with Edexcel this year.

    I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on our new GCSE as I feel it addresses some, but not all, of the problems mentioned here.

    Any feedback would be appreciated.

    http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse10/ict/Pages/default.aspx

    Gareth

  • DEmsley avatar
    Offline
    22
    Posted by: DEmsley 17/11/2009 at 12:44
    Reply
    Joined on 18/05/2006
    Posts 3,963

    I've read this thread with interest and have avoided responding, 'til now.

    The "Perfect" ICT Qualification would be very similar to the OCR Nationals with:

    1. Much more rigour and proper moderation
    2. More units - especially some addressing James757's (I think) issues.
    3. A record of the time spent on the unit - a 60 hour study unit should mean a MINIMUM of 60 hours, ditto a 30glh unit.

    Addressing the points about working in industry - why do you think that is a good training for teaching? 

    It may be you're a fabulous coder/Project manager etc but I can't see any of my friends who are being any good in a classroom.

    Maybe we should introduce some sort of "National Service".  Anyone who is any good at their work in whatever field they work in should be made to do some teaching?  Similarly teachers should have to do a few years in industry?  Why?  Would this make us better teachers?

    I have, in my department, several staff who have spent time in industry and some who haven't there is no corrollation between the quality of the teaching and time in industry.  Some of the best teachers have spent no time in the industry but are still excellent and inspiring teachers from who the students learn a great deal.

     
  • planetx avatar
    Offline
    23
    Posted by: planetx 17/11/2009 at 16:59
    Reply
    Joined on 11/09/2008
    Posts 3,816

    DEmsley:
    Addressing the points about working in industry - why do you think that is a good training for teaching? 
     

    It isn't necessarily...

    ...but what it should provide is an indication that the person has a grasp of the subject.

    The problem is that many school managers are hostile to the idea of employing people with industry experience. It is also a fact that any ICT module on a degree will get you on an ICT PGCE (other things being equal).

    Somehow we have to get away from the Mickey Mouse subject that is ICT in many/most schools. Talking to and working with people who use it professionally is one way forward. Expecting high qualification levels is another.

    I agree that being able to teach is crucial.When you've taught a range of subjects you understand better what that means. You can also compare them to ICT.
  • FCLally avatar
    Offline
    24
    Posted by: FCLally 17/11/2009 at 19:19
    Reply
    Joined on 14/10/2003
    Posts 36
    Okay, so I quit ICT teaching partly because I was fed up with the GCSE system. We did OCR B that enabled us to create a reasonable life-like situation, but essentially trained the pupils to be ICT business consultants for two courseworks running. We also ran OCR iMedia to cater for those who wanted a more creative ICT course which proved to be very popular but again the evidence was generally in the paperwork. Though having said that, the iMedia course is more product based than most. We also ran AS Computing over two years which proved to be very popular for a girls' school. And yet reach Post-16 and very few, if any were taking Computing. From what I've seen in the past of OCR Nationals and DiDA is that it is very coursework driven, just like the OCR ICT B and gives no room for actual interest in ICT.I understand that schools require grades and therefore the pressure is on to choose a course that enables kids to get those grades. I've seen schools teach OCR Nationals from year 8. I have teachers asking how they can engage pupils who are redoing work from the first unit, three years on. In one private school the pupils have approx a term and half's worth of ICT lesson across KS3 and in them they learn the ICT they need in order to support their other GCSEs. They do no ICT at KS4 and then do ECDL at Post 16. While there is an element of needing to teach the foundation skills in ICT, I fear we rapidly lost sight of how to engage students in ICT. Students don't learn because it will be useful to them in the future, they learn because they find it interesting, intriguing and they are enthusiastic about the subject. So how is it that the ICT we teach in the classroom is so far flung from how ICT actually engages them outside of the classroom?Instead of leading the way in showing kids how exciting ICT can be and then using that good wind to show them other useful skills, we seem to be running to catch up with how they use it, trying to show them how to use ICT appropriately, telling them not to abuse people via social network sites or mobile phones, seemingly relentlessly disciplining them on their use of ICT, but we aren't embracing that world with them. It's a sideline. It's not considered ICT on the syllabus. ICT is a rare subject. It doesn't have a historical foundation base that we teach from and build on like maths or science. There are skills considered to be key skills, deemed to be important for working life, but realistically, the actual fundamentals are normally there for this generation. Not all, I will admit, but the vast majority will know the basics already. Okay, so it might be that they do things inefficiently etc, but once we have their attention and enthusiasm we can then use that to drive them towards perfection rather than simply telling them they are doing it wrong. Once we can persuade them that the do actually know what they are doing with ICT, we can move towards how they do it, thus allowing them to teach themselves when the going gets tough. As ICT teachers, we won’t know how to use every package that we need to use/teach, and we won’t know how to do everything within a package, but the vast majority have the skills to find out, to learn. So why do we agree to spoon feed?  We also try to teach each package individually, robbing them of their actual worth. Perhaps we’ll revisit the package at a later date, but realistically if the pupils weren’t interested in the first place because they didn’t see the point, how are they to be expected to remember those skills? In terms of the wide subject base of ICT, it's a bit like other subjects - there are many topics that could be covered, and we're not expected to be specialists in all of them. A history teacher may have majored in World War 1 and know very little about the history of communism in China (as a random example), and in the same way, one ICT teacher may have specialised in programming while another has specialised in audio visual. The great thing about ICT is that wide variety. If you find programming boring, you might be more creative, so there is still a route for you. If you are rubbish at being creative, you might be better at logical thought, so programming might be the route for you. It's wonderful. Yet, the GCSEs try and push you down specific routes and we as teachers choose those routes for the kids to a point.  
    planetx:
    It is also a fact that any ICT module on a degree will get you on an ICT PGCE (other things being equal).
     Hmm, tricky. I would normally agree with you on this one from past experience. Thing is, especially this year, there are many people applying to teach ICT. We can afford to be more picky. So on one side, no, not any ICT module will get you on an ICT PGCE, but experience in industry or a good ICT related degree, MIXED with an enthusiasm to teach, to help kids learn and develop, will improve your chances. Just because you have many years in industry doesn’t automatically mean you can teach it. And then you have the difficulty that once the PGCEs are in schools they see how ICT is being taught and then emulate that (voluntarily or not), rather than bringing their new ideas and enthusiasm to the classroom. So, conclusion of my ramblings. Something is drastically wrong with the way ICT is seen and taught in this country. We consider it to be an essential subject on the curriculum and yet very few pupils then go on to consider ICT at a higher level, some would go out of their way to not use ICT if they could. The government is more interested in grades and yet OfSTED look for an engaging lesson. The two should go hand in hand, but the courses available don’t allow for that. The current courses don’t look at ICT in the world of pupils but at ICT in the world of work and the work is structured in such a way that most pupils, even if they were enthusiastic about ICT early on, have it drained out of them by the end. In order to improve the uptake and image of ICT we have to look at what kids are really using ICT for and using that to our advantage. If kids are interested in computer games, we teach them how to evaluate games, look at intended audiences, teach them how to program in order to create their own games, to design the packaging in order to sell the games, to market the games using paper and electronic advertising, to keep track of stock and sales. It sounds very similar to what the courses like Nationals and DiDA try to achieve and yet they miss because it has to be relevant to the kids themselves. There has to be choice in the system when the subject offers such a wide range of opportunities.  ICT has to become more than spreadsheets and databases. It has to become a way of life and encompass all that ICT is involved with in the real world, their real world. We have to look to the pupils to work out what to teach. We have to stop imposing our suppositions of what they will require when they get into the world of work in order to enthuse and engage them. Take a look at the new NC, where does it say spreadsheets must be taught, databases must be taught? It doesn’t. You can read it that way, but there are other ways of teaching the learning objectives. If you really can’t get away from teaching them introduce skills as required rather then shoehorning them in. Does that help? (waits for onslaught)Frances Andrew Nee Lally

     
  • FCLally avatar
    Offline
    25
    Posted by: FCLally 17/11/2009 at 19:20
    Reply
    Joined on 14/10/2003
    Posts 36

    That did have paragraphs in...
  • planetx avatar
    Offline
    26
    Posted by: planetx 17/11/2009 at 20:15
    Reply
    Joined on 11/09/2008
    Posts 3,816

    I don't have a problem with spreadsheets and databases. I do have a problem with the "tuck shop" and "video store" approach.  To follow your example, there are a fair number of historical databases, including some genaeology ones, which give enormous scope for database work. A spreadsheet can give very good clues to historical events. You just need to know how to use them.

     
  • McDiploma avatar
    Offline
    27
    Posted by: McDiploma 18/11/2009 at 07:48
    Reply
    Joined on 19/04/2008
    Posts 567

    The new GCSEs are already not fit for purpose, narrowing down the curriculum with an over-reliance on coursework coupled with aggressive and pervasive marketing. I'm sick of exam boards treating teachers like idiots. I'm off to wipe the dribble off my chin.
  • DEmsley avatar
    Offline
    28
    Posted by: DEmsley 18/11/2009 at 13:41
    Reply
    Joined on 18/05/2006
    Posts 3,963

    planetx:

    ...but what it should provide is an indication that the person has a grasp of the subject.

     

    I agree.

    planetx:
     

    The problem is that many school managers are hostile to the idea of employing people with industry experience.

     

    All things being equal I think I would go for the industry experience.

    I agree with the rest of what you're saying planetx, the subject has been watered down constantly over the years unfortunately.
  • Sensatus avatar
    Offline
    29
    Posted by: Sensatus 19/11/2009 at 22:51
    Reply
    Joined on 24/01/2009
    Posts 13

    My tuppen'orth..

    A distinction needs to be made between *using* ICT and creating career choices with it.

    Most of what passes for ICT teaching in schools is best absorbed into cross-curricular activities. e.g. (this is purely exemplar - not prescriptive) - spreadsheets in science/maths, powerpoint in humanities, DTP in english etc.  Basically, all the 'user-side' stuff should be treated as such.

    ICT can then become the fourth science. Losing the 'how to use this or that application' creates space for things like.. binary and hex, logic, bitwise operations, programming (e.g. for latest devices), and databases. Add to that a practical of creating a genuine web-based application, database backed, and for delivery to a variety of devices.

    Just like knowing the electron exchanges when chemicals react isn't used by a great deal of us day-to-day, yet it opens the door to career and academic options - knowing the underlying building blocks of ICT will have the same effect. Being able to use it, well that's just 'core' and needs to be subsumed into all we do. Giving someone the understanding with which to build the next 'Google' that's what I trained for - science teachers get some of that - ICT teachers ought to, too - for the sake of the children.

    However, as has rightly been pointed out, there does require a higher calibre of ICT teacher to deliver such a curriculum. But that's no bad thing. As KS3 becomes more cross-curricular, those less academically inclined ICT teachers can inject the necessary user-nouse there.

    And this qualification must be GCSE - none of this 'Nineteenth International Certificate in Digital Applications'  hokum - employers haven't the time or inclination to find out what it means - if it ain't a GCSE, well, it ain't a GCSE.

  • fosdyke avatar
    Offline
    30
    Posted by: fosdyke 19/11/2009 at 23:06
    Reply
    Joined on 18/02/2009
    Posts 4

     In short - I agree - and having just spent an hour on a long and detailed response that my laptop 'dumped' for no reason when I hit 'backspace' (curse you ICT!), I am not going to type it all out again!

     Basically -

    ICT at KS3 should be cross curricular and not discreet - supported within other subjects, which gives it more relevance to students and ticks the 'skills' box. Then at KS4 more 'focused' academic type ICT can be taken as 'options' and  be taken seriously as a GCSE subject.

     Thats my twopenneth too - (10 years in ICT industry, 15 in finance and others), for what its worth!

     

    Smile 
Back to top

Sign up – it’s free!

  • Don’t miss out on the latest jobs
  • Connect and share with friends
  • Download thousands of resources
  • Chat in the forums